Reconstruction and the Constitution, 1866-1876

\y.

^c^c^C s

^ZC? ^^rn^^tZu^tt^n^y]

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

The Institute of Museum and Library Services through an Indiana State Library LSTA Grant

http://www.archive.org/details/reconstructioncoOOburg

lXe Z^rrui^U^tLr^

RECONSTRUCTION AND
THE CONSTITUTION

THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES

Seven volumes, 12mo, with maps and plans.
Price per volume, $1.00, net.

THE COLONIAL ERA.— By Rev. George P. Fisheb,
D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in
Yale University.

THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION. -By
William M. Sloane, Ph.D., Professor of History in
Columbia University.

THE MAKING OF THE NATION.— By General Francis
A. Walker, LL.D., late President of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

THE MIDDLE PERIOD.— By John W. Burgess, Ph.D.,
LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional
Law in Columbia University.

THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION.— By
John W. Burgess, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political
Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.
2 vols.

RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.-By
John W. Burgess, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political
Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.

THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES

RECONSTRUCTION AND
THE CONSTITUTION

1866-1876

BY

JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND DEAN OF
THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1905

COPYBIGHT, 1902, BY

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

TROW DIRECTORY

PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY

NEW YORK

To the memory

of

RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH,

pupil, colleague, and life-long friend,

with grief too deep for words at his loss,

this volume

is affectionately inscribed

by the Author

PREFACE

Ik my preface to " The Middle Period " I wrote that
the re-establishment of a real national brotherhood be-
tween the North and the South could be attained only on
the basis of a sincere and genuine acknowledgment by
the South that secession was an error as well as a failure.
I come now to supplement this contention with the
proposition that a corresponding acknowledgment on
the part of the North in regard to Reconstruction be-
tween 1866 and 1876 is equally necessary.

In making this demand, I must not be understood as
questioning in the slightest degree the sincerity of the
North in the main purpose of the Reconstruction policy
of that period. On the other hand, I maintain that that
purpose was entirely praiseworthy. It was simply to
secure the civil rights of the newly emancipated race,
and to re-establish loyal Commonwealths in the South.
But there is now little question that erroneous means
were chosen.

Two ways were open for the attainment of the end
sought. One was that which was followed, namely,
placing the political power in the hands of the newly
emancipated ; and the other was the nationalization of
civil liberty by placing it under the protection of the

Vlll PEEFACE

Constitution and the national Judiciary, and holding
the districts of the South under Territorial civil gov-
ernment until the white race in those districts should
have sufficiently recovered from its temporary disloyalty
to the Union to be intrusted again with the powers of
Commonwealth local government.

There is no doubt in my own mind that the latter
was the proper and correct course. And I have just as
little doubt that it would have been found to be the
truly practicable course. The people in the loyal Com-
monwealths were ready in 1866 to place civil liberty as
a whole under national protection ; and not half of the
whites of the South entertained, at that moment, dis-
loyal purposes or feelings. Even the solid Democratic
South was yet to be made ; and I doubt most seriously
if it would ever have been made, except for the great
mistakes of the Eepublican party in its choice of means
and measures in Reconstruction.

I will not, however, enter upon the argument in ref-
erence to this question at this point. That belongs to
the body of the book. I will only add that, in my
opinion, the North has already yielded assent to this
proposition, and has already made the required ac-
knowledgment. The policy of Mr. Hayes's administra-
tion, and of all the administrations since his, can be
explained and justified only upon this assumption. And
now that the United States has embarked in imperial
enterprises, under the direction of the Republican party,
the great Northern party, the North is learning every
day by valuable experiences that there are vast differ-
ences in political capacity between the races, and that

PREFACE IX

it is the white man's mission, his duty and his right, to
hold the reins of political power in his own hands for
the civilization of the world and the welfare of man-
kind.

Let the South be equally ready, sincere, and manly in
the consciousness and the acknowledgment of its share
in past errors, and the reconciliation will be complete
and permanent !

I have again to express my thanks to my friend and
colleague, Dr. Cushing, for his aid in bringing this
volume through the press. I desire also to acknowledge
the courtesy of the New York Independent for allowing
parts of my article on the Geneva Award, published
some years ago in that esteemed journal, to be incor-
porated in the last chapter of this book.

John W. Bukgess.

323 West 57th St., New York City,
January 22d, 1902.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

PAGE

The Theory of Reconstruction 1

CHAPTER II

President Lincoln's Views and Acts in Regard to Re-
construction

CHAPTER III

President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction and His

Proceedings in Realization of it . . . .31

CHAPTER IV
The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction . . .42

CHAPTER V
The Congressional Plan (Continued) 62

CHAPTER VI

The Congressional Plan (Continued) . . . . .84

Xll CONTENTS

CHAPTER VII

PAGE

The Congressional Plan {Completed) 107

#

CHAPTER VIII
The Execution of the Reconstruction Acts . . . 144

CHAPTER IX
The Attempt to Remove the President .... 157

CHAPTER X
Reconstruction Resumed 195

CHAPTER XI
President Grant and Reconstruction .... 222

CHAPTER XII

"Carpet-Bag" and Negro Domination in the Southern

States between 1868 and 1876 247

CHAPTER XIII

The Presidential Election of 1876 and its' Conse-

quences 280

CHAPTER XIV

International Relations of the United States between

1867 and 1877 299

INDEX 329

RECONSTRUCTION AND
THE CONSTITUTION

RECONSTRUCTION

CHAPTEE I

THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION

The Conception of a " State " in a System of Federal Government
— The Different Kinds of Local Government Provided for
in the Constitution of the United States— Local Government
Under the Constitution of the United States — "State" De-
structibility in the Federal System of Government — The Effect
on "State" Existence of the Renunciation of Allegiance to
the Union — The Idea of " State " Perdurance — The Constitu-
tional Results of Attempted Secession.

The key to the solution of the question of Eecon-
struction is the proper conception of what a " State " is
in a system of federal government. This is The con -
a conception which is not easy to acquire, "^tate1" °in a
and which, when acquired, is not easy to eraitemgovern-
hold. The difficulty lies, chiefly, in the ten- ment
dency to confound the idea of a " State " in such a
system with a state pure and simple. Until the die-
tinction between the two is clearly seen and firmly ap-
plied, no real progress can be made in the theory and
practice of the federal system of government. Now
the fundamental principle of a state pure and simple is
sovereignty, the original, innate, and legally unlimited
power to command and enforce obedience by the inflic-
tion of penalties for disobedience. On the other hand,
the nature of a " State " in a system of federal gov-

1

2 RECONSTRUCTION

ernment is a very different thing. Such a " State" is
a local self-government, under the supremacy of the
general constitution, and possessed of residuary powers.
In the federal system of the United States, it is a local
self-government, under the supremacy of the Constitu-
tion of the United. States, and of the laws and treaties of
the central Government made in accordance with that
Constitution, republican as to form, and possessed of
residuary powers — that is, of all powers not vested by
the Constitution of the United States exclusively in the
central Government, or not denied by that Constitution
to the " State."

It must be kept in mind that this is not the only kind
of local government known in the constitutional law and
The differ- practice of the United States. There is, and
focal 'govern- always has been, since the establishment of
edefor m"the the federal system in 1789, for the larger part
of^he'iMted °^ the population which declared united in-
states, dependence of Great Britain in 1776, another
kind of local government for a part of the United States,
a local government which is not self-government, a local
government which is but an agency of the central Gov-
ernment. In fact, there have been at times three kinds
of local government in the political system of the United
States, viz., local government by the executive depart-
ment of the central Government — that is, local govern-
ment by executive discretion, martial law — local gov-
ernment as an agency of the legislative department of
the central Government — that is, Territorial govern-
ment— and " State " government. That is to say, since
1789 the whole of the United States, territorially, has
never been under the federal system of government, but
has always been partly under federal government and
partly under the exclusive government of Congress, and
has sometimes been partly under federal government,

THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION 3

partly under the exclusive government of Congress, and
partly under the exclusive government of the President.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes and
provides for all three of these species of local govern-
ment, and vests in Congress the power of
advancing the population of a district, the emmentunder
confines of which district shall be determined tion of the

i n • j. i j! £ J.T- i x. i.1. United States.

by Congress itself, from the lower to the
higher forms of local government. While the Consti-
tution does not expressly impose upon Congress the
duty of making or permitting the change from one kind
of local government to another, it impliedly indicates
that Congress shall determine the kind of local govern-
ment which the population of any particular district
shall enjoy in accordance with the conditions prevailing,
at any given moment, among them. If the maintenance
of law and order requires the immediate exercise of
military power, Congress may, and should, permit the
continuance of the President's discretionary government.
If, on the other hand, this is not necessary, Congress
may, and should, confer civil government, under the
Territorial form, and when the population of a Territory
shall have become ripe for local self-government and
capable of maintaining it, Congress may, and should,
allow the Territory to become a " State " of the Union,
a Commonwealth.

Such being the nature of a " State "of the Union
and such the method of its creation, what reason is
there for speaking of the " States" in a svs- aL ,

. . , , . State" de-

tem of federal government as indestructible ? ptructibiiity

in the svstsm

As they emerge from the status of Territo- of federal

t,i ■. £ n government.

ries under the exclusive power of Congress,
upon having attained certain conditions, why may they
not revert to the status of Territories upon having lost
these conditions of " State " existence ; nay, why may

4 RECONSTRUCTION

they not revert to the status of martial law by having
lost all of the conditions of civil government ? The dic-
tum "once a State always a State" in a system of fed-
eral government has no sound reason in it. Under the
Constitution of the United States, every " State" of the
Union may through the process of amendment be made a
province subject to the exclusive government of the cen-
tral authorities ; and when those who wield the powers of

Th effect a "' State " renounce the " State's " allegiance
on "State" to the United States, renounce the supremacy
the renuncia- of the Constitution of the United States and
giance to the of the laws of the central Government made
in accordance therewith, then from the point
of view of political science it will become a state pure
and simple, a sovereignty, if and when it permanently
maintains, by its own power or by the assent of the United
States, this attitude against the United States, but
from the point of view of the constitutional law of the
United States it simply destroys one of the fundamental
conditions of local self-government, and gives, thus, war-
rant to the central Government to resume exclusive gov-
ernment in the district, and over the population which
has become disorganized by refusing obedience to the
supreme law of the land, as fixed by the Constitution of
the United States. Whether the central Government
has the physical power, at a given moment, to do this
or not, is another question. It certainly has, at the
outset, the legal right. The "State" is no longer a
" State" of the Union, nor has it become a state out of
the Union. It is simply nowhere. The land is there
and the people are there, but the form of local govern-
ment over it and them has been changed from local
seZ/"-government to a Congressional or a Presidential
agency, as the case may be.

Neither is there any reason for holding that the old

THE THEOBY OF RECONSTRUCTION 0

" State " organization perdures as an abstract something
under the forms of Congressional or Presidential rule,
and will emerge of itself when these are with-
drawn. If the "State" form of local gov- -state" per-
ernment should be established again over that
same district and over the population inhabiting it, it
would be an entirely new creation, even though it should
recognize the forms and laws and obligations of the old
"State." It must be, however, remembered that both
the executive and judicial departments of the The accept-
United States Government committed them- f£?ae £fy ^
selves fully to this theory of " State " perdur- ofXXited
ance as an abstract something unaffected by states-
the loss of the conditions of the " State" form of local
government through the rebellion of the "State" or-
ganization against the supremacy of the Constitution
and laws of the United States, and that Congress did
the same thing, at first, in some degree. It was this
error which caused all of the confusion in the ideas and
processes of Reconstruction, and we ought, therefore, to
rid ourselves of it at the start, at the same time that we
recognize its influence over the minds of those who en-
gaged in the difficult work of the years between 1865
and 1876.

From the view which we take of the nature of a
" State " in a system of federal government, and its
possible destructibility, there is not much
difficulty in determining the constitutional stitutionai

results of at-

results of an attempt upon the part of such tempted se-
a "State" to break away from its connec-
tions in that system. What it does, stripped of all mis-
conception and verbiage, is simply this : it forcibly re-
sists the execution of the whole supreme law of the land,
and destroys the prime condition of its own existence
by making it necessary for the central Government to

6 RECONSTRUCTION

assert exclusive power in the district where this hap-
pens. Naturally the executive department of the cen-
tral Government must act first, and subdue by force the
force which has been offered against the supremacy of
the Constitution and laws of the United States. After
that shall have been accomplished, the question as to
how the population in the rebellious district shall be
civilly organized anew, is one for the legislative depart-
ment of the central Government exclusively. Congress
may fashion the boundaries of the district at its own
pleasure, and may establish therein such a Territorial
organization of civil local government as it may see fit,
and is limited in what it may do in this respect only by
the constitutional immunities of the individual subject
or citizen under every form of civil government provided
or allowed by the Constitution of the United States.
Congress may also enable the existing population of
such a district, or such part of that population as it
may designate, to organize the "State" form of local
government, and may grant it participation in the
powers of the central Government upon an equality with
the other " States " in the federal system. These things
are matters in which the President, as the executive
power, cannot interfere. As participant in legislation,
however, he may, at his own discretion, use his powers
of recommendation and veto.

If rebellion against the supremacy of the Constitution
and laws of the United States should not be committed
by an existing " State " organization, but by a new or-
ganization claiming to be the "State" organization
within the district concerned, the existing organization
remaining loyal, but requiring the aid of the central
Government to maintain its authority, then the with-
drawal of that aid by the President after the accom-
plishment of its purpose would, of course, leave the old

THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION 7

" State " organization with restored authority, and Con-
gress would have no function to perform in the re-es-
tablishment of civil government in such a district, or
in the readmission of its population to participation in
the central Government. This was the course followed
in Missouri and Kentucky, and it was the course, which,
at first, was attempted in the case of Virginia. In the
first two cases it was entirely correct. In the last it
had to be abandoned, for reasons, and on account of
conditions, which will be explained later.

What we have, therefore, in the theory and history of
Eeconstruction is the case of existing " State " organiza-
tions forcibly resisting the execution of the supreme law
of the land, and stricken down by the executive power
of the central Government in the attempt, that power
being exercised at its own motion and in its own way.

CHAPTER II

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD
TO RECONSTRUCTION

Did Mr. Lincoln Have any Theory of Reconstruction ? — Mr. Lin-
coln's Plan — Mr. Lincoln's Oath of Allegiance, and the Loyal
Class to be Created by the Taking of this Oath — The Proviso in
this Plan — Seward's Idea of Reconstruction and the Views of
Congress and the Judiciary — Ten Per Centum " State " Gov-
ernments— Reconstruction in Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln's
Plan — The New Orleans Convention — The Election of a Gov-
ernor— The Constitutional Convention of April, 1864, and the
Constitution Framed by it and Adopted by the Voters — Recon-
struction in Arkansas — The Beginning of Resistance in Con-
gress to the President's Plans — The Wade-Davis Bill — Analysis
of this Measure — The President's Attitude toward the Bill —
The President's Proclamation of July 8th, 1864— The Wade-
Davis Protest against the President's Proclamation — The Presi-
dent's Message of December 6th, 1864 — The Threatened Schism
in the Republican Party and the Presidential Election of 1864
— The Refusal of Congress to Count the Electoral Vote from
any " State " which had Passed the Secession Ordinance —
Reconstruction in Tennessee — The Twenty-second Joint Rule
— Reconstruction in Tennessee Continued — Civil Government
Re-established in Tennessee — The Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States — The Proposition of
Amendment as it Came from the Judiciary Committee of the
Senate — The Passage of the Proposition by the Senate — The
House Draft — Rejection of the Senate's Draft in the House
— Reconsideration of the Senate's Measure in the House, and
its Final Passage.

Some of the ardent admirers of Mr. Lincoln are dis-
posed to dispute the proposition that he had any theory

8

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS 9

of Eeconstruction. It seems, however, that they are un-
consciously influenced in this by their desire to escape
the conviction that Mr. Lincoln held an er- _, . „

Did Mr.

roneous theory of Eeconstruction. It does Lincoln have

i • • anv tneory °f

not seem that one can read impartially Mr. Reconstmc-

Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863,
without coming to the conclusion that Mr. Lincoln had
a very decided notion on the subject. It is true that he
said that it must not be understood that no other possi-
ble mode of Reconstruction than that proclaimed by him
would be acceptable, but he laid down a very distinct
mode, and he said it was the best he could suggest under
existing impressions.

This plan recognized, in the first place, the continued
existence of the " States" in rebellion as " States" of,
and in, the Union. More exactly, it re- Mr> Lin.
garded the rebellion against the United coln'BPlan-
States within these "States "as the act of combina-
tions of disloyal persons, and not as the act of the
" States " at all. These combinations had subverted
the loyal governments within these " States," but the
"States" themselves were not disloyal, because they
could not be. They were impersonal entities, incapable
of committing treason or any other wrong. According
to this view the work of Reconstruction consisted simply
in placing the loyal element in a " State " in possession
of the government of the " State."

In the second place, therefore, Mr. Lincoln's plan
contained the principle that the work of Reconstruction
was an executive problem. It was the work of the Ex-
ecutive, through the power of pardon, to create a loyal
class in a " State " which had been the scene of rebel-
lion, and it was the work of the Executive to support
that class by the military power in taking possession of,
organizing, and operating, the " State " government.

10 RECONSTRUCTION

And so, Mr. Lincoln undertook to create such a class

by constructing an oath of future loyalty and allegiance

Mr. Lin- to the United States of the following tenor :

coin's oath of c e t t i ■ i ■!

allegiance, h , do solemnly swear, m the

cLdB8thtoloS presence of Almighty God, that I will hence-
taMugdofythi8 I0I"th faithfully support, protect, and defend
oath. the Constitution of the United States and

the union of the States thereunder ; and that I will in
like manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of
Congress passed during the existing rebellion with ref-
erence to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed,
modified, or held void, by Congress or by decision of the
Supreme Court ; and that I will in like manner abide
by and faithfully support all proclamations of the Presi-
dent during the existing rebellion having reference to
slaves, so long and so far as not modified by the Supreme
Court. So help me God ; " and by ordaining that all
persons who would voluntarily take this oath, unless
they had been civil or diplomatic officers of the " so-
called Confederate Government," or military officers
thereof above the rank of colonel in the army or lieu-
tenant in the navy, or had left seats in the United
States Congress or judicial office under the United
States, or had resigned commissions in the army or
navy of the United States, in order to aid in the rebel-
lion, or had been engaged in treating colored persons
found in the United States service in any capacity, or
white persons in charge of them, in any other manner
than as prisoners of war, would be regarded as having
re-established their loyalty and allegiance to the United
States.

And he then undertook to put this class in possession
of the functions and powers of the " loyal State gov-
ernments " subverted by the rebellion, by proclaiming
and declaring, "that whenever in any of the States of

president Lincoln's views and acts 11

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North
Carolina, a number of persons, not less than one-tenth
in number of the votes cast in such State at the Presi-
dential election of the year a.d. 1860, each having taken
the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and
being a qualified voter by the election law of the State
existing immediately before the so-called act of seces-
sion, and excluding all others, shall re-establish a State
government which shall be republican and nowise con-
travening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true
government of the State, and the State shall receive
thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision
which declares that ' the United States shall guarantee
to every State in this Union a republican form of gov-
ernment and shall protect each of them against inva-
sion, and, on application of the Legislature, or the exec-
utive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic violence.' "

It is true that Mr. Lincoln was careful to say in this
proclamation that " whether members sent to Congress
from any State shall be admitted to seats, The proviBO
constitutionally rests exclusively with the inthl8Plan-
respective Houses, and not to any extent with the Exec-
utive," but it is plain that he did not think the Houses
could constitutionally use their power of judging of the
qualifications and elections of their members to keep
members from "States" reconstructed upon his plan
from taking their seats on the ground that these " States "
had not been properly reconstructed.

And it is also true that there occurs in the proclama-
tion another paragraph which appears to militate against
the theory of the perdurance of a " State" through the
period of its rebellion against the United States. It
reads : " And it is suggested as not improper that in

12 RECONSTRUCTION

constructing a loyal State government in any State the
name of the State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the
constitution and the general code of laws as before the
rebellion be maintained, subject only to the modifica-
tions made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore
stated, and such others, if any, not contravening such
conditions which may be deemed expedient by those
framing the new State government.",.

It certainly may appear from this language that
while Mr. Lincoln regarded it as convenient and de-
sirable that the new "State" should be considered a
continuation of the old " State," yet that he did not
look upon it as absolutely necessary. Still, it seems
more probable that this was only his cautious habit of
leaving open a way of escape out of any position when
necessity or prudence might require its abandonment
than that he doubted the correctness of his idea of the
indestructibility of the " States " in spite of the rebel-
lion of a part of their population, or even of the whole
of their population.

Mr. Lincoln was not alone in this view of the nature
of the " States " of the Union and the problem of Ee-
Seward's construction. His able Secretary of State
etructLn?Ca°nd certainly agreed with him ; the resolutions
congress8 and an(^ ac^s °^ Congress down to that time may
the court. be better explained upon this theory than
upon any other ; and so far as the Supreme Court had
dealt with the question, its dicta, if not its exact deci-
sions, had indicated the same trend of opinion. The
President felt, therefore, no hesitation in applying his
plan in the specific cases that were in a condition for it's
realization.

Before treating of his reconstruction of Louisiana and
Arkansas under this plan, however, there are two points
of the proclamation which should be briefly noticed.

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS 13

The first is the omission of Virginia from the names of
the " States" to which the proclamation should apply.
The reason for this is simple, and easily un- Virginia not
derstood. The President had always recog- c^structkfn
nized what was called the Pierpont Govern- presidential
ment at Alexandria as the true government coin's view,
of Virginia. Virginia, therefore, according to his view
needed no reconstruction. It belonged in the class with
Kentucky and Missouri.

The other point is the proposition to found ''State"
government upon ten per centum of the population of
the " State." Now we know that " State"
government in the federal system of the tum "State"
United States is local self-government. But governmen 8-
local self-government cannot really exist where the part
of the population holding the legal authority does not
really possess the sinews of power ; and where the con-
ditions of the society are democratic, or anything like
democratic, one-tenth of the population cannot really
possess the sinews of power. The actual power to make
their government valid, to enable their government to
govern would have to come from the outside. While
this may happen under certain temporary exigencies
without destroying local self-government on the whole,
yet it cannot be permitted as a principle upon which to
build a local self-government, a "State" in a federal
system. Provincial governments, Territorial govern-
ments may be sustained in that way, but the distin-
guishing principle of " State " government forbids it.
It is simply not " State" government when holding in
this way the power to govern, as the principle of its life,
no matter what name we may give it. Upon this point,
then, Mr. Lincoln's reasoning was crude and erroneous,
and when applied was destined to result in mischievous
error.

14 RECONSTRUCTION

As far back as the first week in December of 1862
General Shepley, then Military Governor of Louisiana,
Keconstrac- nac^ Dy permission from the President, or-
anrunde°r1Mr" dered an election for members of Congress,
Lincoln's plan. in the districts over which his jurisdiction
extended. The President had cautioned him against any
choice of Northern men at the point of the bayonet, and
had declared to him that such a procedure would be
"disgraceful and outrageous." The General heeded
the warning, and two old citizens of Louisiana, Messrs.
Hahn and Flanders, were chosen, and were
of members of admitted by the House of Representatives to
ongress. their seats. This happened in February of
1863, and it was certainly good evidence that the House
of Eepresentatives was, at that moment, resting on the
theory of the perdurance of the " State " of Louisiana
throughout the rebellion within its limits against the
United States.

Things went no further than this, however, during

the year 1863, the military situation requiring the whole

thought and activity of the Government. On

The New

Orleans con- the 8th of January, 1864, however, a conven-
tion was held at New Orleans for the purpose
of advancing the work of reconstruction. This conven-
tion requested General Banks to appoint an election for
officers of the " State " government. The General com-
plied, naming the 22d day of February following for the
election, and the 4th of Maich for the installation of the
The election officers so chosen. Mr. Hahn was elected
of a governor. an(j duly installed Governor, and was soon
after declared by the President to be " invested, until
further orders, with the powers hitherto exercised by
the Military Governor of Louisiana." The next step
was for the new Governor to order an election of dele-
gates to a constitutional convention and the assembly of

president Lincoln's views and acts 15

the same in convention, for the purpose of so amending
and revising the constitution as to make it fit the new
conditions created by the war. This was , The consti-

J rational con-

done in March and April of 1864, and an vention of

. , .. , ,: , , , April, 18 64.

anti-slavery constitution was established for andtheconsti-

L. . n-,! . i t j>i n t tntion framed

ouisiana. The instrument dratted and pro- by it and

posed by the convention was adopted by the voters! bythe
voters. Eight thousand four hundred and two votes
were cast upon the question of adoption, about sixteen
per centum of the vote cast at the Presidential election
of 1860. This brought the action of the voters within
the President's ten per centum rule. The vote was al-
most five to one in favor of adoption. The President's
scheme was now put to the practical test, both in Louisi-
ana and Arkansas, during the spring of 1864.

Congress was, however, by this time becoming con-
vinced that Reconstruction was a legislative problem,
that is, a problem to be solved by Congres- The begin.
sional acts and constitutional amendment. ™"f °nrec0n"
This is evidenced not only by the fact that Sp88 .J» £e

J % J _ President's

neither House would admit representatives P,an-
from Arkansas elected under the new "State" organi-
zation to seats, but by the more pronounced attitude
expressed in what is known as the Wade- The Wade.
Davis measure upon the direct question at Davi8 bm-
issue. These gentlemen, Mr. Benjamin F. Wade and Mr.
Henry Winter Davis, the former the chairman of the
"Committee on the Rebellious States" in the Senate,
and the latter the chairman of a committee having the
same name and functions in the House, originated a bill
and carried it through both Houses of Congress, which,
for the first time, embodied the views of Congress on the
subject of Reconstruction. This bill was finally passed
on July 4, 1864, and it contained provisions of the fol-
lowing tenor : The eleven "States" which had passed

16 RECONSTRUCTION

secession ordinances were all treated as rebellions com-
munities, and the President was authorized to appoint a
provisional governor for each. This governor should ex-
ercise all the powers of civil government in the commu-
nity to which he might be appointed until " State " gov-
ernment should be recognized by Congress as restored
therein. An oath of future allegiance to the Constitu-
tion of the United States was then prescribed, and the
provisional governor in each " State " was ordered,
whenever rebellion in his " State " should be suppressed,
to direct the United States Marshal to enroll all the
white male citizens of the United States, resident within
the " State/' in the respective counties of the " State,"
and give them the opportunity to take the oath of
allegiance to the United States. The bill then directed
that when a majority of such citizens should take this
oath, they might be permitted to elect delegates to a
convention, which convention might take action for the
establishment of " State " government. The bill dis-
qualified all persons who had held any office, civil or
military, " State " or Confederate, in rebellion against
the United States, or who had voluntarily borne arms
against the United States, from voting for delegates, or
from being elected as delegates, to the convention. The
bill then provided that the convention thus elected and
assembled might form a " State" constitution, but must
insert in it clauses abolishing slavery, repudiating all
debts, " State " or Confederate, created by, or under the
sanction of, the usurping power, and disqualifying all per-
sons who had held office civil or military," State " or Con-
federate, under the usurping power, except civil offices
merely ministerial, and military offices below the rank of
colonel, from voting or being elected governor or mem-
bers of the legislature. The bill then provided for the
submission of the constitution so formed to the voters,

pkesident Lincoln's views and acts 17

and if ratified by a majority thereof, required the pro-
visional governor to certify the same to the President.
It then provided that the President, after obtaining the
consent of Congress thereto, should proclaim the new
" State" government as established, and as the constitu-
tional government of the " State," after which Repre-
sentatives and Senators in Congress, and electors of the
President, might be chosen in said " State." Finally,
the bill abolished slavery at once in all the rebellious
"States" and imposed penalties upon all persons at-
tempting thereafter to hold anyone in involuntary ser-
vitude ; and declared all persons who should thereafter
hold office civil or military, "State" or Confederate, in
the rebel service, except an office purely ministerial or
under the grade of colonel, not to be citizens of the
United States.

A brief analysis of this bill will show that Congress
was nearer to some doctrine on the subject of Recon-
struction than was the President. In the Analysis of
first place, Congress claimed Reconstruction tlllsmeaBUre-
as a legislative problem. This was undoubtedly the true
theory upon that point. In the second place, Congress
required the loyalty to the United States of at least a
majority of the white adult males as the basis of " State "
government, local self-government. That also was un-
doubtedly true political theory as has been already
explained. In the third place, Congress asserted the
power to abolish slavery within the limits of those
" States " whose legislatures or conventions had passed
the ordinances of secession. That is, Congress dealt
with these districts not as " States " of the Union, but
as territories or districts subject to the exclusive author-
ity of the central Government. Congress was here
beginning, at least, to act upon the idea that the dis-
tricts in rebellion did not perdure, as " States," through-

18 EECONSTKUCTIOJST

out the rebellion, but had lost thereby the forms, pow-
ers and functions of "State" governments, and were
neither out of the Union nor in the Union as " States,"
but were under the central Government of the Union as
territory inhabited by a population disorganized as to
local government. This was also sound political science,
and the President ought to have heeded its teachings.

But he did not. He did not, it is true, veto the bill.
He simply allowed the session to expire without signing

The Presi- it. This having happened in less than ten
towarSntha days from tne time ^ was submitted to him,
bm- the bill failed, as provided in such cases by

the Constitution. He, however, issued on the 8th of
July a proclamation in regard to the subject, in which

The Presi- he objected to the setting aside of the "free
mati'onof Jufy State constitutions and governments already
8, 1864. adopted and installed in Arkansas and Lou-

isiana ; " doubted the competency of Congress to abolish
slavery within the "States;" expressed the hope and
expectation that this might be done for the whole coun-
try by constitutional amendment ; declared his willing-
ness to have the loyal people in any of the rebellious
"States" reconstruct their governments upon the Con-
gressional plan, if they should choose to do so ; but de-
clared also his unwillingness to commit himself inflex-
ibly to any single plan of restoration ; and virtually
asked the voters to make the difference between himself
and Congress upon the subject an issue in the coming
Presidential election.

This was one of the boldest acts of Mr. Lincoln's
career as President, and it is little wonder that men of
so much intelligence, courage and tenacity as Messrs.
Wade and Davis did not allow the proclamation to go
unanswered. Congress had adjourned, as we have seen,
before the appearance of the proclamation. There was,

president Lincoln's views and acts 19

therefore, no way for Congress as a whole to make im-
mediate answer. Messrs. Wade and Davis believed that
the public interests would suffer if the answer should be
postponed until the next meeting of Congress. They,
therefore, issued a protest against the proclamation over
their own names. The protest was printed
in the New York Tribune of August 5, Davis protest
1864. It was an intemperate arraignment president's
of the President. It declared, among other proc ama on'
things, that " a more studied outrage on the legislative
authority of the people had never been perpetrated ; "
that the President had " greatly presumed on the for-
bearance which the supporters of his Administration"
had "so long practised, in view of the arduous conflict
in which" they were "engaged and the reckless feroc-
ity of" their "political opponents ;" that he must un-
derstand that their support was not of a man but of a
cause ; and that he must confine himself to his executive
duties, and leave political reorganization to Congress.

Such denunciations of the President's purposes could
have but one effect, viz., the strengthening of his hands
by the support of the people, who so generally trusted
him, in the election of 1864. It injured Mr. Davis so
much that he failed of even a renomiuation for his seat
in Congress.

The President, on the other hand, used his triumph
with great tact and moderation. He made no reference,
in his message of December 6, 1864, either „,, „ .

The Presi-

to his proclamation or to the protest which dent's mes-
had been so fiercely hurled against it. He c ember e,
simply informed Congress that important
movements had occurred during the year " to the effect
of molding society for durability in the Union ; "
and that " 12,000 citizens in each of the States of
Arkansas and Louisiana " had " organized loyal State

20 RECONSTRUCTION

governments, with free constitutions, and " were " ear-,
nestly struggling to maintain and administer them."
He also spoke of the gratifying situation and movements
in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri aud Tennessee.

It may be that Mr. Lincoln did not interpret his great

victory at the polls in November preceding as a specific

The threat- aPProyal °^ his Reconstruction policy. In

ened schism the spring and earlv summer of 1864, the

mtheRepub- t\- ■ •

lican party, .Republican party was threatened with schism

and the Presi- .

dentiai eiec- largely upon the subject of Reconstruction.
Eight days before the meeting of the regular
nominating convention of the party, that is on the 31st
of May, some three hundred and fifty men, representing,
or professing to represent, the more radical element of
the party, met in convention at Cleveland, Ohio. Gen-
eral John Cochrane of New York was made chairman
of the body, and General John C. Fremont and General
John Cochrane were nominated by it for the presidency
and vice-presidency of the United States. The twelfth
section of the platform provided, " that the reconstruc-
tion of the rebel States belongs to the people, through
their representatives in Congress, and not to the Ex-
ecutive."

The regular convention met June 7th at Baltimore,
and adopted a platform which took no sides in regard to
Reconstruction, but simply sought to rally all Union
men around the President for the purpose of saving the
Union and putting an end to the rebellion. Many war
Democrats took part in it who favored Lincoln's ideas of
Reconstruction, and many Republicans who did not.
The Democratic convention met at Chicago August 27th
and adopted a platform which virtually proclaimed the
war a failure, and demanded a cessation of hostilities
preparatory to a compromise with the Confederates.
Their nominee, General McClellan, with whom was

president Lincoln's views and acts 21

associated on the ticket Mr. George H. Pendleton of
Ohio, repudiated the platform but accepted the nomi-
nation and made the race.

Under the condition of schism in the Eepublican
ranks, his chances seemed at first fair. But on Septem-
ber 21st, Generals Fremont and Cochrane, the nominees
of the radical Republicans, withdrew from the contest,
and the reunion of the Republican party on the Balti-
more platform was effected. It was thus a question
whether the overwhelming electoral vote for Lincoln and
Johnson, two hundred and twelve to twenty-one for
McClellan and Pendleton, meant the approval of Lin-
coln's views and acts in Reconstruction, and it certainly
behooved the President to exercise some caution in so
interpreting it, especially as there was no such wide
difference in the popular vote, the McClellan electors
having received 1,835,985 votes to 2,330,552 for the
Lincoln electors. There is no question, however, that
the President still believed in the correctness of his
method and was determined to pursue the course upon
which he had entered.

Neither was there any sign manifested that Congress
would desist from pressing its views of its own powers
in the matter. Both Houses had refused to ad- no change
mit members from the reconstructed " States," Jff Mongrels
and now they passed a joint resolution, on prelfaentiai
February 4th, 1865, which prohibited the election,
counting of any electoral votes for President and
Vice-President in the election of 1864, from "States"
which had passed the secession ordinance. Elections
had been held in Louisiana and also in Tennessee, and
this resolution was intended to prevent the counting
of the votes which the persons chosen electors for
Louisiana and Tennessee should send in. The resolu-
tion was sent to the President for his signature. He

22 EEC OBSTRUCTION

hesitated for several days, but approved it at last on the
day that Congress counted the electoral votes, February
8th. In doing so, however, he addressed a message to
Congress informing the two Houses that he had signed
it out of deference to their views, and saying that " in
his own view, however, the two Houses of Congress,
convened under the twelfth article of the Constitution,
have complete power to exclude from counting all elec-
toral votes deemed by them to be illegal ; and it is not
competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct that
power by a veto, as would be the case if his action were
at all essential in the matter. He disclaims all rights of
the Executive to interfere in any way in the matter of can-
vassing or counting electoral votes, and he also disclaims
that, by signing said resolution, he has expressed any
opinion on the recitals of the preamble or any judgment of
his own upon the subject of the resolution." The recitals
of the preamble referred to read thus: "Whereas,
the inhabitants and local authorities of the States of
l Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
of congress to Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
toraivotefrom Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee
w^hich had rebelled against the Government of the

passed the se- tt'j.icij.j. j • i t j. •

cession ordi- United States, and were m such condition
nance- on the 8th day of November, 1864, that no

valid election for electors of President and Vice-Presi-
dent of the United States, according to the Constitu-
tion and Laws thereof, was held therein on said day,
etc."

Louisiana, which had fulfilled the President's condi-
tions of reconstruction, was thus included in this list,
and also Tennessee, where by order of Governor Andrew
Johnson, the candidate for Vice-President on the Lin-
coln ticket, an election of electors had been held.
Tennessee had not, at the time of the counting of the

president Lincoln's views and acts 23

electoral vote, completed any process of reconstruction.
The convention, called at Governor Johnson's instiga-
tion to meet at Nashville for the purpose of nominating
candidates for Presidential electors, had called a con-
stitutional convention to meet in Nashville
on December 19th, following the Presidential tion in Ten-
election, for the purpose of undertaking the
work of reconstruction. Hood's advance upon Nashville
delayed its meeting, however, until January 3d. This
convention took the old constitution of Tennessee as its
starting-point and subjected it to a pretty thorough
revision in the direction of a "free State government."
It also prescribed a rather stiff test oath for all persons
offering to vote upon the adoption of the amendments,
an oatli which not only promised future loyalty to the
Constitution of the United States, such as Lincoln had
prescribed, but which also required the taker of it to
swear that he was an active friend of the Government of
the United States, and an enemy of the so-called Con-
federate States. The amended constitution had not,
however, been submitted to the voters at the date when
Congress counted the electoral vote, that is, before the
8th of February, 1865, and of course no " State" gov-
ernment had been elected under the amended consti-
tution. The vote upon the constitution occurred on
the 22d of February, and the election of the Governor
and the members of the Legislature under it occurred
on March 4th.

The case of Tennessee did not from this point of
view appear as strong as that of Louisiana. But it
is difficult to see how the Eepublicans could have con-
sistently rejected the vote of Tennessee after having
nominated and elected a citizen of Tennessee as Vice-
President of the United States. It is certainly implied
in the Constitution of the United States that no man is

24 RECONSTRUCTION

eligible to the office of Vice-President unless he be at
the time of his election a citizen of a "State" of the
Union. The Constitution implies that the Vice-Presi-
dent shall have the same qualifications as the President ;
and it distinctly says that in giving their vote, the
electors in each " State " shall vote for two persons, "of
whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the
same State with themselves." If an inhabitant of Ten-
nessee could be lawfully Vice-President of the United
States, it does certainly seem implied that Tennessee
was, at the time, a " State " of the Union in regular
standing.

However this may have been, the President was cer-
tainly correct in saying that Congress was vested with
full power over the count of the electoral vote, and that
the Executive had no control over it whatsoever. It
was a bit of harmless good humor that he signed the
resolution as a perfunctory matter, and it was calculated
to improve the temper of the somewhat irritated mem-
bers of Congress.

Congress was not, however, formally notified of the
fact that he had signed the measure until after the
The twenty- counting of the vote had been finished, and
second joint the two Houses met the exigency by the en-
actment of what was known as " the twenty-
second joint rule," according to which the consent of
both Houses was required to count the electoral vote
from any " State " or any body or place professing to
be a " State." As a matter of fact, the Vice-President,
Mr. Hamlin, declared that he had in his possession re-
turns from the " States " of Louisiana and Tennessee,
but held it to be his duty not to present them, and he
did not present them. He knew that the President had
signed the joint resolution, although Congress had not
been officially notified of it, and he acted under the res-

pkesident Lincoln's views and acts 25

olution as law. The joint rule would have required the
presentation of these votes to the joint meeting of the
two Houses, and would have required the concurrence
of the two Houses, acting separately, to have included
them in the count. The joint rule was, therefore, not
applied to the case for which it was enacted, but it
remained unrepealed for more than ten years, and then
showed itself a sort of Nemesis to its creators.

Tennessee pursued, however, the course of recon-
struction upon which she had set out. Her test oath, as
we have seen, required virtually that the Reconstruc-
basis of her reorganization should be the neBsee^ontin-
men who had remained loyal throughout the ued-
rebellion. It differed thus from Mr. Lincoln's oath,
which rehabilitated those who would promise future
loyalty. The vote in favor of the new constitution,
which was the old constitution of the " State " amended
by articles abolishing slavery, nullifying secession, and
repudiating the debt created in aid of the rebellion, was
more than twenty-five thousand, nearly twenty per
centum of the vote for Presidential electors in 1860.
This certainly much more than fulfilled all of Mr.
Lincoln's conditions.

Governor Johnson issued his proclamation on Febru-
ary 25th, 1865, declaring the adoption of the new con-
stitution, and ordering the election of the Governor
and legislative members under it for March 4th. "W. G.
Brownlow was chosen Governor. The newly elected
legislature did not meet, however, until April 2d,
and Mr. Brownlow was not inaugurated as civil Gov-
ernor until April 7th. As Mr. Johnson was inaug-
urated Vice-President on March 4th, he civil gov-
had been obliged to lay down the military t™Me£hedto
governorship on that date, in fact, a few Tennessee,
days before, and Mr. Brownlow had been appointed

26 RECONSTRUCTION

in his stead. Upon Brownlow's inauguration as civil
Governor, the military regime in Tennessee was for-
mally ended. Lincoln acquiesced certainly in this
change.

It remained now for Congress to show its attitude,
when the Senators and Representatives from Tennessee
should present themselves for admission to seats in the
two Houses. As this could not happen until the fol-
lowing December, the history of this point must be de-
ferred until the events between March 4th and December
4th are related.

The experiences of the year 1863 with the slavery
problem had convinced the President and the leaders of
The Thir- the Republican party in Congress that aboli-
Shjto*The tion must be effected by a constitutional
oA^united amendment. The military acts of the Presi-
states. dent in this direction were, as all the purely

military measures of the Executive, temporary, and with
the re-establishment of peace would cease to have force ;
and it was by this time pretty clear that but few of the
"States" would abolish slavery by their own act. Al-
ready on January 11, 1864, had the proposition for a
constitutional amendment abolishing slavery through-
out the length and breadth of the United States been
presented in the Senate by Mr. John B. Henderson of
Missouri, and referred to the Judiciary Committee of
that body for consideration and report.

The language of the first article of Mr. Henderson's
proposition read : " Slavery or involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, shall not exist in the
United States." When it came back from the Judiciary
Committee, as reported by Mr. Trumbull, it was called
Article XIII., and read : "Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime,
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall

president Lincoln's views and acts 27

exist in the United States or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to en-
force this article by appropriate legislation."

It will be advantageous in our further consideration
of this article to recall briefly the reasons for these
divergencies. The language used by the
Judiciary Committee corresponds almost sition of
exactly with the wording of the ordinance of it came from
the Northwest Territory of 1787 ; and it is committeTof
entirely evident that the Judiciary Com- e
mittee had that act in mind. when it reported the arti-
cle. Mr. Henderson's proposition was that slavery or
involuntary servitude should not exist in the United
States. He well understood that it did not require a
constitutional amendment to abolish slavery from those
parts of the country where "States" had not been
formed. He knew that Congress could do that. The
Judiciary Committee, however, did not think it wise or
necessary to "make two bites of a cherry." They pre-
ferred to make their prohibition apply to the whole
country. They knew that the phrase United States was
capable of being interpreted to mean only that part of
the country where " States" existed, and they preferred
and intended to make their prohibition of slavery extend
to the whole country. From abundant caution they
used the words United States, with the additional words
" any place subject to their jurisdiction," in order to
cover all territory over which the flag of the Union should
fly in sovereign power.

The second section, giving to Congress special power
to enforce this article, seems, at first, unnecessary, be-
cause according to the last paragraph of Section 8,
Article I., of the Constitution, Congress is vested with
the authority to make all laws necessary and proper to
carry into execution all the powers vested by the Con-

28 KECONSTRUCTION

stitution in any department or officer of the Government.
This abolition of slavery was, however, a restriction on
the " States." It laid a new limitation upon their
powers, and hence it was thought that Section 8 of
Article I. might not apply in the execution of such a
provision against the "States." But if we regard the
provision from the point of view of the rights of an indi-
vidual to his freedom against any "State" law to the
contrary, then we must see that the amendment does
invest the United States courts with the power to im-
pose the restriction in behalf of the individual seeking
deliverance from the attempt of a "State" to enslave
him or to continue his enslavement. And once the
power vested in the courts to do this the general pro-
vision of Article I., Section 8, will certainly apply.
The resolution offered by the Judiciary Committee
passed the Senate by the requisite majority on the 8th
of April, 1864.

During this same period, Mr. William Windom, of
Minnesota, offered in the House of Representatives a
resolution upon the subject in the identical words of the
The House Senate's resolution. It was referred to the
dl'aft Judiciary Committee of the House, February

15, 1864. While it lay in the room of the Committee,
Mr. Stevens offered a substitute for it, which read :
" Slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punish-
ment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, is forever prohibited in the United States
and all its Territories." This is another bit of evi-
dence for the proposition that what was meant by the
words "or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
in Mr. Trumbull's resolution was all parts of the
country not enjoying "State" government in local
matters.

The Senate resolution was sent into the House on the

president Lincoln's views and acts 29

31st of May, and was there lost on June 15th, hav-
ing received a large majority, indeed, in Rejection of
its favor, but not a two-thirds majority. j£aft STthe

Foreseeing the failure of the resolution at House-
that juncture, Mr. J. M. Ashley, of Ohio, voted against
the measure, although a stanch friend of it. His purpose
was of course to be able to move, at some future and
more propitious time, a reconsideration of the subject.
He did not, however, feel that that time had arrived
until after the election and the military victories of
the autumn of 1864 had manifested the temper of the
voters on the question of abolition and demonstrated the
power of the Union to carry such a measure into ex-
ecution. On the 31st of January, 1865, Mr. Ashley
moved a reconsideration of the Senate resolution lost
in the House on the 15th of the preced- Reconsider-
ing June. Reconsideration was immediately lenate'smea^
voted, and the Senate resolution was then HoUBenandUB
carried by the requisite two-thirds majority. flnal passage.

The proposed amendment was then sent to the Presi-
dent, who signed it, February 1st, 1865. Whereupon the
Senate immediately passed another resolution, declaring
that it was through an inadvertency that the measure
had been sent to the President for his signature, that
asking the President of the United States to sign a
proposed constitutional amendment was an error, was
without precedent in the practice of the Government,
and that the President's approval should not be com-
municated to the House. A concurrent resolution was
then passed by the two Houses authorizing the President
to submit the proposed article of amendment to the
"States" for ratification. The Secretary of State im-
mediately sent it to the legislatures of all the " States "
which could be reached by him, and during the sum-
mer and autumn to the legislatures of all the " States \"

30 RECONSTRUCTION

and the new legislature of Tennessee ratified it on the
5th of April, 1865, that is, more than a week before
Lincoln's death.

Such was the condition of things when the assassin's
bullet ended the life of the great and good President
and brought the Vice-President, Mr. Johnson, into the
office.

CHAPTER III

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION
AND HIS PROCEEDINGS IN REALIZATION OF IT

The Character of Mr. Johnson — The Radical Nature of Johnson's
First Views on Reconstruction — The Retention of Lincoln's
Cabinet by Mr. Johnson and the Modification of Johnson's
Views by Mr. Seward's Arguments — Johnson's Amnesty Proc-
lamation of May 29th, 1865— The Excepted Classes— The Effect
of these Exceptions — The President's Plan — The Realization of
it — The Administering of the Oath — Reconstruction in North
Carolina — The Identity of Johnson's Plan with that of Lincoln
— Reconstruction in Mississippi — Reconstruction in Georgia —
Reconstruction in Alabama, South Carolina and Florida — Re-
construction in Virginia — Reconstruction in Louisiana, Arkan-
sas and Tennessee — The Constitutional Conventions of 1865 —
The Form of the Work Done in these Conventions, and its
Substance — The Erection of "State" Governments and the
Election of Members of Congress — The Orders of the Presi-
dent Putting the Civil Government of the United States into
Operation Everywhere — The President's First Annual Message.

Mr. Johnson was a man who rose from very low estate
through his own efforts. He was a man of considerable
intellectual power and of great will power.

. The charac-

He was somewhat vain of his success and ter of Mr.
somewhat piqued by the social neglect which ° nson'
he had suffered at the hands of the " old families." He
was intensely loyal to the Union, and could regard seces-
sion and rebellion only as treason. Having suffered so
much for his loyalty, he was somewhat moved by con-
siderations of revenge. He was profoundly stirred by

31

32 RECONSTRUCTION

the assassination of Lincoln, and apparently believed it
to have been planned by those high in authority in the
Confederacy ; and he was possessed with an intense desire
to re-establish the Union on an enduring foundation.

With such a history behind him, and such a disposition
impelling him, it is not to be wondered at that his policy

The radical in regard to Reconstruction should have been
johnJon'°s more stringent than that of Mr. Lincoln. In
Re8consetTuc° ^ac^ ** was feared, even by the more radical
tion- Republicans, such, for instance, as Mr. Wade,

that he would be bloody minded in the treatment of
the rebel chiefs. He had, before his accession to the
Presidency, declared so often, and so vehemently,
that " traitors should be arrested, tried, convicted and
hanged," that most men were expecting the strict ap-
plication of the criminal law to the Confederate leaders.
Mr. Johnson retained Lincoln's Cabinet, and among
them the conciliatory and persuasive Seward, who, in

The reteii- about six weeks from the night of the as-
coin'scabinet sassination, at which time he himself was
son.^nd^the seriously wounded, returned to his work in
rf0<johusln° tne State Department. There is no doubt
views by Mr. that it was the influence of Seward which

Seward's a r - .

guments. modified the views and purposes of Mr.
Johnson. The compliant spirit manifested at this time
by the Confederate chiefs helped strongly in the same
direction. By the 1st of June, Seward had won John-
son completely for his plan of a rapid and forgiving
reconstruction by the Executive. Congress was not in
session, and the President was not inclined to call an
extra session. The late rebel chieftains were pressing
for the political rehabilitation of their section, and the
President now fully believed that he had the power to
proceed with the problem of Reconstruction, and was
inclined to do so.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN 33

On the 29th of May, he issued his proclamation of
amnesty and pardon to all persons who, having engaged
in rebellion, had failed to take the benefits
of Mr. Lincoln's proclamations of Decern- Amnesty
ber 8, 1863, and March 26, 1864. To all SfiSfSw!
such persons Mr. Johnson offered his pardon
upon their taking an oath of the following tenor : " I
— do solemnly swear (or affirm) in the presence of Al-
mighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that
I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support all
laws and proclamations which have been made during
the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation
of slaves. So help me God."

He, however, excepted the following classes of persons
from the benefits of the offer : 1st. Those who held or
had held, under the pretended Confederate Tne except.
Government, civil or diplomatic office or edclasse8-
agency, or military office above the rank of colonel in the
army and lieutenant in the navy, or military or naval
office of any grade, if educated by the United States
Government in the Military Academy at West Point or
the United States Naval Academy ; and all those who
held, or had held, the pretended office of Governor of
a " State " in insurrection against the United States ;

2d. Those who had left seats in the Congress of the
United States or judicial stations under the United
States to aid in the rebellion against the United States,
and those who had resigned or tendered resignations of
their commissions in the army or navy of the United
States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion :

3d. Those who had, in any way, treated persons
found in the service of the United States, in any capac-
ity, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war ;

34 KECONSTRUCTION

4th. Those who had been engaged in destroying the
commerce of the United States on the high seas, or
upon the lakes and rivers separating the British Prov-
inces from the United States, or in making raids from
Canada into the United States ;

5th. Those who were, or had been, absent from the
United States, or had left their homes within the juris-
diction of the United States, and passed beyond the mili-
tary lines of the United States into the pretended Con-
federate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion ;

6th. Those who, at the time they might seek to obtain
the benefits of the proclamation by taking the oath,
were prisoners of war, or under civil or criminal arrest,
and those who had taken the oath of allegiance to the
United States since December 8, 1863, and had failed to
keep it ;

And, finally, those who had voluntarily participated
in any way in the rebellion and were the owners of tax-
able property to the value of more than twenty thou-
sand dollars.

These exceptions would have shut out almost all of

the leading men of most of the "States" that passed

sc l secession ordinances from the benefits of the

The effect

of these ex- proclamation, except for the subsequent pro-
vision in the proclamation, which ordained
that special application might be made to the President
for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted
classes, and held out the promise that such clemency
would be as liberally extended as might be consistent
with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of
the United States.

The Presi-

dent's plan in Briefly, the President proposed to pardon

a sentence. , i i n 1 i " • i i

the rebel leaders, upon special personal ap-
plication, as an act of high executive grace, and to am-
nesty every one else in a body ; and upon the basis of

PKESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN 35

their re-established loyalty to use the old electorate of
the South in reconstruction. How he succeeded we will
now proceed to relate.

In the first place, the machinery for administering
the cleansing oath was made very simple and accessible.
Any commissioned officer, civil, military or The Tea]izll.
naval, of the United States, and any officer, tl0n of lt-
civil or military, of a loyal " State" qualified by the
laws of the " State " to administer oaths, was declared by
the President, through his Secretary of State, .

to be competent to administer this oath of istering of the
loyalty, a copy of which should be given to
the person taking it as his certificate of restored citizen-
ship, and another copy sent to the State Department
at Washington to be there deposited and kept in the
archives of the Government.

In the second place, and by a second proclamation,
issued on the same day, May 29th, the President ap-
pointed a Provisional Governor for North

XtGCOHBtrUC"

Carolina, and authorized and commanded tion in North
him to cause the election of delegates to,
and their assembly in, a constitutional convention of the
" State" for the reconstruction of the " State," and its
restoration to its constitutional relations to the United
States. The electorate to be employed by the Provi-
sional Governor should be those persons who were quali-
fied to vote by the laws of North Carolina in force im-
mediately before the 20th of May, 1861, and had taken
the oath prescribed in the first proclamation.

This second proclamation also commanded the heads
of the departments of the United States Government
to put -the laws of the United States into operation in
North Carolina, the United States judges to open the
United States courts and proceed to business, and the
military officers in the district to aid the Provisional

36 RECONSTRUCTION

Governor in carrying the duties assigned to him into
effect, and to abstain from hindering, impeding, or dis-
couraging, in any manner, the organization of a ' ' State "
government as authorized by the proclamation.

It will thus be seen that Mr. Johnson's plan of Recon-
struction was in substance the same as that of Mr.
The identity Lincoln. It rested upon the theory of the
pL/Sthat indestructibility of the "States," their per-
of Lincoln. durance as " States " throughout the period
of rebellion, the commission of treason and rebellion by
combinations of private persons, the right of the Exec-
utive to withdraw his military powers and put his civil
powers in operation, whenever, in his judgment, the
circumstances would warrant him in so doing, and his
authority to recognize the old electorates of the " States "
in which rebellion had existed as the respective constitu-
ent bodies of the " States/' upon such terms and under
such limitations as he might prescribe. He did not lay
down any rule as to the numerical proportion which the
modified electorates should bear to the old, in order to
make their acts legitimate, as Mr. Lincoln did ; and he
did declare in his second proclamation that the North
Carolina convention, when convened, or the legislature
that might be thereafter assembled, should prescribe the
qualification of electors, and the eligibility of persons
to hold office under the constitution and laws of the
" State," which Mr. Lincoln did not do in his proclama-
tion. But there is no doubt that Mr. Lincoln would
have indorsed this proposition. He could not have
avoided it, while holding the theory that North Caro-
lina was a " State " simply engaged in amending its
constitution, the theory which his own proclamation ap-
parently set up. In a word Johnson's policy and acts
in reconstructing the " States " in which secession ordi-
nances had been passed, and rebellion committed, were

president Johnson's plan 37

but a continuation of those of Mr. Lincoln. If Lin-
coln was right so was Johnson, and vice versa.

On the 13th of June, the President issued a proclama-
tion of like tenor and containing similar orders for
putting the laws of the United States into Reconstruc-
operation, and for putting similar machinery tionin Missia-
in motion for reconstruction, in Mississippi, gia, Alabama,
He appointed William L. Sharkey Provi- nna and
sional Governor therein. On the 17th of
June, similar steps were taken for the reconstruction
of Georgia, with James Johnson as the Provisional
Governor ; on the 21st of June for the reconstruction
of Alabama, with Lewis E. Parsons as Provisional Gov-
ernor ; on the 30th of June for the reconstruction of
South Carolina, with Benjamin F. Perry as Provisional
Governor ; and on the 13th of July for the reconstruc-
tion of Florida, with William Marvin as Provisional
Governor.

Already on May 9th, twenty days before the issue of
his proclamation of amnesty, the President had issued
an executive order putting the laws of the
United States in operation in Virginia, and tion in Vir-
guaranteeing the support of the United guua'
States Government to Governor Francis H. Pierpont in
all lawful measures for the extension and administration
of the " State " government throughout the geographical
limits of Virginia. This meant, of course, that the
United States Government recognized the shadowy loyal
" State " government, which had kept up at least a
show of existence throughout the rebellion, as the true
" State " government of Virginia, and that Virginia did
not need reconstruction, but only the extension of the
authority of this government throughout her territorial
limits. This was, also, a simple continuation of Mr.
Lincoln's policy, as we well know.

38 RECONSTRUCTION

Of course Mr. Johnson recognized the reconstruction

of Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee as effected by

Mr. Lincoln : so that by mid-summer of 1865

Reconstruct* * *>

tion in Louisi- the reconstruction of all the "States" which

ana, Arkansas . _ - . , . . ,

and Tennes- had passed secession ordinances, except only
Texas, had been completed, or had been put
in course of completion.

During the summer, autumn and early winter of 1865,
the Provisional Governors of Mississippi, Alabama, South

The consti- Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and
vUentionCs°oi Florida ordered elections for the choosing of
1865. delegates to constitutional conventions, upon

the basis of the old suffrage laws of the respective
"States" once answering to these names, modified by
the requirements of the Presidential pardon, received
after taking the oath of allegiance ; and these elections
were held and these conventions assembled.

These bodies chose to do their work in the form of
amendments to the old constitutions of the " States,"

The form of wnose constituent powers they assumed to

theworkdone hold, rather than in the form of new con-
in these con- . .

yentions, and stitutions. Before the meeting of Congress
on the first Monday of December, they had
all passed - ordinances, either repealing the secession
ordinances of their respective " States," or pronouncing
them null and void ; had all voted amendments to the
constitutions of their respective " States " abolishing
slavery ; and all, except Mississippi and South Carolina,
had passed ordinances repudiating the debt incurred by
their respective " States" in aid of rebellion against the
United States.

Before the meeting of Congress also, elections of the
members of the respective "State" legislatures and of
"State" officers, and of the members of the House of
Representatives in Congress, had been held by the Pro-

president Johnson's plan 39

visional Governors, under the direction of the respective
conventions. And, finally, before the assembly of Con-
gress, these Legislatures had, with the ex- The erection
ception of that of Florida, met, organized, ernmentsSa°nd
and elected United States Senators, and, with ^^on0°j
the exception of those of Florida and Miss- congress,
issippi, had adopted the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. The legislature of Florida, not having met
and organized, had not at that date been able to consider
the Amendment. It met on December 18th and elected
United States Senators, and adopted the Thirteenth
Amendment on the 28th. The legislature of Mississippi,
on the other hand, rejected the Thirteenth Amendment
on the 27th of November.

During the same period, the President had by his
several proclamations and orders declared the cessation
of armed resistance, the restoration of inter- The orders
course throughout the country, and the denthputtfng
raising of the blockade and the opening of ernmento?the
the ports, and had put the different branches j^operation
of the civil Government of the United States everywhere.
into operation in all the " States" which had been the
scene of the recent rebellion. He had not, however,
restored the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus in
these regions or in the District of Columbia, and he
reserved the right to have recourse to military control
therein in case of necessity. The Governors of South
Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Florida under the
Confederacy had, in the spring of 1865, assumed to sum-
mon the legislatures, chosen by these " States " while
members, or pretended members, of the Confederacy, to
meet together for reconstruction purposes. The Presi-
dent had, through his military officials, ignored and pre-
vented all such movements. No farther resistance to his
plan of Reconstruction had been attempted, but he saw

40 RECONSTRUCTION

plainly that, without the United States military power

to sustain the new " State " governments, there might be.

This was the situation when Congress met on the first

Monday of December, and received President Johnson's

first annual Message. This document con-

The Presi-

dent's first an- tained a disquisition upon the political sys-
essage. ^m ^ ^e United States, as " an indissoluble
union of indestructible States," with the natural con-
clusion that by attempting secession, the " States " im-
paired, but did not extinguish, their vitality, suspended,
but did not destroy, their functions. It then proceeded
with a narration of the facts above stated, in which
the President sought to establish, upon the basis of his
power to pardon and withdraw military rule, and to
guarantee a republican form of government to every
"State," his authority to reconstruct "State" govern-
ment, or at any rate to permit the pardoned citizens to
do so under his direction.

Finally, this paper contained the official notice to Con-
gress that the President had admitted the reconstructed
" States " — and that would mean all that had passed the
secession ordinance, except perhaps Texas, whose con-
vention did not assemble until March of 1866 — to par-
ticipate in amending the Constitution of the United
States. The President concluded his narration and
argumentation upon this all-important subject in these
words: "The amendment to the Constitution being
adopted, it will remain for the States whose powers have
been so long in abeyance to resume their places in the
two branches of the National Legislature, and thereby
complete the work of restoration. Here it is for you,
fellow citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow citi-
zens of the House of Representatives, to judge, each of
you for yourselves, of the elections, returns and quali-
fications of your own members*"

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN 41

It is entirely evident from all this that the Presi-
dent denied the power of the Houses of Congress, either
separately or jointly, to prevent the Senators and Eep-
resentatives from the reconstructed "States" from
taking their seats upon any other grounds than defects
in the election and return, or in the personal qualifica-
tions, of the particular persons under consideration.

CHAPTER IV

THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION

The Stevens Resolution — Legislation of the Reconstructed
" States " Concerning the Status of the Freedmen, and the
Freedmen's Bureau — Vagrancy, Apprenticeship, and Civil
Rights in the Reconstructed " States " — The View Taken of
this Legislation by the Republicans — The Ratification of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution — The Demand of
the Senators and Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed
" States " to be Admitted to Seats in Congress — The Joint
Committee of the Two Houses of Congress on Reconstruction —
Thaddeus Stevens's Idea of Reconstruction — Mr. Shellabar-
ger's Theory of Reconstruction — Mr. Sumner's Theory of Re-
construction.

So soon as the House of Eepresentatives had elected
its Speaker, Mr. Colfax, and other officers, and before

the reception of the President's Message,
yens resoiu- Mr. Thaddeus Stevens presented a resolution

which proposed the selection of a joint com-
mittee of the House and Senate to inquire into the con-
dition of the " States," which formed the so-called Con-
federate States, and to report by bill or otherwise,
whether, in the judgment of the Committee, these
" States/' or any of them, were entitled to be repre-
sented in either House of Congress, and which provided
that "until such report shall have been made and finally
acted upon by Congress, no member shall be received
into either House from any of the so-called Confederate

42

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 43

States." The House passed this resolution by an over-
whelming majority ; and then adjourned without allow-
ing a motion by Mr. Niblack of Indiana, to the effect
that "pending the question as to the admission of per-
sons claiming to have been elected representatives to the
present Congress from the States lately in rebellion,
such persons be entitled to the privileges of the floor of
the House," the usual privilege accorded contestants,
to come to a vote.

The view of the House was thus manifest from the
start. It was that Eeconstruction could not be effected
by the Executive Department of the Govern- The view of
ment, but was a problem for Congress, and S?o5SSS
that this was a matter entirely separate from be'effecteVby
the power of each House to judge of the elec- theExecutive.
tions, returns and qualifications of its members, a matter
to be decided by the whole Congress prior to the consid-
eration of the question of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of the members of each House. In a
word, it was the question of the admission, or the read-
mission, of " States" into the Union, or more correctly
the question of the establishment or re-establishment of
the "State" system of local government upon territory
of the United States under the exclusive power of the
central Government.

There is no question that in sound political science
the House was entirely correct in its theory, and that
the objection of the Senate to that part of the Stevens
resolution which provided that no member should be
received into either House from any of the so-called Con-
federate States until the report of the Committee on Re-
construction should have been finally acted on by Con-
gress, as trenching upon the exclusive power of the
Senate to judge of the elections, returns and qualifica-
tions of its members, rested upon a confounding of the

44 RECONSTRUCTION

function of Congress to admit " States " into the Union

with the power of each House to judge of the elections,

Passage of returns and qualifications of those claiming

the Stevens to represent "States" or constituencies in

resolution 8.8 <x

concurrent "States " about whose position in the Union

resolution. . • ri n

there was no question. The Senate finally
swung into line, however, by passing this part of the
House resolution as a concurrent resolution instead of
as a joint resolution.

There were two other considerations which moved the

Republicans in Congress to assume this attitude in re-

Legisiation gai*d to Eeconstruction. One was the legis-

of the re- lation of the " States " reconstructed bv the

const ructed J

"States "con- President concerning the status and the

c e r n i n sr tbe

status of the rights of the f reedmen. On the 3d of March

freedmen, and , . ™ , , , .

the f r e ed- preceding, Congress had passed an act organ-
men s ureau. jzjng a Dureau jn the War Department for

the care of refugees and freedmen in the districts in re-
bellion or in the territory embraced in the operations of
the army. This bureau was officered by a chief com-
missioner and assistant commissioners for each of the
"States" declared to be in insurrection. These officers
were authorized to take possession of the abandoned
lands within these " States," and other lands belonging
to the United States, and parcel them out to the loyal
male refugees and freedmen, not more than forty acres
to each, and protect them in the use and enjoyment of
the same for the term of three years. They were also
authorized to issue under the direction of the Secretary
of War provisions, clothing and fuel to such loyal refu-
gees and freedmen as were destitute.

There is no question that this was a most humane
measure. It would have been a moral outrage for the
Government of the United States to have taken the
slaves away from the support and protection accorded

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 45

them by their masters, and to have thrown them upon
their own resources without any means of sustenance dur-
ing the transition into the new status. But The admin-
there is also no question that this measure was freedmS
so administered as to do the race for whose Bureau-
benefit it was intended almost as much harm as good.
When the Government began to furnish them with food,
clothes, fuel and shelter gratis, they, like the children
that they were, conceived of this, to them, very agree-
able state of things as something that was to last for-
ever, as the New Jerusalem. They gathered about the
depots of the Freedmen's Bureau and could not be in-
duced to go away in search of work or livelihood. The
belief became quite general that the Government in-
tended to give every man forty acres of land and a mule,
and otherwise to support him permanently. The danger
was that the newly emancipated would quit work alto-
gether and throw themselves entirely upon the charity
of the United States Government. Many did do so, and
formed thus a sort of privileged class throughout the
whole South under the special protection of the Govern-
ment of the United States.

When, now, the newly reorganized "States" came
to assume jurisdiction over matters concerning the
freedmen, they found themselves driven to vagrancy,
some legislation to prevent the whole negro andclvlirights
race from becoming paupers and criminals. j^t *b® ™™n*
It was in the face of such a situation that "States."
the legislatures of these "States" passed laws concern-
ing apprenticeship, vagrancy and civil rights, which
were looked upon at the North as attempts to re-enslave
the newly emancipated, and served to bring the new
"State" governments at the South into deep reproach.

It must be remembered, however, that at the time of
the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House of

46 RECONSTRUCTION

Representatives, only two of Mr. Johnson's reconstructed
"States" had passed any laws upon these subjects.
Examina- These two were Mississippi and South Caro-
vagrancyacts! lma 5 anc* a c^ose examination of the text
etc- of these enactments will hardly justify the

interpretations placed upon them by the radical Re-
publicans. The South Carolina Preliminary Act came
first in the order of time. It provided that "all free
negroes, mulattoes, and mestizos, all freedwomen, and
all descendants through either sex of any of these per-
sons, shall be known as persons of color, except that
every such descendant, who may have of Caucasian blood
seven-eighths, or more, shall be deemed a white person ;
that the statutes and regulations concerning slaves are
now inapplicable to persons of color ; and although such
persons are not entitled to social or political equality
with white persons, they shall have the right to acquire,
own, and dispose of property, to make contracts, to en-
joy the fruits of their labor, to sue and be sued, and to
receive protection under the law in their persons and
property" ; and " that all rights and remedies respect-
ing persons or property, and all duties and liabilities
under laws civil and criminal, which apply to white
persons, are extended to persons of color, subject to the
modifications made by this act and the other acts herein-
before mentioned."

The acts to which this one was preliminary were not
passed until the latter half of December, and could not
have served, except by prevision, as grounds for the
Stevens resolution. Moreover there was little in this Act
which was really calculated to arouse any pronounced
hostility at the North. It evidently recognized the
emancipation of the former slaves, and the prohibition
of future slavery, as fixed facts, and provided for sub-
stantial equality in civil rights between persons of color

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 47

and white persons. The discriminations which it re-
ferred to, rather than made, were those of a social and
political nature, matters which to that time had been
controlled, if controlled at all, wholly by the " States, "
except of course in those parts of the country in which
" States" had not been erected.

The Mississippi acts were all passed in November.
They were the acts which were before the view of Con-
gress and the country in the beginning of December,
1865, and, with the exception of the South The Missis-
Carolina Preliminary Act just commented BiPPiActs-
on, the only ones. They require, therefore, a somewhat
fuller treatment. They consist of "An Act to regulate
the relation of master and apprentice relative to Freed-
men, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes, passed November
22, 1865" ; the " Vagrant Act of November 24, 1865 " ;
an " Act to Confer Civil Rights on Freedmen and
for other purposes," passed November 25, 1865 ; a
supplementary Act to this, passed November 29, 1865 ;
and another supplementary Act, passed December 2,
1865.

The first Act provided that freedmen, free negroes,
and mulattoes under the age of eighteen years, being
orphans, or the children of parents who could not, or
would not, support them, should be apprenticed by the
clerk of the Probate court in the county where found
to competent and suitable persons, and on such terms
as the court should direct ; under the restrictions, that
the former owner of the minor should be selected by the
court as the master or mistress if, in the judgment of
the court, he or she were competent and suitable ; that
the terms fixed by the court should have the interest
of the minor particularly in view ; and that the appren-
tice should be bound by indenture, to run, in the case
of males, until the completion of the twenty-first year,

48 RECONSTRUCTION"

and, in the case of females, until the completion of the
eighteenth year.

This Act further provided that in the management
and control of apprentices, the master or mistress should
"have power to inflict such moderate corporal chas-
tisement as a father or guardian is allowed to inflict on
his or her child or ward at common law/' but that in
no case should " cruel or inhuman punishment be in-
flicted."

It furthermore provided, that in case of desertion by
the apprentice, he might be apprehended and brought
before a justice of the peace, who might remand him
to his master or mistress, and might, on the refusal of
the apprentice to return, commit him to jail, on fail-
ure to give bond, until the next term of the County
court, which court should inquire into the matter, and
determine whether the apprentice had left the service
to which he was bound without good cause or not, and
should, in the one case, compel the return to service
by ordering the infliction of the necessary penalties, and
in the other, should order the discharge of the appren-
tice, and enter " judgment against the master or mis-
tress for not more than one hundred dollars, for the
use and benefit of the apprentice."

The second Act provided, that " all free negroes and
freedmen in the State, over the age of eighteen years,
found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or
thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or
found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either
in the day or night time, and all white persons so as-
sembling with freedmen, free negroes, or mulattoes, or
usually associating with freedmen, free negroes, or mu-
lattoes on terms of equality, or living in adultery or for-
nication with a freedwoman, free negro or mulatto, shall
be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof, shall be

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 49

fined in the sum' of not exceeding, in the case of a
freedman, free negro or mulatto, fifty dollars, and in
the case of a white man, two hundred dollars, and im-
prisoned, at the discretion of the court, the free negro
not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceed-
ing six months."

It further provided, that in case the freedman, free
negro or mulatto should not pay the fine within five clays
from the time of its infliction, the sheriff of the proper
county should hire him or her out to any person who
would for the shortest period of service pay the fine and
all costs, giving the preference, however, to the employer
of the freedman, negro or mulatto, if there should be
any, and, if no person would hire the same, should hold
him or her to be dealt with as a pauper. It also pro-
vided that the freedman, free negro, or mulatto refusing
or failing to pay a tax should be dealt with by the
sheriff in the same manner.

And it provided, finally, that the same duties and lia-
bilities existing among white persons in the " State " to
support indigent whites should attach to freedmen, free
negroes and mulattoes in regard to the support of col-
ored paupers, and that in order to carry out the same
a poll tax, not exceeding one dollar a head, should be
levied on every freedman, free negro, and mulatto, be-
tween the ages of eighteen and sixty years, and should
be collected and paid into the hands of the treasurers
of the counties to be used in the support of colored
paupers.

The third Act provided, that freedmen, free negroes
and mulattoes might acquire, hold, and dispose of, per-
sonal property in the same manner and to the same extent
as white persons, and might sue and be sued in all the
courts of the " State " as white persons, but that they
should not rent or lease lands or tenements except in in-

50 RECONSTRUCTION

corporated towns or cities, and under the control of the
corporate authorities.

It provided, further, for the intermarriage of freed-
men, free negroes and mulattoes, and for the legaliza-
tion of all previous and existing cohabitations between
them, and the legitimation of the issue therefrom ; but
it forbade intermarriage between them and white per-
sons, under penalty of life imprisonment, and it defined
freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes as comprehend-
ing all of pure negro blood, and all descended from
negroes to the third generation inclusive, although one
parent in each generation should have been white.

It provided, further, that freedmen, free negroes and
mulattoes should be competent as witnesses in all civil
cases, in which they themselves or other freedmen, free
negroes and mulattoes were parties or a party to the
suit, and in criminal cases where the crime charged was
alleged to have been committed by a white person or
persons upon or against the person or property of a
freedman, free negro, or mulatto.

It provided, further, that every freedman, free negro
and mulatto should have a lawful home and employment,
and should have written evidence thereof in the form of
a license from the police authorities to do irregular or
job work, or in the form of a written contract for labor.
It required that all contracts made with freedmen, free
negroes and mulattoes for labor for a longer period than
one month should be in writing, a copy of which should
be furnished to each party, and that if the laborer
should quit the service of the employer before the ex-
piration of the term fixed in the contract, he should for-
feit his wages for that year up to the time of quitting.

It provided, further, for the arrest of any freedman,
free negro, or mulatto quitting the service of an em-
ployer, and for the determination of the question whether

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 51

the quitting was for good cause or not, and for the dis-
position to be made of the deserter.

It provided, further, that enticing or persuading freed-
men, free negroes or mulattoes to desert from their legal
employment, or employing deserters from contract labor
knowingly, or giving or selling them food, raiment or
other thing knowingly, should be a misdemeanor punish-
able by fine, or by imprisonment in case the fine should
not be paid.

It provided, further, that no freedman, free negro or
mulatto, unless in the military service of the United
States, or licensed thereto by the police authorities,
should keep or carry arms, ammunition or murderous
weapons, and that every civil and military officer should
arrest any such person found in possession of such ar-
ticles, and commit him for trial.

It provided, further, that "any freedman, free negro,
or mulatto committing riots, affrays, trespasses, mali-
cious mischief and cruel treatment to animals, seditious
speeches, insulting gestures, language or acts, or assaults
on any person, disturbance of the peace, or exercising
the functions of a minister of the gospel without a
license from some regularly organized church, or selling
spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or committing any
other misdemeanor," should be fined or imprisoned, and,
upon failure to pay the fine in five days' time after con-
viction, should be publicly hired out to the person who
would pay the fine and costs for the shortest term of
labor from the convict.

And it provided, finally, that " all the penal and
criminal laws now in force in this State, defining of-
fences, and prescribing the mode of punishment for
crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free ne-
groes or mulattoes, be and the same are hereby re-en-
acted, and declared to be in full force and effect, against

52 RECONSTRUCTION

freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes, except so far as
the mode and manner of trial and punishment have
been changed or altered by law."

This is a fair sample of the legislation subsequently
passed by all the " States " reconstructed under President
Johnson's plan. In fact, in the legislatures of several
of them, bills containing substantially these provisions
were under consideration when Congress met, and it
. was fair to suppose that they would be en-
sippi legisia- acted. Congress had thus in the first week
sample of the of December, 1865, substantially before it
legislation in what the reconstructed "States" proposed

other " States." • j - * > ±i_ ±. • j • 1 j. £

to do m reference to the status and rights ot
the former slaves, and in reference to the relations be-
tween the negro and the white man in the future.

As yet, we must remember, the Thirteenth Amend-
ment had not been proclaimed as adopted, in fact had
not been adopted, on the basis of the calculations of Mr.
Seward, the Secretary of State, the officer who alone
could proclaim adoption ; and the abolition of slavery
rested upon the military power of the President, and
on the acts of the "States" themselves, the first of
which is temporary as to its effects, and the second of
which might be reversed by the " States " at pleasure.

The Northern Eepublicans professed to see in this

new legislation at the South the virtual re-enslavement

m. of the negroes. This was an extreme view

Theview . °

taken of this of it, although it certainly did not give the

legislation by ' , &. .. . . , .f. jn . .&

the Kepubii- negro equal civil right with the white man,
or anything approaching that, to say nothing
of failing to offer him any prospects of ever partici-
pating in political functions. Of course it would be
an abstract assumption to say that the negro ought, at
the moment of his emancipation, to have had equal civil
right with the white man. Civilized man can be safely

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 53

intrusted with a much larger civil liberty than the bar-
barian or the semi-barbarian. There is no question also
that much severer penalties for the commission of the
same crime are necessary among a barbarous race or
class than among a civilized race or class. From these
points of view this Mississippi legislation does not ap-
pear as far from what was natural and even necessary as
Mr. Stevens and his followers made it out. The law of
apprenticeship was not severe, and, if "justly m, , . ,
and sincerely executed, it would probably tion from the
have been beneficial to the young negroes, of natural jus-
deprived of the care given them up to that
time by master or mistress, and now thrown upon
themselves without a cent of money or a particle of
property, most of them knowing no parent except a
mother as poor as themselves, and entirely unacquainted
with the new conditions of life now confronting them.

The law of vagrancy was severer. But it is easy to see
that a reasonable execution of that law had as much
help as harm in it for the former slave. It would have
preserved him against idleness, drunkenness, and thiev-
ery, although it did curtail largely his liberty of action.
It was, undeniably, the third act, which came so near
to the re-enactment of the old slave code in regard to
crimes and misdemeanors committed by negroes, that
gave the greatest offence. Almost every act, word, or
gesture of the negro, not consonant with good taste and
good manners, as well as good morals, was made a
crime or misdemeanor, for which he could first be fined
by the magistrates, and then consigned to a condition
almost of slavery for an indefinite time, if he could not
pay the fine. There is no question that the " States"
of the Union had at that moment the power under the
Constitution of the United States to do these things.
At that time the determination of the criminal law, both

54 EECONSTRUCTION

as to the definition of crime, the fixing of penalties,
and the fashioning of procedure, was almost entirely
a function of the " States," and there was no provision
in the Constitution of the United States which re-
quired the " States " to treat their own inhabitants with
equality in regard to their civil rights and obligations.

Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising
that the Republicans of the North strongly felt that the
freedom of the negro had not yet been sufficiently guar-
anteed to render the acknowledgment of the resumption
of " State "-powers by the communities so lately in re-
bellion against the United States for the upholding of
negro slavery safe and wise.

It was certainly natural, and it was just and right,
that the party in power in Congress should have con-
sidered it their duty to so amend the Consti-

Correctness . , J

of the Repub- tution of the United States, before according
' ' ° " State "-powers to the communities lately in
rebellion, as to reap the just fruits of their triumph over
secession and slavery. It was certainly their duty to the
country to secure the adoption of the Thirteenth Amend-
ment, and any further amendment, necessary to accom-
plish this result, before putting the recently rebellious
communities in a position to defeat the same. And it is
certainly not strange that the Republicans should have
feared that the Democrats of the North in Congress
would soon be found fraternizing with the Senators and
Representatives from the reconstructed ''States," and
that it was their duty to secure "perpetual ascendancy
to the party of the Union," before admitting the Sena-
tors and Representatives from these " States" to partici-
pation in public power. Properly interpreted this only
meant that loyal men must govern the country. But it
did not follow that only Republicans were loyal men,
and that the loyal Democrats of the North would follow

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN" OF RECONSTRUCTION 55

the recently disloyal Democrats of the South in legis-
lating upon the issues of the war. Eepublicans were
likely to commit this fallacy in their reasoning. Many
of them did commit it. And the result of it was to in-
tensify partisanship at the expense of statesmanship.

Just two weeks after the passage of the Stevens reso-
lution by the House of Eepresentatives, Mr. Seward
announced the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States. In Theratmca-
making this announcement, he declared that Thirteenth
there were thirty-six " States " in the Union, ^SJftgg
and that the legislatures of twenty-seven tution-
" States," just three-fourths, the necessary number, had
voted its adoption ; and among those voting to adopt,
he counted the legislatures of Virginia, Louisiana, Ar-
kansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia and Alabama.

It is to be remarked, however, that had he counted
none of the " States " that had passed secession ordi-
nances, either in the whole number, or in the three-
quarters necessary to adopt, the Amendment would in
that case also have been adopted. There would have
been, in that case, twenty-five " States " in the Union, and
of these nineteen had adopted the Amendment. And
if any controversy had arisen over the use of fractions
in making nineteen three-fourths of twenty-five, this
would have been quickly overcome by the fact that the
legislatures of four more of the loyal " States " adopted
the Amendment soon after Mr. Seward's declaration,
making twenty- three out of twenty-five. It will not, of
course, be disputed that, if the " States" that passed
secession ordinances should have been counted in arriv-
ing at the whole number of " States " in the Union, those
of them adopting the Amendment should also have been
counted in making out the three-fourths majority neces-

56 RECONSTRUCTION

sary to adoption, and that if, on the other hand, they
should have been excluded in arriving at the whole
number, they should also have been excluded in making
up the three-fourths majority. In other words, it does
not matter from which point of view we regard the sub-
ject, the Amendment was regularly and lawfully adopted.
It must be admitted, however, that Mr. Seward followed
in this most solemn procedure, the amending of the
Constitution, the Presidential plan of Reconstruction,
and gave great encouragement to the Senators- and Rep-
resentatives-elect from these reconstructed " States " to
expect that they would have the aid and influence both
of the Democrats in Congress, and of the Administra-
tion, in securing their seats.

They had gone to Washington and, bearing themselves
confidently from the first, they now became defiant in
The demand demanding their rights. Many of them were
tora'and^Rep- men who, less than twelve months before, had
eieectefoomVthe been m arms against the United States, and
^te,tes"tobe one °^ them was the person who was the
admitted to Vice-President of the Confederacy at the

seats in Con- J

gress. moment of its downfall, Mr. Alexander H.

Stephens. Such an attitude on his part and their part
roused again great bitterness of feeling among the Re-
publicans, many of whom conscientiously thought that
the real deserts of such persons were the penalties of
treason. Moreover, the legislatures of some of the other
" States " reconstructed under the President's plan en-
acted, during December, January and February, meas-
ures concerning the status and rights of the emancipated
slaves similar to those passed by the legislature of Mis-
sissippi, and in some respects even more illiberal than
those passed by that body ; and it was evident that all
of them would finally stand upon the same general
ground in regard to this subject.

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OP RECONSTRUCTION 57

This was the situation in the last week of February,
1866, when the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent
with the Stevens resolution in the House, denying seats
to any of the claimants from the " States " lately in
insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon.
Four of the Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doo-
little, Dixon and Norton went against their party as-
sociates in this question, but there was still a two-thirds
majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to com-
bat the Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to
construct and enforce a Congressional plan.

As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred
with the House in regard to that part of the Stevens
resolution which provided for the appoint- The Joint
ment of a Joint Committee on Reconstruc- therwo houses
tion, at the time it was passed by the House. onCRegcon^
The members of the Committee were chosen section,
soon after the passage of this part of the Stevens res-
olution by the Senate. They were, from the Senate,
Messrs. Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Johnson
and Williams, all Republicans except Mr. Reverdy John-
son of Maryland, and from the House, Messrs. Bing-
ham, Blow, Boutwell, Conkling, Grider, Morrill, Rogers,
Stevens and Washburne, all Republicans except Grider
of Kentucky and Rogers of New Jersey. The Repub-
licans had given themselves a larger representation on
the Committee than their numerical relation to the
Democrats warranted, but there is no reason to think
that the report of the majority would have been in any
respect different, if that relation had been more strictly
observed.

This Committee sat for about six months before
making its final report. During this period, however,
several propositions issued from it, and two great

58 EECONSTEUCTION"

measures of statute law were passed by Congress, all

of which must be more nearly considered in order to

The activity keep the thread of the narrative of Recon-

of congress in struction. Moreover the debate upon the

the interim . ±

between the sumect of Reconstruction was at the same

appointment ... , ,, ' . . ,, ,

ot the Com- time in progress and the view 01 the sub-
construction ject held by the leading Republicans was
port* of the becoming more clear and fixed,
committee. Mr Stevens opened this debate in the

House on the 18th of December (1865). In a powerful
speech, he developed anew his doctrine that the terri-

Thaddeus tory once covered by the " States," which
oneRe°onsteuc- na,d seceded from the Union, was nothing
tl0n- now but a conquered district, whose future

condition depended upon the will of the conqueror. If
" States" should ever be erected there again, it must be
accomplished, he contended, by virtue of that provision
in the Constitution which declares that " new States
may be admitted by Congress into this Union." This
theory involved the admission that secession had been
temporarily successful. This Mr. Stevens frankly ac-
knowledged. He said : " Unless the law of nations is
a dead letter, the late war between the two acknowl-
edged belligerents severed their original contracts, and
broke all the ties that bound them together."

This was the extreme doctrine on the one side. It
was in blunt contradiction to the doctrine upon which

contra die- the Administration was acting, the doctrine
Stevens^sview that the attempt at secession was entirely
offhe^dmS abortive, and that the "States" where it
istration. was attempted were still in the Union as
" States," and had never been anywhere else or any-
thing else, in fact could not be ; that the rebellion was
the work of private individuals combined as truly against
the real " States " in which it existed as against the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 59

United States ; and that, therefore, the overthrow of
these combinations and the cessation of the military
rule of the President must be followed by the re-
sumption on the part of the " States " concerned of
all their rights and powers of local self-government
and of participation in the United States Govern-
ment, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, unimpaired, and without any action whatever
on the part of Congress. Mr. Raymond represented
this view on the floor of the House of Representa-
tives. He was a Republican of the Seward school,
and sympathized entirely with his patron upon this sub-
ject. It was a great embarrassment to him that the
Democrats immediately gave in their adherence to this
view. It helped to prevent him from gaining any fol-
lowing at all for it among the Republicans.

But while the Republicans of the House repudiated
entirely Mr. Raymond's principles, the great mass of
them were not able to accept Mr. Stevens's view of the
temporary validity of secession, and the temporary ex-
istence of the Southern Confederacy as a foreign power.
Their feelings and instincts required a principle of
reconstruction which, at the same time that it did not
recognize secession as having any validity for the shortest
moment, yet regarded the " States " in which it was
attempted, as having thereby become something other
than " States " of the Union, and as requiring the assent
of Congress to the rightful resumption of that status.

It was Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, who did more than
anybody else to give the proper logical interpreta-
tion to these feelings and invent the theory Mr sheiia-
of Reconstruction on which the Republicans o^ofRecon-
could plant themselves. Briefly stated that Btruction-
theory was that, while secession was a nullity legally
from the beginning, and could not take the territory

60 RECONSTRUCTION

occupied by the " States " attempting it, or the people in-
habiting that territory, out of the Union, or from under
the rightful jurisdiction of the United States Govern-
ment and Constitution for one instant, yet it worked
the loss of the ' ' State " status in the Union, and from
a legal point of view left this territory and the inhabi-
tants of it subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, a status from which they
could be relieved only by the erection of " States" anew
upon such territory, an operation which could be ef-
fected, under the Constitution of the United States,
only by the co-operation of Congress with the loyal in-
habitants of such territory.

This was sound political science and correct constitu-
tional law. It could not fail to command the assent of
the great majority of the Republicans in the House and
in the country. This same doctrine was, at the same
time, developed in the Senate by Mr. Sumner, Mr. Fes-
Mr. sum- sen den and Mr. Wilson, and it was easy to see
ReeconBt°rrucf that {t had become the theory of the Repub-
tion. lican party in Congress long before the final

report of the Committee on Reconstruction promulgated
it. Even Stevens and his radical followers were in line
with it in so far as practical results were concerned.
That is, the Republicans all stood together on the prin-
ciple that Reconstruction could only be effected by Con-
gressional acts, since it was tantamount to a conferring,
or reconferring, of the " State " status upon a population
at the moment subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Government of the United States. This meant that the
entire Republican party in Congress, with the exception
of the four members of the Senate already named, and
of Mr. Raymond and one other in the House (and this
constituted a majority of two-thirds in each House)
would antagonize the plan of Executive Reconstruction

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 61

devised by Lincoln and Seward and persisted in by
Johnson and, to that moment, by his cabinet. How
far the Republicans in Congress would go TheEepilb.
in the attempt to set aside Executive Ee- Means in con-

gress aim o s t

construction depended chiefly upon the mod- unanimously
eration of the President, and the sincerity Sheiiabarger-
of the people in the South. It depended also umnerPan-
in some degree, to say the least, upon what would be
necessary to keep the Republican party, which conceived
itself to be the only really loyal party to the Union,
in power.

There is no doubt that the Sumner-Shellabarger
theory of Reconstruction was correct. The only ques-
tion was how exacting Congress would be in realizing
it. Under such a situation it behooved the President
to act with great caution and moderation, and to do
nothing to provoke a conflict in which he was cer-
tain to be worsted. And it also behooved the people of
the South to make no opposition to the bestowal of a
large measure of civil liberty upon the freedmen, nor to
such an adjustment of the basis of political representa-
tion as would not necessitate negro suffrage, and not to
insist upon sending to Congress, at the outset, the men
who had made themselves particularly obnoxious to
loyal feeling. How both the President and the per-
sons in authority at the South disregarded these con-
siderations of prudence, and how the position assumed
by them upon these subjects drove Congress into more
and more radical lines, is the further subject of the
next three chapters.

CHAPTER V

THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Continued)

The Freedmen Codes in the South — The Reports of Grant and
Schurz in Regard to the Status in the South — The Freedmen's
Bureau Bill of 1866— The President's 22d of February Speech
—The Civil Rights Bill— The Veto of the Bill— The Veto
Overridden — The Fourteenth Amendment — The Discussion of
the Proposition in Congress — The President's Attitude toward
the Proposed Amendment — Mr. Seward's Acts in Regard to
Ratification — The Requirement that the Ratification of the
Proposed Amendment should be the Condition of the Admis-
sion of the Senators and Representatives-elect to Seats in
Congress — The Tennessee Precedent.

We have reviewed the acts of the new legislature of

Mississippi concerning the civil status of the freedmen.

It is sufficient to say that during the winter

The Freed-

men codes in of 1865-66, the other reconstructed legislat-
ures followed the example of the legislature
of Mississippi. These movements forced upon the Re-
publican party in Congress the conviction that the civil
rights of the freedmen must be secured by national law.
As yet there existed only the Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution upon which to base Congressional stat-
utes, and this, as we know, simply abolished and pro-
hibited slavery and involuntary servitude, and empow-
ered Congress to pass appropriate laws for the execution
of the Amendment. By virtue of the war powers still
exercised by the Administration several of the Union
Generals, as we shall see, had set aside this legislation in

62

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 63

some of these reconstructed " States." Bat, of course,
it was well understood that this was only a temporary
remedy. During the month of January, 1866, the Re-
publicans in Congress became convinced that the newly
organized " States," with the exception of Tennessee,
were consciously developing freedmen's codes which
would not differ greatly from their old slave codes.

The President had sent General Grant and General
Carl Schurz on tours of inspection and inquiry through
the South, during the late summer and au- The reports
tumn of 1865 ; and Congress now asked the schurz^i/re
President to impart to it the information f^g^n the
thus gathered. The two reports were quite South-
contradictory. General Grant said that he drew the con-
clusion from his observations that "the mass of think-
ing men of the South accept the present situation of
affairs in good faith." He also indicated that the offi-
cers of the Freedmen's Bureau were a useless set of men,
dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the South, and
recommended that the military officers in the different
districts should be put in charge of the bureau.

Mr. Schurz, on the other hand, reported that his con-
clusions from his observations were that there was no
loyalty among the leaders and the mass of the people in
the South, except such as consisted in submission to
necessity ; that they were consciously attempting in
their new legislation to establish a new form of slavery,
distinct only from the old chattel slavery ; and that this
could be prevented only by national law and national
control, at least for many years to come.

General Grant's visit had been a flying one, and his
inquiries upon the subject were secondary only to his
other business. On the other hand, General Schurz had
journeyed deliberately, and his inquiries were the chief,
if not the sole, purpose of his visit. Moreover, Gen-

64 RECONSTRUCTION

eral Schnrz was a keener observer in regard to snch mat-
ters than General Grant, and a much better reasoner.

Despite, therefore, the great popularity and influence
of General Grant, Congress was inclined to place more
The attitude credence in the report of General Schurz.
toward°thSerre- While its Committee on Reconstruction was
ports. deliberating, it, therefore, most naturally set

itself about doing what it could, under the Thirteenth
Amendment, and also under its still existing war powers,
in behalf of the civil rights of the freedmen.

The first measure it attempted was one to enlarge the
powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. This supplementary
project originated with the Judiciary Corn-
men's Bureau mittee of the Senate, and was presented in
the Senate on the 12th of January, 1866.
The new bill proposed to increase the personnel of the
bureau and expand the powers vested in it as pro-
vided in the law of March 3d, 1865, in the following
most important respects :

First, While the law of March 3d, 1865, provided
for the appointment of a commissioner and ten assist-
ants as the entire personnel of the Bureau, the new bill
authorized the appointment of a commissioner, twelve
assistant commissioners, and the appointment or detail
of an agent for each county or parish throughout the
section where the Bureau might operate.

Second, While in the law of March 3d, 1865, the
Bureau rather appeared to be under the civil admin-
istration of the President, the new bill placed it dis-
tinctly under the military administration of the Pres-
ident, and authorized the President to extend "military
jurisdiction and protection over all of the officers,
agents, and employees of the Bureau."

Third, While the law of March 3d, 1865, confined
the powers of the Bureau to the giving of aid to refu-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 65

gees and freedmen and the distribution of abandoned
and confiscated lands among them, the new bill pro-
posed, in addition to this, to vest in the Bureau the power
to build school houses and asylums for the freedmen,
and the most wide-reaching jurisdiction over all civil
and criminal cases where equality in civil rights and
status, and in the application of penalties, was denied,
or the denial thereof attempted, on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude ; and it au-
thorized military protection in all such cases to be ex-
tended to the suffering party. In a single sentence,
this bill provided a sort of palatine jurisdiction over the
freedmen in the section lately the scene of rebellion.

It was a stiff measure even for the transition period
from war to peace. It cannot be justified constitu-
tionally as anything but a war measure. It is true that
the Thirteenth Amendment, just adopted, could be in-
terpreted as giving Congress the power to prohibit ine-
qualities in civil rights and in criminal punishments, as
the incidents of slavery or involuntary servitude, and to
extend the ordinary jurisdiction of the constitutional
courts of the United States over all cases where the
attempt to apply such inequalities should be made. But
it certainly did not give Congress the power, under any
ordinary circumstances, to create a new system of courts,
subject to the Executive, officered by military men, and
armed directly with military power to enforce decisions.
It was, as has been said, a war measure, and nothing
else. The question was reduced simply to this : Ought
the Congress of the United States to enact a new war
measure, after armed resistance had ceased everywhere,
except perhaps in some parts of Texas ? Was it sound
policy, was it good morals, to do so, when the people in
the sections lately in rebellion were settling down into
the pursuits of peace, even though Congress might

66 RECONSTRUCTION

legally have the right to do so ? The bill was debated
long and carefully in the Senate by all of the leading
members, and the opinion finally prevailed among them
that it was a measure necessary to preserve and protect

The passage the freedom of the newly enfranchised. It
of the bin. passed the Senate by a vote of 37 to 10, and
the House by a vote of 136 to 33.

On the 10th of February (1866) it was sent to the
President for his signature. In a Message, dated the

The veto 19th of February, the President put his veto
upon it. upon this bill. The document was a strong

and sound presentation of reasons for his dissent. He
said he could not approve of a war measure, with an in-
definite term, when the authority of the United States
was not disputed in any part of the country, when the
rebellion was at an end, and when the country had re-
turned, or was returning, to the pursuits of peace.
He referred to the fact that the law of March 3d, 1865,
was still in operation, and claimed that it furnished
him with all the extraordinary powers necessary to pro-
tect the freedmen. He called attention to the army of
officials which this proposed law would create, and to
the enormous expense which it would entail. And he
denied the constitutional power of the Government of
the United States to assume functions for negroes which
it had never been authorized to assume for white men.
There is little question now that the President was cor-
rect about this matter, and that the Congress was both
reckless and aggressive, not to say vindictive. But it is
questionable whether the President did not himself les-
sen unnecessarily his influence with his party in Con-
gress, by his unqualified opposition to any strengthen-
ing of the measure of 1865. He might have returned
the bill with the suggestion that it should have a
definite limit as to the time it should run, and have ex-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 67

pressed his willingness to sign a bill which should be so
limited. Johnson was blunt in his honesty. But Sew-
ard was his adviser, and Seward was, above everything,
politic. It would seem that he either failed to advise
with his usual sagacity in this case, or that his advice
was unheeded.

For this once the President's arguments convinced
enough of the Senators to deprive the bill of the sup-
port of the necessary majority to carry it The veto ef-
over his veto, even so stanch a Eepublican fective-
as ex-Governor Morgan of New York voting against the
bill after its return. The Republican majority was
deeply chagrined, not to say discouraged, and the Presi-
dent was injuriously encouraged to enter upon the strug-
gle with Congress over the question of Reconstruction.

On the evening of the 22d of February, three days
after his successful veto, the President made a most im-
portant speech from the steps of the White The Presi.
House to a large popular meeting assembled p?" bSr u.2a r°y
to congratulate him upon his victory. He sPeech-
was betrayed by his elation and warmth into an abusive
denunciation of his enemies, once, and only a few months
before, his best friends. He went so far as to declare
that Stevens and Sumner and Phillips and others like
them were, in his opinion, laboring as assiduously to
destroy the fundamental principles of the government
as were the leaders of the rebellion. After such an open
challenge, the contest was nearly unavoidable. It was
not avoided, whatever might have been the possibilities
of re-establishing harmony. And it cannot be denied
that, from this moment, personal rancor against the
President filled the heart of Stevens, at least, if not of
the others. The President's utterances were, indeed,
highly exasperating, and it would have required a very
large measure of public virtue to have ignored them.

68 RECONSTRUCTION

As a part of the same plan for securing the civil rights
of the freedmen against the hostile legislation of the
The civil President's reconstructed " States," the Ju-
RightsBiii. diciary Committee of the Senate reported a
Civil Rights bill to the Senate one day before it re-
ported the Freedmen's Bureau bill, that is, on the
11th of January. The right of way, so to speak, was,
however, given to the latter bill, and Congress was
nearly two months longer in perfecting the former than
the latter. This Civil Rights bill certainly avoided
many of the most serious objections which could be
truthfully made against the Freedmen's Bureau bill. It
was not a war measure in a time of peace. It did not
provide a privileged jurisdiction for any class, and it did
not create an army of new officials to drain the Treasury
and increase the patronage of the President.

The purpose of it was simply to establish equality in
the enjoyment of civil rights for all citizens of the coun-
try and to make all persons born in the country and not
subject to any foreign power citizens. The substantial
part of the bill, as perfected, read : " All persons born in
the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be
citizens of the United States ; and such citizens of every
race and color, without regard to any previous condition
of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punish-
ment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and
Territory in the United States, to make and enforce
contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to in-
herit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property, and to the full and equal benefit of
all laws and proceedings for the security of person and
property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 69

none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or
custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is simply equality for all before the law. It
conferred no political privilege and no social equality.
It was fairly within the power of Congress to pass such
a measure, by interpreting broadly the Thirteenth
Amendment, without having any recourse to the idea of
war powers. Slavery was nothing but extreme inequal-
ity in civil rights between master and servant. The
prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude could,
therefore, most certainly be held to be the prohibition
of all of these incidents.

The remaining provisions of the bill did nothing
more than fix penalties for violating, or attempting to
violate, civil equality as thus defined, designate the
officers charged with the duty of prosecuting the of-
fenders, and establish the jurisdiction for the trial of
such cases.

The penalties were somewhat grave. They might be
as severe as a fine of one thousand dollars, or imprison-
ment for a year, or both, in the discretion of the courts.
But they were not cruel or unusual, and were, there-
fore, within the power of Congress to prescribe. The
officers authorized and required to institute proceedings
against violators of the law were the district attorneys,
marshals and deputy marshals of the United States
courts, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit and
Territorial courts of the United States, the officers and
agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, and every other officer
whom the President might see fit to empower thereto.
And the jurisdiction established for the trial of such
cases was that of the United States courts, upon which
was conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction in any
case under the law, and to which any case touching
these subjects commenced in a " State " court could

70 RECONSTRUCTION"

be removed on motion of the defendant. But all these
things were authorized by a liberal construction of the
Thirteenth Amendment, which expressly vests in Con-
gress the power to make all laws necessary and proper
to enforce the prohibition of slavery throughout the
whole country.

It was, indeed, a great change in the system of the ju-
risprudence of the United States that the central Govern-
Themeasure ment should define and protect civil equality
the "points" of within the States. But it was a change which
emW jurispru- history had forced upon the country, and the
modern poH* sovereign power of the nation had deliber-
icai science, ately legalized it. There is no question now
that it was sound political science, too, and that it was re-
quired by public morality. Real civil liberty is always
national. Its concepts and principles spring out of the
national consciousness of rights and wrongs. And civil
equality is the first principle of modern justice, the
most pressing behest of the public morality of the age.
Moreover, this measure did not militate against the
President's plan of Reconstruction. He could have ac-
cepted it without compromising that plan in the slight-
est, and it was a monumental blunder on his part that
he did not do so.

On the 27th of March, he sent his veto of the bill
into the Senate. It was a weak argument throughout.
The veto of He objected to making the freedmen citizens
the bill. ky an ac£ 0f Congress, while eleven of the

thirty-six " States " were unrepresented in Congress,
and made out that it was a discrimination in favor of
the ignorant negro against the intelligent foreigner not
yet naturalized. He objected to the extension of the
powers of the central Government in behalf of civil
equality within the " States " as destructive of the fed-
eral system of government, and as degrading to the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 71

legislators and officials of the " States." He did not
deny that the proposed measure might be sustained as
constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment, but
maintained that it was unnecessary for the execution
of the provisions of the Amendment. He objected,
further, to the number of officers and agents authorized
to institute proceedings under the measure, to the fee
which they should receive, and to the power of the
President to order the courts of the United States to
migrate from one place to another when necessary for
the prompt administration of justice. And he objected,
finally, to the power vested in the President to use the
land and naval forces and the militia to prevent the
violation, and enforce the due execution, of the measure.

Now all this was easily answered from the point of
view which Congress and the North had now firmly
taken, viz. : that the eleven former ' e States " in which
rebellion had for so long prevailed were not " States,"
although the territory formerly occupied by them, and
the population formerly inhabiting them, were within
the United States and were subject to the jurisdiction
of the central Government ; that the rebellion had
demonstrated that the central Government must be
intrusted with a large increase of powers in protecting
civil equality and civil liberty ; and that the sovereign
Nation had willed this in the enactment and adoption
of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Really there was but one thing in the bill susceptible
of successful criticism, and that could be explained so as
to avoid it. It was the ninth section, which authorized
the President to use military power in execution of the
law. The language would permit the Presi- criticism of
dent to use the military before bringing the the bilL
matter before the courts and securing a decision. It
would permit the President to use the military as the

72 EECONSTEUCTION

primal, instead of the final, agency for executing the
law. It appeared to be in this respect a real force bill,
that is a bill in which the Executive is empowered to
use the military, not for the enforcement of judicial
decision in aid of the marshals, deputies, constables,
and their posses, which is the customary order in time
of peace, but for the execution of the law in the first
instance, before decision rendered or trial had. But it
was entirely clear that what was meant in this section
of the bill was that, when combinations too powerful to
be dealt with by the courts and their officers should un-
dertake to prevent the execution of the law, the Presi-
dent might use the military to overcome them. Under
such an interpretation, this provision was justifiable and
proper, certainly so in a transition period from a condi-
tion of general rebellion against the laws of the United
States to that of gradual, and only gradual, acquiescence
in their enforcement.

The President most decidedly lost his chance of re-
habilitating himself with his party, and leading it in
Th Pr i- ^e wor^: °f Reconstruction, by not signing
dent's biun- this bill. He sinned against the Southern-
ers themselves in not doing so. His veto of
it made them believe that they could count upon the
Administration, the Administration Republicans, and
the whole Democratic party of the North, in denying
equal civil rights to the f reedmen, and that such a com-
bination must eventually triumph. They, therefore,
persisted in their course of exceptional legislation
against the freedmen in the South, and in their arro-
gant demands for the immediate admission to seats in
Congress of the very men who had led the rebellion for
four years against the sovereignty and Government of
the United States. It is amazing that they did not see
that the large Republican majority in Congress would

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 73

be driven to the alternative of seeing the work of foui
years of terrible sacrifice undone or of securing its
permanence by making such changes in the organic
law as would effect it, while yet they had The veto
the power. On the 6th of April, the Senate OTerridden-
overrode the President's veto of the Civil Eights bill,
and on the 9th the House did likewise.

While, as we have seen, the President did not exactly
deny the constitutionality of the bill, the Democrats in
Congress, and the Southerners seeking seats
in Congress, did. There was, therefore, but teenth Amend"
one course left open to the Republican ma- men '
jority, and that was to make what they considered to be
the incidents of the Thirteenth Amendment express pro-
visions of the Constitution. There were also several
other things which had become clear in the course of
the debates in the Civil Rights bill and the Freedmen's
Bureau bill.

In the first place, it was seen that the emancipation of
the slaves would increase the representation in Congress
and in the Presidential electoral college from the old
slave "States" by two-fifths whenever the Southern
communities should be recognized as "States" again,
and that too without the admission of the emancipated
persons to the exercise of political suffrage. It was cer-
tainly to be apprehended that, with such increased
representation, the Southern members and the North-
ern Democrats would constitute a majority in Congress
and in the electoral college, and might proceed not only
to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and all acts in behalf of
the freedmen, but also to throw the Confederate debt
or a part of it upon the United States, or establish pen-
sions for Confederate soldiers, or even repudiate the debt
of the Union made in defence of its own life. While the
danger of these things was, probably, somewhat exag-

74 KECONSTKUCTION

gerated, still it would not have been becoming for men
of prudence and patriotism to have failed to provide
against them. Really there was but one thing to do,
and that was to enact, and secure the adoption of, an-
other amendment to the Constitution covering these
points, while the power to do so still existed.

It would be an agreeable thing to the writer of this
period of American history, were he able to record
The poiiti- that the principal matter which occupied the
in t hTpro^ thought and attention of the Committee on
teenthAmend- Reconstruction was how to secure the nec-
ment. essary civil rights of the freedmen. But in

the interest of exact truth he is compelled to forego
this pleasure. The first thing which that Committee
considered and recommended to the Houses of Congress
was the political matter of a redistribution of the rep-
resentation in the House of Representatives and in
the Presidential electoral college. On the 22d of Jan-
uary (1866) the Committee reported to the two Houses
the following proposition as an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States : " Representatives and
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union ac-
cording to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each State — excluding Ind-
ians not taxed — provided, that whenever the elective
franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on ac-
count of race or color, all persons of such race or color
shall be excluded from the basis of representation."
For nearly six weeks both the Committee and Congress
were occupied in the discussion of this proposition. In
a slightly modified form it was adopted in the House,
but, at last, on the 9th of March, it came to vote in the
Senate, and not having received the necessary two-thirds
majority, it was abandoned as a separate measure, and

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 75

merged into the general article containing the regula-
tions of all the points to which reference was made
above.

It was Monday, April 30th, before the Committee was
ready to report the entire article, which took the name
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The article as presented to the Houses of Congress by
the Joint Committee on that day read as follows :

" Sect. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of cit-
izens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property without due
process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jur-
isdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this
Union according to their respective numbers, counting
the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the
elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its
male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in
any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion
or other crime, the basis of representation in such State
shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of
male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.

" Sect. 3. Until the 4th day of July in the year 1870,
all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrec-
tion, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from
the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for
electors for President and Vice-President of the United
States.

"Sect. 4. Neither the United States nor any State
shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already in-
curred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of

76 RECONSTRUCTION

insurrection or war against the United States, or any
claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service
or labor.

" Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this Ar-
ticle."

The chief difficulties with these provisions were, first,
that they did not define who were" the citizens of the
Defects in United States ; second, that while they dis-
o^uwAmend' f ranchised for two or three years all who had
ment. voluntarily taken part in the rebellion, they

did not disqualify anybody from holding office or legis-
lative mandate on account of such conduct ; and third,
that while they forbade the payment of any debt or obli-
gation incurred in aid of rebellion, they did not guarantee
those incurred in the suppression of such rebellion.

The discussion in Congress upon these provisions lasted
through the month of May and well into June. At last
The discus- in the second week of June, the two Houses
propositions arrived at an agreement upon the modifica-
m congress, tions which seemed proper and necessary, and
the Article as thus perfected was adopted by the necessary
two-thirds vote in each branch.

The first section had been modified by the incorpora-
tion into it of a sentence which defined citizenship of
, the United States. It reads : " All persons

The final

draft agreed born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citi-
zens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside." This cleared up all difficulties in determining
who the persons were, whose privileges and immunities
were to be protected against " State " action. It also set-
tled the question, forever, as to whether citizenship of the
United States or citizenship of the " State " is primary.
There is no doubt that in that clause of the original Con-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 77

stitution which declares that the Constitution of the
United States, and the laws of Congress made in accord-
ance therewith, and the treaties made under the authority
thereof, are the supreme law of the land, no matter what
may be found in " State " constitutions or laws to the
contrary, primary allegiance of all citizens and persons
to the United States was established and required, but
the advocates of " State" sovereignty always contended
that, because there was no express clause in the Constitu-
tion defining citizenship, and declaring the citizenship
of the United States primary, citizenship was primarily
of the "State," and, hence, allegiance was due primar-
ily to the "State" by all its inhabitants. It was very
proper and very desirable that this contention should be
set at rest.

The language of the second section had been revised so
as to make its meaning more clear, but it had not been
changed at all as to its meaning. It reads in its perfected
form : " Eepresentatives shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to
vote at any election for the choice of electors for Presi-
dent and Vice-President of the United States, Represent-
atives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of
a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is de-
nied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,
or in any way abridged, except for participation in re-
bellion or other crime, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in
such State."

For section third, denying suffrage until 1870 to all

78 RECONSTRUCTION

persons who had given aid voluntarily to the rebellion,
Congress had substituted an entirely new resolution,
which rendered the Confederate chieftains ineligible
to office instead of disqualifying the rank and file for
suffrage. It reads as follows : " No person shall be a sen-
ator or Representative in Congress, or elector of Presi-
dent and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or mili-
tary, under the United States, or under any State, who
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Con-
gress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a mem-
ber of any State legislature, or as an executive or judi-
cial officer of any State, to support the Constitution
of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrec-
tion or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such dis-
ability."

This was certainly a wise change. It certainly could
not be contended that disqualifications for holding office
and legislative mandate violated any so-called natural
right. It was better that whatever punishments of a
political nature might fall upon the Confederates should
strike the leaders, rather than the followers. And it was
not a severe punishment which required that, for a time
at least, the people inhabiting the communities lately in
rebellion should choose as their representatives to the
National legislature and to the Presidential electoral
college, and as their " State" officers, men not identified
with the rebellion so closely as to have been among its
leaders. It is difficult to see how the Confederate
leaders could have been required to suffer less, and
have been rebuked at all for their acts.

Finally, section four was supplemented by a sentence
which declared that " the validity of the public debt of
the United States, authorized by law, including debts

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 79

incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for ser-
vices in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not
be questioned." The last words of the section were
also somewhat modified in the direction of greater em-
phasis, but the meaning remained the same. As thus
perfected, the section declared the validity of all the
existing obligations of the United States, and repudi-
ated all obligations whatsoever assumed in aid of rebel-
lion, and all claims for the loss or emancipation of any
slave. This covered the ground completely in regard to
the security of the public obligations of the United
States both from the positive and negative side, and it
prevented both Congress and the " States" from ever rec-
ognizing, in the future, the claim for any relief from
the natural consequences of unsuccessful rebellion, and
the right to any compensation for deprivation of prop-
erty in man.

As Congress passed these propositions by the neces-
sary two-thirds majority they were not submitted to the
President at all, it being considered that his disapproval,
if given, would avail nothing against such a majority.
This has been the custom from the first in Congressional
propositions of amendment, and it is now too late to dis-
pute its regularity. But it is easy to see that the Presi-
dent might support a veto of such propositions by such
reasoning as to make it at least possible that sufficient
votes might be changed from affirmative to negative
upon them, to finally defeat them ; and it is certainly
true that the Constitution requires that every bill, order,
resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives may be necessary
(except on a question of adjournment) shall be pre-
sented to the President and is subject to his approval
or veto, no matter by what majority it may have been
passed.

80 RECONSTRUCTION

However, President Johnson had no opportunity to

express himself officially or make himself officially felt

m, „ .. in regard to this Amendment. It was pretty

The P r e si - ° . r J

dent's attitude well understood that he did not view it with
proposed f avor while it was pending, and it soon be-

amendinent. .„ . ., . , , . . ..

came manifest that he was advising its re-
jection by the " States."

Mr. Seward issued his notification of the passage of

the amendment by Congress to the " State " legislatures

,. „ _, for their ratificatorv action on the 16th of

Mr. Seward "

acts in regard June. He sent the same to the legislatures
of all the "States/" that is, to the legislat-
ures of those bodies claiming to be " States" under the
President's plan of Reconstruction, as well as to the
legislatures of those " States " which had never pre-
tended to secede from the Union. This was, again,
certainly a recognition of all these bodies as " States "
of the Union by the executive branch of the Govern-
ment, at least.

On the other hand, the Reconstruction Committee of

Congress had reported a bill along with the Article of

The require- Amendment, which virtually proposed to

ratification 'of make tne ratification of the proposed Amend-

the proposed ment bv the respective legislatures of the re-
Amendment j r °
should be the constructed Southern communities the con-

condition of. ,.. n

the admission ditioii of the admission of the Senators and

of the Senators ,., , , . , , „ . , , ,

and Re pre- Kepresentatives-elect from them to seats in
elect to1 Beats Congress. That is, it was proposed that
m congress. Congress should make its recognition of the
reconstructed bodies as " States " conditional upon their
ratification of the Article of Amendment. Or perhaps
some of those supporting this proposition would have
preferred the statement that it was proposed that Con-
gress should make its recognition of the reconstructed
governments of the "States" in which secession had

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 81

been attempted conditional upon the ratification of the
Amendment by the legislative departments of these re-
constructed governments respectively.

No matter how it might have been stated, it was an
absurdity. The true theory on this point was that held
by Mr. Stevens, viz., to consider only those m^ t J

«. . » i • i i -i i i Theabsurd-

" States which had never attempted seces- % of the con-
sion, those " States" which had never been
members of the Southern Confederacy, as constituting the
"States" of the Union at that moment, and all other
territory and people subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States as being under the exclusive government
of the central Government ; to amend the Constitution
by a three-fourths majority of these loyal "States"; and
then to admit these reconstructed communities as new
" States" into the Union with its amended Constitution.
The amended Constitution would then have the same
power over them as if the Amendment had been ratified
by them. In fact, their petition for admission or recog-
nition as "States" of the Union with the amended Con-
stitution would imply their assent to the Amendment
as well as to every other part of the Constitution. The
more moderate Kepublicans feared that the Southern
communities would not feel obligated by a Constitution
amended in this way. It is difficult to see why they
should not. The Southern statesmen knew that Con-
gress had no power under the Constitution to require
of new "States" obedience to anything as a condition of
their admission to the Union, but the Constitution as it
was at the moment of their admission. Looked at from
the point of view of the present, it would certainly
appear that the exaction of such an unlawful promise,
imposing such a degrading discrimination, would have
been far more exasperating than anything else which
could have been invented or imagined.

82 RECONSTRUCTION

Enough of them saw this to prevent Congress from
enacting the bill proposed by the Reconstruction Com-
mittee into a law, and when the proposed Amendment
went to the legislatures of the " States/' there was no
requirement attending it which appeared to deprive any
legislature, or body claiming to be a legislature, of its
discretion in dealing with the subject.

As a matter of fact, however, the legislature of Ten-
nessee ratified the proposed Amendment within about
a month after receiving the Article from
denteseteby Secretary Seward, and Congress thereupon
ennebeee. passe(j the following joint resolution and sent
it to the President for his signature : "Whereas in the
year 1861 the government of the State of Tennessee was
seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hos-
tility to the United States, and the inhabitants of said
State, in pursuance of an act of Congress, were declared
to be in a state of insurrection against the United States ;
and whereas said State government can only be restored
to its former political relations in the Union by consent
of the lawmaking power of the United States ; and
whereas the people of said State did, on the 22d of
February, 1865, by a large popular vote, adopt and rat-
ify a constitution of government whereby slavery was
abolished and all ordinances and laws of secession and
debts contracted under the same were declared void ;
and whereas a State government has been organized
under said constitution which has ratified the amend-
ment to the constitution abolishing slavery, also the
amendment proposed by the thirty-ninth Congress"
(the Fourteenth Amendment) "and has done other acts
proclaiming and denoting loyalty : Therefore, Be it re-
solved by the Senate and House of Representatives in
Congress assembled, That the State of Tennessee is
hereby restored to her former practical relations to the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 83

Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Sena-
tors and Eepresentatives in Congress."

These proceedings made it certain that, while Congress
had failed to pass any formal act making the acceptance
of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment a TheTennes-
condition precedent to the readmission of see Precedent-
the other "States" which had been in rebellion, Con-
gress would not readmit any of them which did not do
this. Tennessee, it was thought, had sinned the least
of all, and, therefore, should be readmitted on lightest
terms. More might be righteously required of the
others, but not less.

The President signed the resolution, but accompanied
the same with a short message in which he made a rather
telling criticism upon the procedure of sub- The Presi-
mitting proposed constitutional amendments Bage fn regard
to bodies not already " States" in the Union, \°t^ gf%
and warned Congress against construing his Tenne86ee-
approval as committing him to all of the statements of
fact contained in the preamble to the resolution, or to
the doctrine that Congress had any right " to pass laws
preliminary to the admission of duly qualified Eepre-
sentatives from any of the States." These latter words
manifest the fact that the President was still holding
on to the idea that the whole function of Congress in
Eeconstruction consisted in the power of each House to
judge of the election and qualifications of its members.

CHAPTEE VT

THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN {Continued)

The Reports of the Committee on Reconstruction — The Idea of a
New Electorate as the Basis and Condition of Reconstruction—
The Freedmen's Bureau Act of July 16th, 1866— The Disaf-
fection in the Cabinet — The New Orleans Riot — The Issue of
Reconstruction in the Campaign of 1866 — The Congressional
Election of 1866 — The President's Final Proclamation De-
claring the Civil War Ended — The October Elections — The
President's Message of December 3d, 1866 — Rejection of the
Proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the legislatures of the
Reconstructed "States."

Two days after the transmission of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the "State" legislatures, the Joint

The reports Committee of Congress on Eeconstruction
mitteeeonBe- made its final report, or rather reports, since
construction, there were two of them, one being signed
by all the Republican members of the Committee, and
the other by all the Democratic members.

The majority report was an able defence of the view,
that by rebellion and attempted secession the eleven

The major- "States" in which these things happened
ity report. ^ad iost their « Statehood" and had become
disorganized communities, but that while they could and
had destroyed " State" government, and placed them-
selves outside of the Union so far as exercising the
powers and privileges of " State" local government was
concerned, they could not, and had not, escaped the
obligations of the Constitution and the authority of the

84

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 85

central Government. The exact language of the report
on this point was : " The Constitution, it will be observed,
does not act upon States, as such, but upon the people ;
while, therefore, the people cannot escape its authority,
the States may, through the act of their people, cease
to exist in an organized form, and thus dissolve their
political relations with the United States." The doc-
trine is here more clearly expressed than in other places,
but even here there is a confusing modification con-
tained in the words " in an organized form." It would
have been much clearer if they had been entirely omitted.
The framers of the report were evidently haunted by
that spectre of an abstract, unorganized " State," which
has played such havoc with good sense in some of the
subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, and which
is nothing more than a Platonic idea.

Based upon this doctrine, the majority report natu-
rally vindicated the exclusive right of Congress in the
work of Eeconstruction, which work was virtually the
admission of new " States " into the Union. It, further-
more, demonstrated that the situation in these disorgan-
ized sections was one largely of exhausted disloyalty
only, and that all that the inhabitants of them had
done under the President's Eeconstruction policy was
directed toward putting the same men in power who
had led in the rebellion and toward denying civil, to
say nothing of political, rights to the freedmen.

And its final conclusion was, " that Congress would
not be justified in admitting such communities to a par-
ticipation in the government of the country without
first providing such constitutional or other guarantees
as would tend to secure the civil rights of all citizens of
the Republic ; a just equality of representation ; protec-
tion against claims founded in rebellion and crime ; a
temporary restoration of the right of suffrage to those

86 RECONSTRUCTION

who have not actively participated in the efforts to de-
stroy the Union and overthrow the Government ; and
the exclusion from positions of public trust of at least a
portion of those whose crimes have proved them to be
the enemies of the Union, and unworthy of public con-
fidence."

As we have seen, the proposed Fourteenth Article of
Amendment had provided for all of these things, except
the direct conferring of suffrage on anybody. With this
exception, it had gone even further, in its provision
declaratory of citizenship, and in its protection of the
public debt of the Union.

The report of the minority, that is of the three Dem-
ocrats, was written by Mr. Keverdy Johnson, of Mary-
The minor- land. It was, as a lawyer's brief, an able
ity report. presentation of the view that a "State" of
the Union can never become anything else than a
" State," no matter what may be the character, deeds,
attempts or disposition of the people who inhabit it, and
is at all times entitled to the same powers, rights and
privileges, under the Constitution of the United States.
It was, however, the veriest dry bones of legal reasoning,
the veriest sophistry of juristic abstraction. There was
no political science in it, no common sense in it, and it
ended with an unfortunate and irritating defence of
President Johnson's personal loyalty, which had not been
in the slightest degree impugned by the majority.

The majority report indicated, at least, that Congress
might require something more than adoption of the
The idea of Fourteenth Amendment by the communities
ratef^ slethe lately in rebellion before they would be rec-
dftion8- of CRe- °Sn^ze^ as having been restored to their
construction, proper relations in the Union as " States,"
and entitled to representation in Congress. At the mo-
ment, however, it is probable that a prompt adoption of

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 87

the proposed Amendment by any of the reconstructed
legislatures would have been followed by a joint resolu-
tion on the part of Congress similar to that enacted in
the case of Tennessee. There is no doubt that many of
the more radical members of Congress had been long
considering the question of creating an entirely new
electorate in the South as the only proper basis for re-
construction, and that some of the conservatives, from
being opponents of this idea at the beginning of the
year, had, by the middle of it, begun, at least, to waver.
To those who could read the signs of the times correctly,
it was manifest that a rejection of the proposed Four-
teenth Amendment by these communities would lead
Congress forward upon that line. The President ought
to have understood this, when Mr. Eaymond voted for
the proposed Amendment in the House. He ought to
have done all in his power to influence the reconstructed
communities to adopt the proposed Amendment, no
matter whether the submission of it to them by the Sec-
retary of State of the United States logically involved
their recognition as "States " of the Union by the Ad-
ministration at Washington, or not. They were not in
a position to exact the precise conclusion of a logical
process in their favor, especially as it was based on a
fallacious premise, and the President did both himself
and them a great wrong in not discouraging them from
so doing.

A few weeks later Congress scored another victory
over the President, one which did much toward wiping
out the defeats of February 19th and 21st. The Freed.
It passed another Freedmen's Bureau Bill, Actn'ofBJui"y
and then repassed it July 16th, over the 16th'1866-
President's veto. This bill was framed with the purpose
in view of avoiding those features of the bill, successfully
vetoed by the President on February 19th preceding,

88 RECONSTRUCTION

which had influenced certain Republicans to sustain the
President's veto. The differences between the two
measures consisted in the following points. The first
bill had no definite time limit ; the second would expire
in two years from the date of its passage. The first bill
vested jurisdiction in the Freedmen's Bureau over the
civil rights of freedmen and refugees in all parts of the
United States. The second vested the bureau with
jurisdiction over loyal refugees and freedmen without
mention of place. The first vested a most sweeping
power in the Bureau to give all kinds of aid and support
to the destitute refugees and freedmen. The second
contained only the more moderate provision of the orig-
inal law of March 3d, 1865, on that subject. Finally the
first gave the Bureau jurisdiction over the civil rights
of freedmen and refugees, not only when the depriva-
tion of them was the consequence of rebellion, but when
it was effected by any local law, ordinance, police regula-
tion or other regulation. The second, on the contrary,
limited the jurisdiction of the Bureau to those cases
where the deprivation was the consequence of rebellion.
The President could not, however, see much differ-
ence between them. He claimed that his objections to
the first bill were valid against the second. The second
measure, he contended, was only a war measure for a
The veto of definite period, in a time of peace. It was the
the measure, prolongation for a definite time of military
jurisdiction over civil matters, when the civil courts
both "State "and Union were open and in the unhin-
dered discharge of their business. And he held the
ground that Congress had no more constitutional power
to create, or perpetuate, military jurisdiction over civil
matters for a definite period in time of peace than for
an indefinite period. He referred to the fact that the
Civil Rights measure, just passed over his veto, met all

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OP RECONSTRUCTION 89

the points provided for in the Freedmen's Bureau bill,
and affirmed that all of the provisions of that law would
be executed by him through ordinary civil means, in so
far as they should not be repealed by Congress or de-
clared unconstitutional by the courts.

From the point of view of to-day it is difficult to see
why the President was not right. There is no doubt
that the Freedmen's Bureau with its powers,
jurisdiction and charities, was a far greater ofthePresi-

»..,,. . ,, a j.i i.i dent's views.

source of irritation m the South than was
the presence of the United States army. While its
superior officers were generally men of ability and char-
acter, a large number of the subalterns were canting
hypocrites and outright thieves. They kept the negroes
in a state of idleness, beggary and unrest, and made
them a constant danger to the life and property of the
whites ; and their veritable tyranny over the white pop-
ulation did more to destroy Union sentiment among
the whites and make them regard the United States
Government in a hostile light than anything which had
happened during the whole course of the rebellion. It
was an institution which ought to have been dispensed
with the instant that the necessity which called it into
existence passed away. The law of March 3d, 1865, had
still about eight months to run, and Congress would be
in session again four months before it would expire.
There was ample opportunity for prolonging the law,
and that law, it was to be presumed, was less needed in
1866 than in 1865. It took all of the party discipline
of the Eepublicans to prevent sufficient disaffection
in their ranks to sustain the President's veto. On
the merits of the question alone they could not have
done it. They were in error, and many of them knew
it, but they were now in to fight the President and they
must stand together.

90 RECONSTRUCTION

The veto of the bill was dated July 16th, and the two
Houses repassed it over the veto on the same day. The

The veto new law was to De executed through the "War
overridden. Department, as the original measure had
been, and the Secretary of War had begun to manifest
that indecent hostility to the President which disgraced
the last years of the Administration. The President
was largely cut off from even the knowledge of what
was taking place in the operations of the Freedmen's
Bureau, and Mr. Stanton now managed it in such a
manner, whether intentional or not, as to cause the
greatest possible friction between the Government and
the whites of the South, and thus to retard the process
of Keconstruction and to destroy what had been already
accomplished in that direction.

Besides Stanton, three other members of the Cabinet
had showed their disaffection toward the President's

Disaffection policy. They were Mr. Speed, the Attorney-
inthecabinet. General, Mr. Dennison, the Postmaster-Gen-
eral, and Mr. Harlan, the Secretary of the Interior.
During the course of the month (July) these three gen-
tlemen resigned their offices, and were replaced by Mr.
Stanbery, Mr. A. W. Eandall, and Mr. 0. H. Brown-
ing. Their sense of propriety would not permit them
to retain high office under the President while differing
with him so widely in regard to the fundamental ques-
tion of Reconstruction. Mr. Stanton, however, took a
different view of his duty. He seemed to
titude toward feel that he was under obligations to his
country to remain in the President's Cabinet,
at the head of the most important branch of the Admin-
istration at that moment, and protect the country
against the purposes of the President. He was sus-
tained in this view by the Republican majority in Con-
gress, which soon entered upon its course of depriving

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 91

the President of his military control even, by transfer-
ring his functions to the Secretary of War and the Gen-
eral of the army. To the men of the present day, Mr.
Stanton's conduct appears, at least, lacking in a proper
sense of delicacy. It may be regarded in an even
more serious light. It may be looked upon as a con-
spiracy with the Republican majority in Congress to rob
the President of his constitutional prerogatives, to
change the form of government from the presidential
system to the parliamentary system of administration.
It is difficult to find any sufficient defence for Mr. Stan-
ton's course. It is impossible to clear him of the ap-
pearance of great egotism or of great greed of office, in
not resigning along with his dissatisfied colleagues.

The President knew of this difference of feeling be-
tween himself and his War Secretary at the time of his
reorganization of the Cabinet in July, and would un-
doubtedly have been glad to receive his resignation,
but he did not ask for it. The newspapers which
sustained the Administration did, however, and pre-
dicted that it would be forthcoming. The Republican
leaders, on the other hand, encouraged Stanton to hold
on to the office, and represented to him that the welfare
of his country demanded the sacrifice of his personal
feelings in the matter.

It was now generally proclaimed throughout the
North that the rebel chieftains had repossessed them-
selves of the reconstructed " State " gov- _.

° The opinion

ernments and were making use of "State" and feeling in

„ the North con-

powers to re-enslave the freedmen. It was cernjngthe
also proclaimed that the life and property of things in the
Union men, of whatever race, at the South ou '
were utterly insecure, and that at least a thousand
men had been murdered in that section within a year's
time, without any considerable number of the murder-

,\

92 RECONSTRUCTION

ers having been brought to justice. And it was asserted
that the President of the United States had deserted
the party of the Union, the party which had elevated
him to the chief magistracy of the land, and was now
conspiring with his old party friends, the Democrats, in
both the North and the South, to drive the Republican
party from power and restore the regime of the Democ-
racy of 1860.
(, At this moment a horrible tragedy was enacted in
Q* New Orleans which seemed to give verification to some,
V The New if not all, of these statements. It seems

Orleans riot, ^at the late Confederate leaders resident in
Louisiana, having received pardon from the President
of the United States upon fulfilling the conditions of
the President's amnesty proclamation, had got posses-
sion in 1864 of the reconstructed "State" govern-
ment of Louisiana, with the exception of the governor-
ship and some of the judicial offices. The constitution
of 1864, made by sincere Union men, did not exactly
suit them, and the legislature in the spring of 1866 took
into consideration a bill for calling another convention
together for the purpose of framing a new constitution,
but the Administration at "Washington frowned upon
the movement and the legislature abandoned it. In like
manner, the men who formed and established the con-
stitution of 1864 were displeased with the fact that the
" State" government under it had been captured at the
polls by the old electorate of Louisiana, reinstated
through the President's amnesty. They also wanted to
change the constitution, to so change it as to create
an electorate which would bring them back into power
again. This meant negro suffrage. Just before the con-
vention of 1864 adjourned, it passed a resolution vesting
in the presiding officer of the convention the power, and
imposing on him the duty, of reconvoking the conven-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 93

tion in case the constitution framed by it should not
be ratified at the polls, or for any other necessary reason,
for the purpose of taking such measures as might be
needful for forming civil government in Louisiana.

Of course, when the constitution framed by the con-
vention was adopted by popular vote and a "State"
government was set up under it, common sense and
common honesty would hold that the convention had
been finally dissolved, no matter how the wording of the
resolution might be forced in the opposite direction.
The men of "'64" saw in this wording their only
chance, however, to rescue the " State " government
from the hands of the amnestied electorate, and in their
desperation they were determined to attempt to make
use of it. A number of the members of the old conven-
tion got together informally on the 26th of June. The
president of the old convention did not call them to-
gether, and he would not preside at the informal meet-
ing. He made some trivial excuse ; but there cannot
be much doubt in regard to his real reason. This in-
formal meeting then proceeded to elect a pro tempore
president, Judge Howell, an office-holder under the
constitution of 1864. It was this man who issued the
proclamation of July 7th, reconvoking the old con-
vention of 1864. The time appointed by him was the
30th of July at noon, and the place designated by him
was the Mechanics' Institute Building at New Orleans.
The men called together were the members of the old
convention, but to provide for any vacancies that
might have happened or might happen in the former
membership of this old body, Judge Howell called on
the Governor, Mr. Wells, to issue writs of election.
The governor did so, and ordered an election of such
delegates to be held September 3d. He thus mani-
fested his approval of the movement.

94 RECONSTRUCTION

Naturally the party of the amnestied viewed this
scheme for depriving them of the " State " government
by means of a new constitution, framed by a defunct
convention, and certain to contain a provision for negro
suffrage, with the most intense hostility. They were not
placated either by being referred to the consideration
that the constitution framed by this convention must be
submitted to the suffrages of the existing electorate, and
must be ratified by a majority of the same, before it
could be put into operation. They had a suspicion that
the whole thing was instigated by the wicked Republi-
cans at the North, and that the voting upon such a pro-
posed constitution would be controlled by them through
the military of the United States Government.

They, therefore, resolved to nip the plan in the bud
by preventing the assembly of the convention, or forc-
ing it to disperse if it did assemble. The mayor of the
city, Mr. Monroe, the same who was mayor when the
Union army entered the city in 1862, applied to the
General in command of the United States troops in
Louisiana, General Absalom Baird, to know what atti-
tude the military authorities would take toward the
convention, and informed General Baird that he in-
tended to disperse the convention if it should attempt
to assemble without having the approval of these au-
thorities. General Baird was acting for General Sheri-
dan, who was absent from his post, and he replied with
much more caution than he would probably have done
had he been alone responsible. He told Mayor Mon-
roe that he thought the Governor of the " State,"
rather than the mayor of the city, was the man to
interfere with the assembly of a body professing to be
a ' ' State " convention, if there was to be any interfer-
ence at all, and he gave the mayor to understand that
his proposed course might be perilous. This was the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 95

25th of July. Two days later the mayor went again to
the General, this time accompanied by the Lieutenant-
Governor, who was of the party of the amnestied. He
now told General Baird that the police would not un-
dertake to prevent the assembly of the convention, or
disperse its members when assembled, but that its
members would be indicted by the grand jury and ar-
rested by the sheriff. The General seemed to think
that the convention could lawfully assemble, but agreed
with the mayor and Lieutenant-Governor that both he
and they would request instructions from Washington.

The General applied to the Secretary of War, and the
mayor applied to the President. The General informed
the Secretary of the movement to assemble a conven-
tion ; that it had the approval of the Governor ; that
the Lieutenant-Governor and the municipal authorities
considered it unlawful and proposed to prevent it by
arresting the delegates ; that he had declared to them
that he would not permit them to do this, unless the
President should so instruct him ; and he asked for
orders, in the premises, by telegraph. The Lieutenant-
Governor and the Attorney-General of the " State " in-
formed the President of the movement to assemble the
old convention ; informed him that negroes were assem-
bling, incendiary speeches were being made calling them
to arm themselves, and the President was being de-
nounced ; that the Governor was in sympathy with the
movement ; that the matter was before the grand jury ;
and that it was contemplated to have the members of the
convention arrested by criminal process ; and they asked
the President to inform them whether the military
authorities would interfere to prevent the execution of
the processes of the criminal court.

Secretary Stanton did not reply to General Baird's ap-
plication at all. He did not even communicate the Gen-

96 RECONSTRUCTION

eral's application to the President. He afterward ex-
plained that he did not consider that Baird's telegram
required any reply. Baird had said in his despatch that
he had informed the Lieutenant-Governor and the city
authorities that he would not allow them to arrest the
delegates and break up the convention unless instructed
to do so by the President. The Secretary did not pro-
pose to send the General any such orders, or to allow
any such to be transmitted to him from the President
through the War Department, and so the Secretary
thought it best to let the matter rest where the General
had placed it. He did not know that the President
had been applied to by the other side, and the President
did not inform the Secretary of the despatch which he
had received. The confidence between the two men
had been already so largely destroyed as to prevent even
consultation upon these grave subjects.

The President, on the other hand, answered the appli-
cation made to him. He telegraphed to the Lieuten-
ant-Governor that the military would be expected to
sustain, and not to obstruct, or interfere with, the pro-
ceedings of the criminal court. He did not send any
orders to General Baird, however. Whether the Lieu-
tenant-Governor showed his telegram from the Presi-
dent to General Baird or not is not positively known,
so far as the writer of these pages has been able to dis-
cover, but it is probable that he did.

It was certainly then the understanding on all sides,
at least, that the " State " and municipal authorities
would deal with the delegates to the convention, if
they interfered with them at all, through the grand
jury and the officers of the criminal court, and not
through the police. This did not mean, of course, that
the police should not be present in the neighborhood
of the convention for the purpose of keeping the pub-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 97

lie peace. They were ordered to assemble at the sta-
tions on the morning of the 30th (July) and to bring
their arms. According to General Sheridan's report to
the President, the riot was occasioned by the marching
of a procession of negroes, about one hundred strong
and partly armed, through several of the streets to the
locality of the convention. It occurred about an hour
after the members of the convention had assembled.
Naturally a number of people, mostly of the lower
orders, gathered on the sidewalks of the streets through
which the procession passed. Hooting and jeering fol-
lowed. Then a shot was fired, probably by a negro in
the procession. Then other shots followed and the
crowd rushed after the procession, which soon arrived in
front of the building in which the convention sat.
Brickbats now flew from each side and the riot was in
full progress when the police appeared on the scene.
The procession rushed into the building, leaving a few
of its members outside. One of these and a policeman
came to blows, when another shot was fired, upon
which the policemen began firing through the windows
of the building. After a few moments a white flag was
displayed from one of the windows, whereupon the fir-
ing ceased and the policemen rushed into the building.
Once in the building they fired their revolvers upon
the persons present indiscriminately and with terrible
effect. The persons who succeeded in escaping from
the building were also fired on by the police and by
citizens, and many were killed or wounded. Nearly
two hundred persons were killed or injured, mostly
negroes, but some whites, and among them some mem-
bers of the proposed convention. There were no United
States troops in the city at the hour of the riot, their
barracks being outside. General Baird had ordered
four companies to take position near the place of the

98 RECONSTRUCTION

convention, but owing to the fact that he had got
the impression that the convention would assemble at
6 p.m., he had ordered them to repair to the assigned
position at 5 p.m. They, consequently, did not arrive
until the riot was over and the convention was dis-
persed.

Each party considered the other the aggressor. The
Republicans of the North viewed the massacre as a new
rebellion, while the amnestied Southerners considered
the riot the result of a justified resistance to an attempt
to force negro suffrage and then negro rule upon them.
It is very nearly certain that the first shot was fired by
a negro, but this would not justify the wholesale mas-
sacre executed by the police. It could, therefore, be
held by the Republicans with a great show of truth
that the public authorities of the reconstructed " State"
government of Louisiana not only would not extend
the equal protection of the laws to all persons, but
would themselves deprive persons even of life without
due process of law.

The issue of the campaign of 1866 was "thus made up.

It was simply whether Congress should reconstruct

„. . . the President's reconstructed " States/' or

The issue of

Reconstruc- rather should pronounce the President's Re-

tionin the . ±

campaign of construction, and the Reconstruction ef-
fected by the amnestied Southerners, null
and void, and proceed to do the work cle novo, with the
purpose of creating adequate guarantee for life and
property and for the equal protection of the laws to all.
Although it was not a Presidential year, the election
of the members of the House of Representatives with
such a problem to deal with, and the election of " State "
legislatures which would consider the question of
adopting the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, made the canvass of 1866 a truly national

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 99

one. Four National Conventions were held daring the
summer and early autumn, two of each party.

The Administration party led off with their great
meeting in Philadelphia on the 14th of August. There
were a few prominent Republicans among the delegates,
such as Montgomery Blair, Raymond, Dix, Cowan, Doo-
little and Browning, but the vast majority of them were
Democrats. All of the Southern delegates were such.
The larger number of the Northern Democrats were con-
servative men of the stamp and style of R. C.
Winthrop, W. B. Lawrence, S. J. Tilden, &) conven-
er. P. Stockton, J. E. English and Reverdy summer of
Johnson, but there were also present men of
more radical anti-national creed, like Fernando Wood,
J. G. Sinclair, and James Campbell. Even Clement
L. Vallandigham, presented himself as a delegate.
There were many, however, who objected to his pres-
ence and he withdrew. The doctrines put forward
at this meeting were simply those of the President's
Reconstruction policy, the doctrines that the "States"
in our Federal system are indestructible and immacu-
late, and under submission to national authority al-
ways possessed of the rights of local self-government
and of representation in the National Government.
These doctrines were developed into such extreme
forms of statement, and such extreme results were bold-
ly accepted as their logical consequences, that the cause
of the Administration was damaged rather than helped
at the North by the work and experiences of the con-
vention.

Inasmuch as there had been a great display of har-
mony between the leading men of the South and the
Northern delegates in the convention of the 14th of
August, making it appear that the Democrats were the
party of peace and reunion, while the Republicans were

100 RECONSTRUCTION

in favor of a continuation of the hostile status, the
Southern Republicans, or as they called themselves
the loyal Union men of the South, assembled in con-
siderable numbers in Philadelphia on the 3d of Sep-
tember, for the purpose of conferring with the leading
Kepublicans of the North in regard to the condition of
things in the South. Such men as John Minor Botts,
William G. Brownlow, George W. Paschal, Thomas J.
Durant, M. J. Safford, Thomas H. Benton, Lewis M.
Kenzie, G. W. Ashburn, and many more of almost equal
reputation came to counsel with the leaders of the Re-
publican party. Many of the most important of these
were there, Trumbull, Greeley, Morton, Chandler,
Schenck, Schurz, Matthews, Curtin, Cameron, Gerry,
Speed, the ex-Attorney-General, and Creswell. These
are only a few names of the eminent men who were
present.

The delegates separated into two bodies, one body
comprehending the representatives from the South,
and the other those from the North. This was done in
order to leave the Southerners free from undue North-
ern influence. Mr. Speed presided over the Southern as-
sembly, and in his opening words declared the purpose
of the convention to be to determine and proclaim
whether the assertion of the late Confederates that their
constitutional rights were being denied them in not ad-
mitting their Representatives- and Senators-elect to seats
in Congress was true, or whether, on the other hand,
the claim of the emancipated that their civil and nat-
ural rights were being denied them was true. He soon
left no doubt upon the minds of his hearers as to his
own view and belief, and he denounced the President's
reconstruction work, both in principle and results, most
roundly. On account of the intimate relation in which
he had stood to the President as his legal adviser, and on

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 101

account of the fact that he was a citizen of one of the old
slave-holding " States/' his words had tremendous effect
in steeling the purpose of the Republicans of the North.

Under the inspiration of Mr. Speed's speech, the
Southern convention framed and fulminated an address
which arraigned the President as almost a traitor to his
party and the Union, and as a friend of rebels and of
sympathizers with rebels, described the results of his
Eeconstruction policy and acts as most deplorable, and
urged the speedy adoption of the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution as the only possible cure
for the evils which were afflicting the country. This
address made up the issues of the campaign. The di-
viding line of the parties now separated those who fa-
vored the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amend-
ment from those who did not. The issue was simple,
and the vote upon it was decisive, as we shall see.

The Administration party now attempted to divide
the late soldiers, as it had attempted to divide the
Republicans, with but little better effect. They got to-
gether a convention of the veterans at Cleveland, Ohio,
on the 17th of September, and had the venerable Gen-
eral Wool preside over it. There were many good men
and true present, among them Gordon Granger, Rous-
seau, Custer, McClernand, and Thomas Ewing ; and
they accused the Republicans of attempting to stir up
another civil war over the question of negro suffrage,
and urged their old comrades to insist that the status of
peace, and all the consequences thereof, existed and must
be preserved.

This movement was met on the other side by the as-
sembly of a Republican soldier convention at Pittsburg
on the 25th and 26th of September, for the purpose of
upholding Congress in its fight with the Administration
over the question of Reconstruction. The convention

102 RECONSTRUCTION

was presided over by General J. D. Cox, and a host of the
most capable officers of the armies of the Union, lately
disbanded, participated in its deliberations and resolves.
They denounced the President's Reconstruction policy,
pronounced their adherence to Congress, and declared
for the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amend-
ment as the indispensable measure for the re-establish-
ment of peace, justice and union.

During the summer and autumn the orators and pol-
iticians of both parties pursued the canvass upon the
The canvass Dasis of the doctrines put forth by the con-
of 1866. ventions. A very large number, an unusually

large number, of the leading men of the country, took
part in the great debate. Even the President of the
United States took part in it.

On the 28th of August he started from Washington
to go to Chicago to be present at the laying of the cor-
ner-stone of the Douglas monument. He
around the took with him General Grant, Admiral Far-
ragut, three of his Cabinet officers, Seward,
Randall and Welles, and a large number of lesser lights.
Crowds gathered at all the principal stopping-places,
and the President spoke to them in defence of his pol-
icy of Reconstruction and of his acts in the execution
of it. He denounced his enemies and opponents bit-
terly, and descended to undignified and even vulgar
altercation with individuals in the crowds. In his
speech at St. Louis, on September 28th, his hot temper
betrayed him into an attempt to throw upon Congress,
the radical Congress, as he called it, the blame for the
New Orleans riot, and he went to the imprudent ex-
treme of almost making an excuse or a quasi-excuse
for the riot. The whole performance of the President
upon the journey was termed "swinging around the
circle," and it both degraded the great office and its

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 103

incumbent, and injured the prospects of the Admin-
istration party in the campaign.

The President had on the 20th day of August, a
week before setting out upon his tour, finally pro-
claimed the insurrection and Civil War at The Presi-
an end in every part of the country. He proclamation
had, on the 2d day of April preceding, de- cTvaiTnVar
clared the insurrection at an end everywhere ended«
except in Texas, and the proclamation of August 20th
gave official witness to its cessation in Texas. It is cer-
tainly a prerogative of the President to proclaim the ces-
sation of opposition to his execution of the laws of the
Union, and then to execute the same thereafter through
civil, instead of military, officers. If the President
had meant no more than this by his proclamations of
the termination of the insurrection, the position would
have been unassailable. But he evidently intended his
proclamations as furnishing a basis for his Reconstruc-
tion work, or at any rate as furnishing a great reason
for the general recognition of the validity of that work.
This we can easily gather from the speeches he made as
he ' ' swung around the circle " in the campaign of 1866.
He felt that he had solid ground under his feet, and
did not appreciate the fact that he was resting one of his
doctrines upon another, the latter being no more self-
evident than the former. He felt quite sure of vic-
tory, until what were called the " October States, " at
that time, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and The October
Iowa, held their elections. The two " Sep- elections.
tember States," Vermont and Maine, had largely in-
creased their Republican majorities, which the President
had probably expected and allowed for, but when the
four " October States " gave only twelve seats in the
House of Representatives to the Democrats and nearly
fifty to the Republicans, it was pretty clearly revealed

104 EECONSTEUCTION

that the Administration was on the eve of a terrible
defeat. It was as overwhelming as these figures indi-

The Repub- cated. The final results showed that the Ee-
incathetrleu™ch publicans had elected one hundred and f orty-
tions of 1866. t]iree 0f their candidates to seats in the House
of Eepresentatives, while the Democrats had succeeded in
securing only forty-nine seats. With the exception of
Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky, all the " States"
represented in Congress had given the Eepublican party
strong majorities. The strength of the Democratic party
was again in the South, where the Democratic candidates
for any kind of office had almost universally succeeded.
In the Senate the Eepublicans constituted more than a
two-thirds majority of the members, and with their
almost three-fourths majority in the House, there could
be no question that, in a contest between the President
and Congress, the former would be obliged to yield.

Notwithstanding all this, however, the President, in
his Message to Congress of December 3d, returned to

Th ._ the contest. He reargued his case from
dent's Mes- every point of view, and with both modera-

8 a 2" 6 of Dg-

c ember 3d. tion and great force. He restated what had
been done toward Eeconstruction, declaring
that peace had been restored everywhere, that all the
laws of the United States and all the machinery of the
United States Government were in unimpeded opera-
tion everywhere throughout the length and breadth of
the land, and that loyal " State " governments had been
restored everywhere, and lacked but one thing of com-
pletion, viz., the admission of Eepresentatives and Sena-
tors from ten of the eleven " States " in which secession
ordinances had been passed to seats in Congress. He
contended that all the departments of the United States
Government had proceeded upon the view that the
" States" were indestructible — the Congress, in the dec-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 105

laration, at the outset, that the war was not to be
waged in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose
of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing
or interfering with the rights or established institutions
of the " States " which were the scene of rebellion, but
to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitu-
tion and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to
preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and
rights of the several States unimpaired, and in many
other acts and resolutions ; the Judiciary, in all pro-
ceedings affecting the reconstruction communities as
" States " ; and the Executive, in the entire plan of Ee-
construction created by Mr. Lincoln and followed out by
himself. He further contended that in recognizing
these " States " as restored to their former relations,
Congress was not running any risk of having disloyal
men thrust into the legislative chambers of the nation,
because each House of Congress could reject members-
elect on account of disloyalty, and could continue to re-
ject until the constituencies should send up such persons
as the House could approve, and could expel any member
whose conduct should reveal disloyalty. He therefore
urged Congress to acknowledge the Reconstruction of
the " States " lately in rebellion, in principle, and to
apply the powers of the two Houses in regard to the
elections, returns and qualifications of their respective
members to the individual persons elected to seats.

The President's argument fell, however, upon deaf
ears. This was, it is true, the second session of the
Thirty-ninth Congress, and was not, there- ineffective-
fore, composed of the persons just elected ; prlgjdVn^B
but the influence of the recent elections argument-
over its members had been to cow the conservatives,
strengthen the radicals, and cause the wavering to in-
cline to the side of the extremists. They took the ver-

106 RECONSTRUCTION

diet of the people to be that Congress should ignore the
President's work in Reconstruction, develop a plan of
its own, put it into operation, and base it upon a newly
constructed electorate in the South, in which the lately
emancipated should participate. The attitude of the
legislatures of the President's reconstructed "States"
in regard to the proposed Fourteenth Amendment also
strengthened them greatly in this view and purpose.

Rejection of Before the first day of January, 1867, all of
p oGu nTenth these except three had rejected it by over-
bymthe legis- whelming votes, and these three followed the
Reconstruct same course a little later. It was said and
ed " states." believed in Washington that they had re-
jected the proposed Amendment contemptuously, and
under the advice of the President of the United States.
It was the angry rejection of the proposed Amendment

The effect which did more than anything and every-
temper°of thl thing else to convince the people of the
North. North that Eeconstruction must be now un-

dertaken by Congress, and must proceed upon the basis
of a new electorate at the South which Congress should
create.

CHAPTER VII

THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN {Completed)

Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia— Tke First Attempts at
Impeachment — Stories of Outrages at the South — The Recon-
struction Bill— Passage of the Bill by the House — The Bill
as Finally Agreed upon — The Condition that the Fourteenth
Amendment must be Ratified by a Sufficient Number of States
to make it a Part of the Constitution — The Tenure-of-Office
Bill — The Supplementary Reconstruction Bill — The Assign-
ment of the Commanding Generals to the Military Districts
Created by the Reconstruction Acts — The Re-establishment of
Martial Law in the South — The President's Instructions to the
Generals in Interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts — The
Congressional Interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts — The
President's Veto of the Bill Interpreting the Reconstruction
Acts — The Veto Overridden — The Suspension of Stanton from
Office.

The Congress had but just put itself in working order,
when a bill was introduced and passed extending the
suffrage to negroes in the District of Colum- Negro SUf.
bia. The Republicans reasoned that they DfsfrictrfCo-
could not with good grace force negro suf- lumbia-
frage on the South before establishing it in the District,
and that the District was the best place in the country
to try the experiment first. The bill went to the Presi-
dent on the 26th of December, six days after the ad-
journment of Congress for the Christmas vacation, al-
though it had passed the Houses on the 13th and 14th.
The President held it until January 5th, 1867, and then
returned it to the Senate with his veto.

107

108 RECONSTRUCTION

The Message was a strong paper, and to an impartial

mind at this day it is a convincing paper. There is no

The Presi- question that Congress had the constitutional

font's veto of power to establish negro suffrage in the Dis-

the bill estab- x too

lishmg negro trict. The President did not dispute that.

suit rage in. L

the District of He simply argued that in legislating for the
District, Congress stood in a relation to the in-
nabitants of the District analogous to that which the
legislature of a " State " bore to the inhabitants of the
" State/' and that as the legislature of a "State" would
not act in opposition to the expressed will of a large
majority of the voters in the "State," so Congress in
legislating for the District of Columbia ought not to dis-
regard the expressed will of a large majority of the voters
in the District. He then referred to the vote of the Dis-
trict upon this very subject, taken in December of 1865,
only one year before, when out of a poll of 6,556, one of
the largest votes ever cast in the Capital city, only thirty-
five ballots were cast for negro suffrage, and in George-
town out of a poll of 813 only one ballot was cast for
negro suffrage. He further argued that Congress ought
not to make the District a place for trying political ex-
periments of so grave a character as conferring suffrage,
the highest privilege of American citizenship, upon a
race of men just emerging from the ignorance and vice
attendant on a condition of slavery. And he finally
asked the Congress to reconsider an act which appeared
to him to be the degradation and possibly the destruc-
tion of American suffrage.

There is no gainsaying that this was good reasoning,
but Congress was in no frame of mind to give ear to the
counsel of the President. It took the ground that in
legislating for the District it was acting for the whole
United States and not simply for the inhabitants of the
District, and that there was no place in the entire coun-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 109

try where political experiments could be more safely
tried than in the District, since Congress had plenary
legislative power in the District and could discover and
correct mistakes and defects in its legislation more easily
and promptly there than anywhere else.

Both Houses repassed the bill over the President's veto
by the necessary two- thirds majority, the Senate on the
7th of January and the House on the 8th, and negro
suffrage was established in the District of Columbia.
The President's veto so angered some of the The ^
extremists that resolutions of impeachment tempts at im-
were introduced into the House, and a resolu-
tion for the appointment of a committee to inquire
whether there were reasons for impeachment was actu-
ally carried, and a committee was appointed. The
committee sought everywhere and in every way for
grounds upon which to arraign the President at the bar
of the Senate, but for the moment it failed.

At the same time the halls of Congress were ringing
with the most extravagant tales of outrages against the
negroes and loyal men of the South at the 8tori of
hands of the late rebels, and of the collusion outrageeatthe
of the newly established " State " govern-
ments with the same. In addition to this, the other
three of the ten newly constructed " State" legislatures
rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, two of
them by unanimous vote, and the other by every vote
but one.

While, as we have seen, the Congress did not pass
the proposition to make the acceptance of the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment by the newly reconstructed
" States " the condition of recognizing them as " States "
of the Union, and admitting the Senators- and Eepre-
sentatives-elect from them to seats in Congress, yet the
popular mind had so conceived the matter, and the

110 RECONSTRUCTION

order of events in the case of Tennessee had given this
conception the force of precedent. The Republicans in
Congress and the North could now fairly claim that they
had offered to recognize the President's reconstructed
" States," although these bodies were without consti-
tutional warrant, upon the most moderate terms which
Th Four- consideration for the necessary consequences
teenth Amend- of the Civil War and the victory of the Union

merit as the

condition of would allow, and that their offer had been
the revival of rejected in every case, except, of course, that

statehood. j m ' • a j t. t_ -j.-

of Tennessee — rejected by such majorities
and in such a manner as to make the rejection amount
to defiance. It was true that logically and constitu-
tionally Congress had no power to make the acceptance
of something not at the time a part of the Constitution
a condition for the admission of the new " States," or
the readmission of old " States," into the Union ; and
Congress had not done this formally. It is also true,
both in good logic and in sound constitutional law,
that the proposed Fourteenth Amendment should not
have been submitted at all to bodies that were not
conventions of the people in, or legislatures of, "States"
in the Union. Logically and constitutionally the whole
thing was irregular. But it was as it was, and all un-
derstood that the way to cut the knot was for the legis-
latures of the reconstructed " States " to adopt the pro-
posed Fourteenth Amendment, as Tennessee had done.
When they refused to do so, it was natural and it was
necessary that Congress should at last overturn all of
the President's proceedings in Reconstruction, and all
of the proceedings made under his guidance, and begin
de novo, and upon the true constitutional principle of
the exclusive power of Congress to admit new <f States "
into the Union, or, more scientifically expressed, to
create new States or control their creation on territory

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 111

of the Union in which loyal civil government did not
exist.

There can be no question in the mind of any sound
political scientist and constitutional lawyer that Con- ££_* -.
gress was in the right, logically, morally, and The correct- 7
legally, in insisting upon brushing aside the Republican
results of executive Reconstruction in the view-
winter of 1867, and beginning the work itself from the
bottom up. It ought to have done so in 1865. It ought
to have created, so soon as armed resistance to the exe-
cution of the laws of the United States ceased, regular
Territorial civil governments throughout the country
which had been in insurrection, and then have admitted
these Territories as " States " whenever the conditions
warranting the same should have been attained. The
phantom of the " indestructible State " had too strong
an influence over the minds of all at that moment to
admit of such a solution of the question. But after the
experiences of 1865 and 1866, and the discussions in the
last session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, the minds of
the Republicans at least, both in and out of Congress,
were prepared to break away from the influence of this
idea and to view the process of Reconstruction as noth-
ing but the admission of new " States" into the Union,
new " States " founded on territory and including inhabi-
tants that had indeed once formed " States," but had
renounced Statehood in the Union through disloyalty to
the Union, and had been brought back to the position
of territories, civilly unorganized in local instance, but
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the central Gov-
ernment. From such a point of view, the method of
procedure was plain. While it is strange that the
Congress did not follow this course in 1865, it is
simply astounding that it made such a mess of it in
1867.

112 RECONSTRUCTION

The Reconstruction bill was presented from the Com-
mittee of fifteen on Reconstruction to the House of Rep-
The Recon- resentatives on the 6th of February by Mr.
struction bill. Stevens. It was a thoroughly drastic measure.
Instead of creating Territorial civil government in the
usual manner, with an electorate designated by Con-
gress, and with powers under the control of Congress,
and sustained, if necessary, by the military of the
United States, which would have been amply sufficient
to meet all the real or proper exigencies of the case,
the bill began by declaring that the pretended " State "
governments of the so-called Confederate States did not
protect adequately life or property, but countenanced
and encouraged lawlessness and crime ; and that it was
necessary that peace and good order should be enforced
in the so-called Confederate States until loyal " State "
governments could be legally established therein ; and
then went on to enact that the said so-called Confeder-
ate States should be divided into five military divisions
and made subject to the military authority of the
United States, Virginia to constitute the first division,
North Carolina and South Carolina the second, Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida the third, Mississippi and Ar-
kansas the fourth, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth ;
that the General of the army should assign an army
officer of not less rank than a brigadier-general to the
command of each of these divisions, and detail suffi-
cient military forces, and place them under the command
of each of said generals, to enable him to enforce his
authority in the district over which he should be placed ;
that these commanders might use civil tribunals in the
enforcement of the laws if they should see fit, but that,
if these were not effective they might institute and
govern through military commissions ; that no sentence
of these commissions should be executed until approved

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 113

by the commanding officer of the district ; and finally,
that the United States courts and judges should issue
no writs of Habeas Corpus against the proceedings and
judgments of these commissions.

There was hardly a line in the entire bill which would
stand the test of the Constitution. In the first place, the
Congress of the United States, or any other .

part of the Government of the United States, defensible
can establish martial law in any part of the gtitutionai
territory of the United States only when and pointo view-
where there is armed resistance to the execution of the
laws of the United States, or of some "State "or Territory
whose jurisdiction is being defended by the Government
of the United States. Such was not the condition any-
where in the South. The Executive had proclaimed
that such resistance had ceased everywhere several
months before ; that he had appointed civil officers
throughout the South for the execution of the laws of
the United States, in many cases with the advice and
consent of the Senate ; that these laws were in operation
everywhere ; and that the United States courts were
open everywhere and in the unhindered discharge of
their functions and duties. It was not pretended, of
course, that there was armed resistance to the execu-
tion of the laws of the reconstructed " States," and
that the military of the United States was to act simply
in support of " State" authority. There were here and
there, it is true, some of the remains of the military
authority of the United States, exercised during the
period of the insurrection, but they were a very poor
basis upon which to found a resumption of the reign of
martial law throughout the length and breadth of the
South. No sane and just mind can consider for a mo-
ment such a ground as sufficient in policy, morals or
constitutional law. While the people of these districts

114 RECONSTRUCTION

which had attempted to secede from the Union had for-
feited their rights to the " State " form of local govern-
ment, they still had, after they had ceased from armed
resistance to the Government of the United States, the
rights guaranteed to the criminal by the Constitution of
the United States — the right to be presented by a grand
jury and tried by a petit jury in the civil tribunals of
the United States, under the ordinary forms and guar-
antees of the common law, even though the crime
charged should be treason itself.

In the second place, the bill undertook to rob the

President of his constitutional prerogative of com-

bm • mandership-in-chief over the army, and vest

its attempt to the same in the General of the army. This

rot) ttic PrGsi"

dent of his was so evident that no one could fail to see
mander-in- that it was a bill directed as much against
the powers of the President of the United
States as against the late Confederates of the South.

And in the third place, the bill assumed to suspend
the writ of Habeas Corpus, substantially, while the Con-
stitution forbids this to be done by any part of the
Government of the United States, except in time of
war or public danger. There was no war, and to say
that there was public danger of the character meant by
the constitutional exception was to exaggerate the con-
dition of things entirely beyond all fact or reason.

The bill was the most brutal proposition ever intro-
duced into the Congress of the United States by a re-
_ . . . sponsible committee, and it would never have

The brutal- r '

ity of the been tolerated except at such a time of par-
tisan excitement and exaggerated suspicions.
Even under such conditions Congress would not pass
it as introduced, but incorporated into it many mod-
ifying provisions, most of which, however, while reflect-
ing the honest sentiments of the lawmakers, give little

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 115

evidence of good political science or sound constitu-
tional law.

The two points in the bill which the conservative
Republicans were unable to accept were, first, the es-
tablishment of martial law for an indefinite

.,,.,, . . „ Theopposi-

period and without any provision tor a way tion of con-
of future escape from its rigors ; and, sec- publicans to
ond, the usurpation of the President's con-
stitutioDal prerogative of commandership-iu-chief of
the army. It soon became manifest that the bill could
not pass without the introduction of a clause covering
the first point and without a change of the provision in
regard to the second. A number of the conservative
Republicans had indicated these things, when Mr. Blaine
squarely asked Mr. Stevens to incorporate mj.. Blaine's
an amendment in the bill which should pro- chaogesfai the
vide a way of escape from the martial rule bilL
which the bill proposed to establish. Mr. Blaine's amend-
ment held out the promise of the admission of each
of the ten communities now to be thrown into military
divisions to its proper position as a " State " of the
Union when it should adopt the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment and conform its constitution and laws
thereto, should provide by its constitution for universal
male suffrage without regard to race, color or previous
condition of servitude, and should adopt a constitution
with such a provision in it by popular vote, and when
Congress should approve of the said constitution.

There is no doubt that all this, while reflecting the
good moral feeling of Mr. Blaine, was bad political science
and was the very contradictory of sound
constitutional law. As has been pointed Mr. Blaine's
out several times already, it would have Pr°P08ltl0ns-
been good constitutional law had the United States
Congress simply delayed the admission or readmission

116 RECONSTRUCTION

of these communities as " States " of the Union until
after the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and any
other desirable amendment, should have been framed
and adopted. Their admission then would have been
into the same Union with all the other States. But to
demand of them, as the condition of admission, their
acceptance of things not yet in the Constitution of the
United States, things not obligatory on the " States "
already in the Union, was tantamount to the creation
of a new sort of union with another kind of constitu-
tion by an Act of Congress. This question had been
thoroughly talked out, fought out, and decided in
1820, and for nearly fifty years it had been the settled
principle of constitutional law that Congress has no
such power. It has been also pointed out that a sound
political science of the federal system of government
teaches the same principle.

Mr. Stevens acted correctly, from the point of view of
political science and constitutional interpretation, when
he declined to accept Mr. Blaine's amendment, or to
allow a vote to be taken on it, and the House of Eep-
resentatives also acted correctly from the same point
of view when it voted down a proposition from Mr.
Blaine to send his amendment along with the bill to
the Judiciary Committee of the House with instruction
Mr ste- ^° rePort ^ back with the bill. But it is not
vens's refusal to be inferred from the debates that either
Mr. Blaine's Mr. Stevens or the House was actuated in
this course of conduct by the above mentioned
considerations. The expansion of the powers of govern-
ment inevitably consequent upon a long period of war
seemed to have made them all very nearly forget that
there was anything but government in our political sys-
tem. The chief thought was that one Congress could
not bind another with any such promises as those held

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 117

out ill the Blaine amendment, and that each Congress
must at all times be left to its own discretion in the de-
termination of every question. The House Pasga of
passed the bill as it came from the Commit- j£e bffl by the

t-> • House.

tee on Reconstruction without change or
amendment, and on the 13th of February it appeared
in the Senate.

This more conservative and deliberate body regarded
the bill as too radical, and after considerable debate
upon a proposed amendment, offered first The bm in
by Senator Williams of Oregon, and then tneSenate-
by Senator Reverdy Johnson, which was in substance
the Blaine proposition, laid it aside by general con-
sent and allowed Senator Sherman to offer a substitute
for it.

This substitute contained the gist of the Blaine amend-
ment, and also changed the provision which proposed
to deprive the President of his constitutional
prerogative of commandership-in-chief of man subs ti-
the army. While the bill was thus made a
less brutal measure, and in one respect a less uncon-
stitutional measure, it still rested upon a very shaky
foundation so far as constitutional law was concerned,
and it was opposed by all the Democratic Senators. It
was passed, however, by a large majority, every Repub-
lican who voted voting in favor of it.

When it was returned to the House of Representatives
for concurrence, the Radical Republicans developed a
most hostile opposition to the changes which
had been made by the Senate. They claimed tute in the

House.

that the Senate bill proposed to bind future
Congresses by pledges which the existing Congress had no
right to make and no power to execute, and that it also
proposed to use the rebel element of the population of the
South in the work of reconstructing loyal " State " gov-

118 RECONSTRUCTION

ernments. After a long and acrid debate, the House re-
jected the Senate's substitute by a union of Democratic

The senate votes with the votes of the Eadical Republi-
jected^y ATe cans- This result and the manner of its at-
House. tainment so frightened the Republicans, how-

ever, that they quickly came to an understanding among
themselves in the House, and with their party colleagues

The bm *n ^ne Senate, and passed the Senate's substi-
finaiiy agreed tute, so amended as to prevent disloyal men,
as designated in the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment, from voting for delegates to a reconstruc-
tion convention, or being delegates therein, or being
officers in any so-called " State " government before the
admission of the Senators and Eepresentatives from that
" State" into Congress, and so amended further as to
pronounce all professed civil governments existing in any
of the late so-called Confederate States, except of course
Tennessee, provisional only, until Senators and Eepre-
sentatives from the same should be admitted to seats in
Congress, and subject, as provisional governments, to the
paramount authority of the United States which should
control them, and might supersede or abolish them at
any time. The Senate also accepted these amendments,
and on the 20th of February the bill was placed in the
hands of the President.

It contained the following declarations and provisions.
First, the preamble designated the ten communities re-
constructed under the President's direction

T b. 6 co n-

tents of the as " the rebel States of Virginia, North Caro-
as passe . jjna^ gou^1 Carolina, Georgia," and so on.
This was certainly an untruth. If they were " States " at
all, they certainly were not rebel " States." They might
with some appearance of correctness and sincerity have
been termed the late rebel " States," but to be called sim-
ply rebel "States" was, to say the very least, one of the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 119

grossest exaggerations to be found in the wording of the
statutes of Congress. It was simply a play on words
whereby to justify a dubious procedure. It was at the
very best, a confounding of the supposed sentiments of
the population of these regions with actual political
status. Second, the preamble declared that no legal
" State " governments or adequate protection for life or
property existed in these "rebel States." As a legal
proposition the first part of this declaration was true,
and as a matter of fact the second part was substan-
tially true. It would have been an unprecedented thing
if anything like an adequate protection of life and prop-
erty had been re-established, in the short period of two
years, in communities which had been disturbed, de-
moralized and destroyed by four years of civil war,
especially when the outcome of the conflict was total
defeat and the utter destruction of the basis of the old
social, political, and economic systems. It was, how-
ever, a serious question whether such a situation re-
quired drastic measures rather than mild and soothing
measures.

The Eepublican Congress decided, after much deliber-
ation, that the former were necessary to the maintenance
of peace and good order, and, therefore, enacted that the
" said rebel States " should be divided into five military
districts, as previously described in the original bill ; that
the President should assign to the command of each of
these an army officer of not lower rank than brigadier-
general, and place under his command a sufficient force to
enable him to perform his duties and execute his author-
ity in his district ; that these commanders should have
the power to govern these districts by martial law in so far
as, in their judgment, the reign of order and the preserva-
tion of the public peace might demand, under the limita-
tions simply that " all persons put under military arrest

120 KECONSTKUCTION

by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary
delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be
inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or
tribunal hereby authorized affecting the life or liberty
of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by
the officer in command of the district — and no sentence
of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried
into effect without the approval of the President."

Then came the provision which offered the terms of
escape from this new military regime. They were, first,
the exercise of universal manhood suffrage, that is the
suffrage of all male citizens, twenty-one years of age,
without regard to race, color or previous condition of
servitude, who were not disfranchised for participation
in rebellion or for felony at common law, and who had
resided for one year in the so-called " rebel State,"
in the election of delegates to a constitutional con-
vention in the so-called " rebel State " ; second, the
framing of a " State " constitution by a convention com-
posed of delegates so elected, and not disqualified by
participation in rebellion or by the commission of fel-
ony, which constitution should conform in all respects
to the Constitution of the United States and which
should contain, as a permanent principle, the same law
of suffrage as that prescribed by this Act for the elec-
tion of the delegates to the convention ; third, the rati-
fication of this constitution by a majority of the voters,
as designated by the law of suffrage for the choice
of delegates to the convention, voting upon the ques-
tion of ratification ; fourth, the approval by Congress
of this constitution ; and fifth, and last, the adop-
tion of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States by the legislature
created by such adopted and approved " State " con-
stitution, and by a sufficient number of the legislatures

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 121

of other " States " to make it a part of the Constitution
of the United States.

The measure contained, in the last place, a sort of
saving clause in regard to the existing civil governments
which had been established in all these communities
under the direction of the President, and which were
now to be displaced. It had been already provided,
in section third, that the military commander of a dis-
trict might use the existing civil courts, if he saw fit to
do so, so long as the reign of law and order might be so
preserved, and the final section provided that any civil
government which might exist in these districts should
be regarded as provisional, and should be in all respects
subject to the paramount authority of the United States,
which should control, and might abolish, modify, or
supersede the same, and that the voters for the election
of the officers of such provisional governments should
be required to have only the qualifications prescribed in
this Act for voters for the delegates to the said " State"
convention, and persons elected to place and office in
such provisional governments must not have the dis-
qualifications prescribed in the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It had evidently occurred to the Republican leaders that
they might have to make use of some of the machinery
of the existing civil governments established under the
direction of the President in these regions in executing
their own plan of Reconstruction.

All of the points of the measure have been comment-
ed on, except the provision in the fifth section, which
makes the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States by a
number of " States " sufficient to ratify it a condition
precedent to the admission of any one of these so-called
" rebel States " to representation in Congress. The

122 RECONSTRUCTION

adoption of the proposed amendment by the particular
"rebel State" seeking representation was not sufficient.

The condi- It must be ratified by at least three-fourths
proposed of all the "States." No matter how speed-
Amendment ily and sincerely the legislature of Virginia
sumcfent might ratify the proposed Amendment, and
-states"1 to fulfil all the other conditions required by the
oTthVcon'ti1 ^-c^ Virginia must remain under military
tution. despotism until a very large number of the

Northern " State " legislatures had pleased to ratify
the proposed Amendment. This was certainly a pretty
hard condition, and it was not a very fair way of forcing
the legislatures of the Northern States to adopt the
proposed Amendment. It was, however, an efficient
weapon, and Congress had the legal power to use it. It
was unconscionable, though it was one of the things
about this measure which was constitutional.

Hand in hand with this bill went another measure,
the purpose of which was to limit the customary pow-

The Tenure- er °f the President, if not his constitutional
of-office bill. p0wer? over the civil official system, the so-
called Tenure-of-Office bill. On the first day of the
session, December 3d, 1866, Mr. Williams of Oregon in-
troduced this bill in the Senate, while at the same mo-
ment a bill was introduced and passed in the House re-
pealing that section of the Confiscation Act of July
17th, 1862, which authorized the President to extend
pardon and amnesty by proclamation to persons partici-
pating in the rebellion. The Senate passed the latter bill
or resolution on the 8th of January, 1867, and the Presi-
dent, not considering that the Congress could either give
or take away his power to pardon secured to him by the
Constitution, simply pocketed the resolution, and it be-
came a law on and from the 21st of January, having
been presented to the President on the 9th.

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OP RECONSTRUCTION 123

The propositions contained in the Tennre-of-Office bill
were, however, of a very different significance. There
was no clause in the Constitution which by express literal
grant vested the power to dismiss from office in the Presi-
dent, but the clause which made the President solely re-
sponsible for the execution of the laws was interpreted
by the first Congress as doing so. Madison took the
ground that the President must have this power in order
to secure the necessary obedience in his subordinates,
and declared that the convention which framed the
Constitution so understood it and so intended it. This
is certainly sound political science and correct constitu-
tional interpretation. It had also been the practice of
the Government from the beginning. The Whigs had
undertaken to reverse it in their contest with Jackson,
and Webster had given his opinion that good political
science required that dismissal from office should be
treated as an incident of appointment, and should be
effected in the same manner as appointment, i.e., with
the concurrence of the Senate, and that the decision of
1789 on this subject was, in his opinion, erroneous
from the point of view of a proper interpretation of the
Constitution as well. But the Whigs did not succeed,
as we have seen, in their attempt to break down Presi-
dential prerogative and introduce parliamentary govern-
ment, and the practice of the Government on this sub-
ject remained, after, as before, the fourth decade of the
century, the same.

During the experiences of the years 1865 and 1866
the Eepublicans feared that the President would use
this great power of dismissal from office The reasons
in order to make the entire official system u°er-ofeoffice
solid with himself on the subject of Eecon- bin-
struction, and toward the end of 1866 they sus-
pected and asserted that he was dismissing officers

124 KECONSTKUCTION"

from their positions simply on the ground of a dif-
ference of opinion with himself on this subject, and
they professed to believe that he would make a clean
sweep of all such as soon as Congress should adjourn.
There is little doubt that excessive partisan feeling
made them exaggerate greatly what the President had
done and what he intended to do. The President was
guided by Mr. Seward in all public matters except his
imprudent speeches, and Seward's conservative and dip-
lomatic disposition and methods were all against any
such radical and reckless procedure. Besides, it was the
constitutional right of the President to require obedi-
ence in their official acts from his subordinates, and to
dismiss them when in his opinion their views of policy
interfered with the discharge of their official duties as
he required them to be discharged. The Thirty-ninth
Congress, however, resolved to disregard the precedents
set by all of its predecessors and to dispute the Presi-
dent's prerogative of control over the tenure of his
subordinates.

The bill drafted for this purpose made the removal

of all officers, appointed by and with the consent of the

Senate, except only members of the President's Cabinet,

subject to the consent of the Senate. This consent

„ . might be given in the form of a ratification of

The c on- ° °

tents of the the nomination of a successor to any officer.

bill. .

It allowed the President, during a recess
of the Senate, the power of suspension for misconduct
in office, crime, legal disqualification or incapacity, and
of making appointment of a suitable person to discharge
temporarily the duties of such suspended officer, but it
required of the President a report of all such suspen-
sions to the Senate within the first twenty days of the
next meeting of the Senate, with the reasons therefor,
and reinstated the suspended officer in case the Senate

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OP RECONSTRUCTION 125

should not concur in the suspension. If the Senate
should concur, the President must remove the officer,
and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
another person in his place.

From the point of view of the present this would
seem, in all conscience, to have been a sufficient usur-
pation of the President's constitutional pow- Discussion
ers to have satisfied the most radical and ofthebl11-
reckless interpretation of the organic law. But the
bill had hardly come under discussion when Senator
Howe moved to strike out the clause excepting the
Cabinet officers from its operation, and although the
Senate refused to pass this amendment, the House of
Bepresentatives did so when the bill came before it.
The Senate, however, refused to concur on the ground,
of course, that the intimate and confidential relations
which should exist between the President and the mem-
bers of his Cabinet made it necessary that the President
should have only the men of his own choice in these
positions. The strenuous insistence of the House, how-
ever, forced the Senate to a compromise upon the sub-
ject, and the bill was finally made to provide that the
members of the Cabinet should " hold their offices, re-
spectively, for and during the term of the President by
whom they have been appointed, and for one month
thereafter, subject to removal by and with the consent
of the Senate." That is, that a Cabinet officer might
hold his position against the will of the President who
appointed him during the entire term of the President
and for one month of the term of his successor unless
the Senate should agree to such officer's removal either
directly or by ratification of the nomination of a suc-
cessor.

The bill as finally enacted contained, moreover, the
most stringent provisions for its enforcement. It made

126 RECONSTRUCTION

the acceptance or exercise of any office or the attempt to

exercise any office contrary to the Act a high misde-

The provi- nieanor, punishable by a maximum fine of ten

sions for en- thousand dollars or a maximum imprison-
to r c 1 n g the *
measure. ment of five years, or both in the discretion of

the court ; and it made the removal, appointment, or em-
ployment of any officer contrary to the provisions of the
Act, or the preparation, signing, sealing, countersign-
ing or issuing of any commission of office or letter of
authority in respect to any such appointment or em-
ployment high misdemeanors, punishable with the same
extreme penalties. Lastly, it forbade the officers of the
Treasury and all officers of the United States to pay
any money, salary or compensation to any person claim-
ing to hold any office or employment contrary to the
provisions of this Act, and made the violation of this
order a high misdemeanor, punishable with the same
extreme penalties as in the other cases.

This monstrous measure went to the President on
the same day with the Reconstruction bill, the 20th
of February. It is not to be wondered at that he felt
that the Republican chiefs were offering him intentional
personal insult, as well as that the legislative depart-
ment of the Government was attempting an unwar-
„ . ranted encroachment upon the constitutional

The Presi-

dent's vetoes prerogatives of the Executive. It is rather to
be wondered at that, in his message to Con-
gress on these subjects, he succeeded so well in ignoring
the personal affronts intended by Congress, and in con-
fining himself so closely to a discussion of the public
questions and considerations involved in the measures.

The vetoes of these bills were sent to Congress on the
same day, March 2d. To the publicist and historian
of this day they are masterpieces of political logic, con-
stitutional interpretation, and official style. If not

<zvk £^cj d 4

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 127

written by Mr. Seward, they must have been edited and
revised by him. These documents showed most con-
vincingly, both from constitutional provisions, opin-
ions of contemporaries, statutes of Congress, judicial
decisions, and the uniform practices of the Govern-
ment, that Congress had no power to establish or re-
establish martial law anywhere in the country, except
when and where war or armed rebellion existed as a
fact, a condition which did not then exist anywhere in
the length and breadth of the land ; and that Congress
had no power to force the President to retain agents
and subordinates in office against his judgment and will.
No good political scientist and no sound constitutional
lawyer will, at this day, disagree with the contention
of the President upon these two points, and it is very
difficult to understand how the great leaders of the Re-
publican party could, at that day, have differed with
him.

Undoubtedly, in some of the baser minds among them,
the determination to create Republican party " States "
in the South was a very weighty consideration, but just
as undoubtedly the consideration with the majority of
them was the conviction that the work of the four
years of war might have to be done all over again unless
a new political people, a new body of suffrage holders,
should be created at the South, whose members had
never been disloyal. But even from this point of
view again, it is difficult to understand how they could
have failed to see that the Constitution required that
this should be done through the forms of Republican
Territorial civil government, instead of ^construo?
through the forms of martial law. Put the tion-
best light upon their conduct that is possible, there
is still left the conviction that the fanaticism of extreme
partisanship had an undue influence over them all.

128 RECONSTRUCTION

The contest with the President had blinded their per-
ceptions as to the morality, legality and propriety of the
means they were willing to employ in securing the vic-
tory over him.

As this contest developed it dwarfed, to say the
least, all other considerations. Even as late as when
the Reconstruction bill was passed, the majority of the
Republicans refused to vote to take the President's
military prerogatives from him. In less than a fort-
night from this time, however, they voted, in a sec-
congres- tion of the Army Appropriation bill, "that
croachment the head-quarters of the General of the army
dLt'smnftlry of the United States shall be at the city of
prerogatives. Washington, and all orders and instructions
relating to military operations issued by the President
or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General
of the army, and, in case of his inability, through the
next in rank. The General of the army shall not be
removed, suspended, or relieved from command, or as-
signed to duty elsewhere than at said head-quarters, ex-
cept at his own request, without the previous approval of
the Senate ; and any orders or instructions relating to
military operations issued contrary to the requirements
of this section shall be null and void ; and any officer
who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the
provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor in office ; and any officer of the army who
shall transmit, convey, or obey any orders or instruc-
tions so issued contrary to the provisions of this sec-
tion, knowing that such orders were so issued, shall
be liable to imprisonment for not less than two nor more
than twenty years, upon conviction in any court of
competent jurisdiction."

To the mind of any unprejudiced constitutional law-
yer, at the present day, this act must appear as a gross

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 129

usurpation by Congress of the President's military
powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. The
Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-
Chief of the army and navy, and gives Congress no
power whatsoever over the methods or channels by, and
through, which he may issue his military commands.
Neither does the Constitution give Congress any jiower
to assign any of the officers or troops of the army to any
particular position. These are all functions of the com-
mandership-in-chief, and, unless expressly granted by
the Constitution to some other department of the Gov-
ernment, belong to the President.

It was not only a usurpation by Congress to pass such
an act, but it was a mean thing to do it as a section of
an appropriation bill ; and there is no escaping the sus-
picion that it had a sinister purpose, namely, to entrap
the President in the commission of what Congress had
made a high misdemeanor, and open the way for his
impeachment and expulsion from office. The Presi-
dent signed this bill, however, in order to save the ap-
propriations for the support of the army, although he
protested strongly against the seizure of his constitu-
tional powers by the Congress.

On the same day that the vetoes of the Reconstruc-
tion bill and the Tenure-of-Office bill were sent to Con-
gress, this body passed a bill supplementary The BUpple.
to the first measure. It was in the nature Sm^mitfon
of an administrative measure for the purpose bm-
of carrying out the new plan of Reconstruction. It or-
dered the commanding generals of the respective dis-
tricts to cause a registration to be made before Septem-
ber 1st next following of all male citizens of the United
States, twenty-one years of age and over, resident in
each county or parish in the "State "or " States " in-
cluded in their respective districts, who were qualified as

130 RECONSTRUCTION

prescribed by the Keconstruction Act to vote for dele-
gates to a constitutional convention, and who had taken
an oath asserting citizenship and residence, and free-
dom from disfranchisement on account of participa-
tion in rebellion or the commission of felony, and had
sworn that they had never engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or given aid and
comfort to the enemies of the United States after hav-
ing been members of Congress or of a " State " legis-
lature, or officers of the United States or of a " State "
of the Union, and that they would henceforth faith-
fully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
United States and encourage others to do so.

It next made it the duty of the commanding gener-
als to order elections, at such times after the completion
of the registrations and at such places as they might
choose, for delegates to constitutional conventions in the
" States " comprised in their respective districts. It
required them to give thirty days' notice of the elec-
tions, and it fixed the number of delegates to each con-
vention at the number of members in the lower House
of the legislature of the "State" concerned in the
year 1860, except in the case of Virginia, where, on ac-
count of the separation of West Virginia from the old
Commonwealth, the number of deputies to the Virginia
convention was made to correspond with the number
of members in the lower House of the legislature of
1860, representing the territory not included in West
Virginia. The bill further directed the commanding
generals to distribute the representation in the con-
ventions among the districts, counties and parishes of
the ' ' States " in accordance with the number of regis-
tered voters in each.

The bill then provided that at the elections for del-
egates, the voters should vote on the question as to

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 131

whether there should be a constitutional convention
or not, and that such convention should be held only
when a majority of the inscribed electors voted upon
this question, and a majority of those voting voted in
the affirmative. It then ordered the commanding gen-
erals, in case the voters did so decide for conventions
and elect delegates thereto, to call such within sixty
days from the date of the elections, and to notify the
delegates to assemble at a given time and place, and
frame constitutions according to the provisions of the
bill and of the former Act to which it was supplemen-
tary, and, when framed, to submit the same to the
registered voters for ratification with a notice of thirty
days.

The bill then further provided, that if, at such elec-
tions, a majority of the registered voters voted upon
the question of ratification, and a majority of those
voting voted in favor of ratification, the presidents
of the respective conventions should transmit copies of
the respective constitutions to the President of the
United States, who should transmit them to Congress,
and that Congress should declare the respective " States,"
whose conventions had framed these constitutions and
whose voters had adopted them, entitled to represen-
tation in Congress, provided Congress was satisfied that
there had been perfectly free elections, and that no
force, fraud or intimidation had been perpetrated at
them, and that the constitutions presented met the
approval of a majority of the qualified electors and were
in conformity with the requirements of the Reconstruc-
tion Act.

Finally, the bill put into the hands of the command-
ing generals the appointment of the officers of the
elections, and the control of the machinery of the elec-
tions, only requiring them to hold the elections by bal-

132 RECONSTRUCTION

lot, and to proclaim the results of the elections in ac-
cordance with the returns made to them by their boards
of registration.

Congress had passed a resolution ordering the assem-
bly of the Fortieth Congress so soon as the Thirty-ninth

congress in expired, and in accordance therewith the
permanence. new]v elected Congress opened its session on.
the 4th of March, 1867, instead of on the first Monday
of the following December. The Congress was, there-
fore, in position to deal at once with a veto of the sup-
plemental bill to the Keconstruction Act, in case one
should be sent in.

On the 23d of March the veto appeared. The Presi-
dent argued that the oath required by the bill from

The veto of every person before his name could be ad-
mentaiKecon- fitted to registration, viz., "that he had
etruction bill. no^ Deen disfranchised for participation in
any rebellion or civil war against the United States/'
was so entirely uncertain in its meaning that it would
prove a most terrible means of oppression in the hands
of the military officers and their appointed agents, and
declared he could never approve of an election law
whose plain and manifest purpose was to disfranchise
the great body of respectable white people, and create a
new electorate on the basis of universal negro suffrage.
He contended that the existing constitutions of the ten
"States" to be re-reconstrncted conformed to the long-
established standards of loyalty and Kepublicanism,
and that the new test of these qualities now set up by
Congress, viz., universal negro suffrage, was a gross ex-
aggeration, and would make many of the Northern
" States " themselves unrepublican. The President did
not expressly say that this bill was unconstitutional,
but he quite distinctly implied it. In this, however, he
was wrong, unless his doctrine that the rebellious com-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 133

mimities remained "States" of the Union throughout
the rebellion, or had been reconstructed by his plan, was
true, that is, unless these communities were " States "
of the Union at the time Congress passed this bill.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the cor-
rect legal principle in regard to this subject, the principle
which holds that the result of general rebellion within a
' ' State " against the Constitution and laws of criticism of
the United States is the loss of the " State " thevet0'
form of local government, and brings the territory and
population of the former ts State " under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the central Government, Congress cer-
tainly had, and has, the power to create the electorate in
such territory at its own discretion, Congress was re-
ferred, and is referred, in such a case, only to its own
sense of right and policy.

But there is no question, now, that Congress did a
monstrous thing, and committed a great political error,
if not a sin, in the creation of this new „ ... . ,

' Criticism of

electorate. It was a great wrong to civiliza- the Re con -

struction Acts.

tion to put the white race of the South
under the domination of the negro race. The claim
that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the
point of view of political ethics is a great sophism.
A black skin means membership in a race of men
which has never of itself succeeded in subjecting pas-
sion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civ-
ilization of any kind. To put such a race of men in
possession of a "State" government in a system of
federal government is to trust them with the develop-
ment of political and legal civilization upon the most
important subjects of human life, and to do this in
communities with a large white population is simply to
establish barbarism in power over civilization. The
supposed disloyalty, or even the actual disloyalty, of

134 RECONSTRUCTION

the white population will not justify this. It will jus-
tify the indefinite withholding of the " State " form
of local government. It will justify the throwing of a
" State" of the Union back under the form of a Terri-
tory of the Union. It will even justify the establishment
of martial law. But it is not to be cured, nor is the
welfare of the whole land, or any part of it, to be pro-
moted, by the subjection of the white race to the black
race in politics and government. It was a great wrong
to the negroes themselves. It made the white men
among whom they must live their most bitter enemies,
when they most needed them for friends, and it made
the negroes trifling and corrupt politicians, when they
should have been devoting themselves exclusively to the
acquirement of property and education. It was argued,
as will be well remembered, that they could not acquire
property and education without the ballot. But this
is another sophism. The mainstay of property is the
courts ; and under a Territorial form of local gov-
ernment Congress could have established a system of
free schools. It was not at all necessary to have re-
course to negro suffrage and negro " State" govern-
ments in order to secure the negroes in their personal
liberty, and the possession of property, and to aid them
in the acquirement of education.

There was another alternative, and a better one. In
fact, there were two other conceivable ways of doing these
things, either of which would have been better than the
one chosen. The one was, as has been already suggested,
to establish Territorial civil governments in the late re-
bellious region and maintain them there until the civil
relations between the two races became settled and fixed.
The other was to so amend the Constitution of the
United States, before the readmission of the "States"
which had renounced the " State " form of local govern-

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 135

ment under the Union, as to give Congress and the
national judiciary the power to define and defend the
fundamental principles of civil liberty. Neither of
these methods would have demanded martial law or
universal negro suffrage. It is entirely surprising, from
the point of view of to-day, that one or the other of
these methods or a combination of both was not resorted
to, instead of the monstrous plan that was carried out.
There is no way to explain this sufficiently, except
upon, the reflection that the passions of the men of
that day had become so inflamed and so completely
dominating that they obscured reason, drowned the
voice of prudence, and even dulled the sense of decency.
There were a few who favored universal negro suffrage
from an exalted and exaggerated humanitarianism, but
the mass of the Republicans sustained it as a punish-
ment to the late rebellious whites, and as a means
of establishing Republican party " State" govern-
ments in the South. Many claimed, indeed, that it
was the only alternative to long-continued martial law
rule, but they were either very ignorant or very in-
sincere.

In prompt obedience to the requirements of the two
Reconstruction Acts, the President issued his general
order through the Adjutant-General's office, on March
11th, assigning General Schofield to the command of the
first military district, as created by these Acts, with his
head-quarters at Richmond, Virginia ; General Sickles to
that of the second, with his head-quarters at The assign-
Columbia, South Carolina ; General Thomas rommandinj
to that of the third, with his head-quarters fXary diS
at Montgomery, Alabama ; General Ord to biCtheCrEeacoend
that of the fourth, with his head-quarters structkmActs.
at Vicksburg, Mississippi ; and General Sheridan to
that of the fifth, with his head-quarters at New Or-

136 RECONSTRUCTION

leans, Louisiana. On the 15th this order was so modi-
fied as to change the assignment of General Thomas
from the command of the third district to that of the
Department of the Cumberland, and to substitute
General Pope for him in the command of the third
district.

These officers betook themselves at once, with the
forces attached to their several commands, to their re-
There estab- spective stations, and assumed the govern-
martianawta men^ °^ their respective districts by martial
the south. ]aw# N0 opposition whatever was made to
any of them by the populations thus made subject to
their despotic rule.

Very soon, however, the generals found great diffi-
culty in interpreting the Keconstruction Acts, espe-
. cially in respect to the oath required for en-
dent's in- franchisement, both as to the persons who
the generals in might take it and as to its consequences, and

interpretation . , . ,-■ „ ,, , ,

of the Recon- m respect to the powers 01 the boards ap-
structionActs. pointed to sUperintend the elections. They

applied to the President for information upon these
points. The President submitted their application to
his Attorney-General and to his Cabinet, and with the
full concurrence of all the members thereof, except
only Mr. Stanton, issued through the Adjutant-Gener-
al's office in the War Department, on the 20th of June,
the following instructions :

First : That the oath prescribed in the second Act de-
fined all the qualifications required for suffrage, and that
any person who could take that oath should have his
name entered on the list of voters ; that the boards of
registration provided in that Act could not require any
other, or any additional, oath from the person applying
for registration, nor " administer an oath to any other
person touching the qualification of the applicant or

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 137

the falsity of the oath taken by him," but that the per-
son taking the oath must be registered as a voter, and
if it could be afterward proved that he had sworn false-
ly, he could be punished for perjury.

Second : That an unnaturalized alien could not take
the oath, but a naturalized alien could, and that no
other proof of naturalization could be required of him.

Third : That " actual participation in rebellion or
the actual commission of a felony " did not amount to
disfranchisement, but there must be a law made by
competent authority declaring disfranchisement, or a
judicial sentence inflicting it, and that no law of the
United States had declared the penalty of disfranchise-
ment for participating in rebellion alone.

Fourth : That a person who had engaged in rebellion,
but had not theretofore held an office under a " State" or
the United States, or not been a member of a " State "
legislature or of Congress, and not taken, as such, an
oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
was not disfranchised or disqualified from voting.

Fifth : That persons who were militia officers in any
" State " prior to the rebellion were not disfranchised by
participating in the rebellion.

Sixth : That " an act to fix upon the person the of-
fence of engaging in rebellion under this law must be
an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aid-
ing or furthering the common unlawful purpose," and
that "a person forced into the rebel service by con-
scription or under a paramount authority which he
could not safely disobey, and who would not have en-
tered such service if left to the free exercise of his
own will," was not disfranchised or disqualified from
voting.

And lastly : That disloyal sentiments, opinions or
sympathies, or anything said or written which fell short

138 RECONSTRUCTION

of an incitement to others to engage in rebellion, did
not disfranchise or disqualify from voting.

Some other instructions were given which were con-
curred in by the entire Cabinet, Mr. Stanton included,
but the recital of them is not essential to this narra-
tive. It must be added, however, that the President's
view of the relation of the military commanders to the
" State " governments created under his direction and
with his aid was one which gave these governments a
more independent and permanent character than the
language of the Reconstruction Acts seemed to warrant.

When, then, the instructions of June 20th to the gen-
_, _ erals became known, another bill was intro-

The Con- , '

gresaionai in- duced into Congress and passed which put

terpretation of _ . ° . . ,• ,-,

the Recon- the Congressional interpretation upon the

structiou Acts. t-> i i • a ,

Reconstruction Acts.
It declared that the true intent and meaning of these
Acts was that the civil governments then existing in the
" rebel States " of Virginia, North Carolina, etc., were not
legal "State governments," and that, if thereafter they
should be allowed to continue to exist at all, they must
be subject in all respects to the will of the military com-
manders of the respective districts, and to the para-
mount authority of Congress ; and it provided that the
generals in command of the respective districts might
suspend or remove any person from any office under
these illegal and pretended governments, and detail or
appoint some other person to discharge the duties and
exercise the powers said to pertain to such office. The
acts of the district commanders in regard to these
things were made subject to the disapproval of the
General of the army, but not to that of the President,
and stood until so disapproved. The same powers in
regard to these matters were vested, by this bill, in the
General of the army as in the district commanders,

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 139

but were not accorded by it to the President ; and it
was made the duty of the General of the army and the
district commanders to remove from such pretended
offices "all persons who were disloyal to the United
States, or who used their official influence in any man-
ner to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and
proper administration of the Reconstruction Acts/'

The bill, furthermore, provided that the boards of
registration should have the power, and that it should
be their duty, to ascertain the fact as to whether a per-
son applying for registration as a voter was entitled to
registration under the Reconstruction Acts, and to re-
fuse registration, if in their judgment he was not, and
that the fact that he was willing to take the oath pre-
scribed in the Reconstruction Acts, or had taken it, was
not conclusive upon the registration boards in making
their inquiries a:id forming their decisions. And it,
finally, declared that the true intent and meaning of
the oath prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts for per-
sons who had held office under a " State " government
or membership in a "State" legislature, before the
rebellion, was that whether such persons were holding
such positions at the time of the commencement of the
rebellion or at some time prior to the same, and whether
they had taken an oath to support the Constitution of
the United States or not, they were disqualified from
registration and were disfranchised, if, after holding
such positions, they had " engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or given aid or com-
fort to the enemies thereof " ; and it gave to the com-
manders of the districts the power to extend, in their
discretion, the time for completing the original regis-
tration of the voters, as provided for in the Reconstruc-
tion Acts, to October 1st following, and to the boards
of registration the power, and imposed upon them the

140 EECONSTKUCTION

duty, to revise, during the first five of the last fourteen
days before any election under the Reconstruction Acts,
the registration lists and to strike off any name from
said lists which, in their judgment, ought not to be
there, and to add any name, which, in their judgment,
ought to be there, and required them to disregard any
Executive pardon or amnesty as relieving the disability
of any person for registration, if such person had com-
mitted any act which without such pardon or amnesty
would disqualify him.

This bill, it will be readily seen, was a wholesale re-
pudiation of all the instructions given by the President
to the generals in command of the districts from
which, in the Cabinet council, Mr. Stanton had dis-
sented. The President immediately realized this, of
course, and it increased his distrust of Stanton im-
mensely. From that moment forward he regarded him
as the spy of Congress upon all his official acts, and he
was resolved to remove him upon the first opportunity,
that is, so soon as Congress should adjourn.

The bill passed the Houses on the 13th of July, was
presented to the President for his signature on the 14th,
and on the 19th he returned it with a veto message to
the House of Representatives. The President contended
in his argument that this new measure was not simply
an interpretation of the existing Reconstruction Acts,
but was in many respects a large advance upon them.
The existing Acts, he contended, made the reconstructed
The Presi- " State " governments at the South subject
ttie^bmlnter- to absolute military authority in many im-
ReconB^fuc- P0I"tant respects, but not in all respects,
tionActs. while the new measure proposed to ex-
tend the despotism of the military commanders over
everything. Against such a measure, in time of peace,
he protested as being in violation of every guaranty of

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 141

individual liberty contained in the Constitution. He
dwelt upon the unfitness of military officers to discharge
the duties and exercise the powers pertaining naturally
to civil office, and he pointed out the inconsistency, as he
thought, of the declaration of Congress that the ten
" State " governments at the South Avere illegal with the
attempt of Congress to carry on these illegal "State"
governments by " Federal agency," when Congress had
no power to carry on a legal " State " government through
" Federal agency " ; and he stopped, as he thought, the
way of escape from this argument by pointing out that
the entire legislation of Congress down to the passage of
the Reconstruction Acts distinctly involved the recogni-
tion of the ten communities now to be put under ab
solute military rule in all respects as "States" of the
Union.

But the most vigorous and unanswerable part of the
message was the protest against the robbery of the consti-
tutional powers of the Executive by the attempt of Con-
gress, in this measure, to confer some of those powers
upon other persons. The President expressed himself so
warmly upon this point, that the Republicans began to
whisper around their suspicions of sinister purposes on
his part, just as if such a declaration to Congress itself
was not proof to the contrary. He said : " Whilst I hold
the chief executive authority of the United States, whilst
the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws are
faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that
trust or the powers given for its execution. I can never
give my assent to be made responsible for the faithful
execution of laws, and at the same time surrender that
trust and the powers which accompany it to any other
executive officer, high or low, or to any number of ex-
ecutive officers. If this executive trust, vested by the
Constitution in the President, is to be taken from him

142 RECONSTRUCTION

and vested in a subordinate officer, the responsibility will
be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with un-
constitutional power and with the officer who assumes
its exercise."

The radical Eepublicans interpreted this language, at

once, as meaning that the President proposed to so in-

„ terfere with the execution of the Eecon-

Ideas and .

suspicions) struction Acts as to avoid their intent and
meaning of destroy their effect. And the talk about

e message. impeac|iment was again revived. The Pres-
ident, however, meant nothing of the kind, and but for
exaggerated suspicion and party hatred the language
of the message would have been held to mean only an
appeal to Congress to desist from its unlawful attempt
to rob the Executive of his constitutional powers, and to
the people to elect men to Congress who would obey the
principles of the Constitution in their legislative acts.

The Houses passed the bill over the President's veto
immediately, by an overwhelming majority, and almost

The veto iQ a spirit of derision. The next day, July
overridden. 30th, Congress adjourned to the 21st of the
following November.

The unfortunate relations of Mr. Stanton with the
President, and with the other members of the Cabinet
were the thing which was destined to produce the catas-
trophe. He had become unbearable to the President,
and to the most of his colleagues. He ought in all de-
cency to have resigned his portfolio as Speed and Har-
lan and Dennison had done the year before. The Pres-

The suspen- ident asked him to resign in a note of the 5th
ton11 fronfof- of August. Stanton, feeling sure of the sup-
fice. p0r^ 0f the large majority in Congress, con-

temptuously refused. The President could now in the
recess of Congress suspend him without violating the
provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or raising the

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION 143

question of its constitutionality. The President at last
resolved to take the matter into his own hands and rid
himself of Stanton's presence in his confidential coun-
sels. On the 12th of August he sent an executive order
to Stanton suspending him from the office of Secretary
of War, and another to General Grant authorizing and
empowering him to act as Secretary of War ad interim.
Stanton yielded to this order under protest. He wrote
the President that he could not legally suspend him
from office and declared that he submitted only to su-
perior physical force. Grant accepted the appointment,
although he had, four days before, advised the President
against disturbing Stanton. Grant entered upon the
duties of the office at once, and Stanton went off to
New England to recuperate health, spirits and courage
for his battle with the President which was bound to
come unless the President should yield and take him
back again, so soon as Congress should assemble.

By a series of orders issued during the same month
(August) General Hancock was substituted for General
Sheridan in the command of the fifth military district
and General Canby for General Sickles in the command
of the second district. Both of the generals thus re-
lieved were great favorites at the North, especially
Sheridan. The President felt that they were too much
imbued with the military spirit to make good adminis-
trators of civil affairs. But the people of the

. r r Ch a nge s

North saw m these changes only the purpose among the
of the President to place his political friends of the military
among the army officers in command of the
military districts, and through them to modify the
intent of the Eeconstruction Acts in the course of their
execution.

CHAPTER VIII

THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS

The Attempt to Prevent the Execution of the Reconstruction Acts
in Mississippi and Georgia — The Case of Mississippi vs. Johnson
— The Case of Georgia vs. Stanton — The Operations of the
Commanders — The Registration — The Number Registered —
The Change in the Electorate in the South — The Elections —
Efforts of the Commanders to Get the Vote Out — The Result of
the Elections — The Character of the Convention Delegates
Chosen — The Work of the Conventions — The Vote upon Ratifi-
cation—Fraudulent Voting and Unlawful Voting — The Recall
of Pope and the Appointment of Meade in His Stead — Rejection
of the Constitution in Alabama — The Statute of Congress
Changing the Proportion of Votes to Registration in the Ratifi-
cation of a Constitution — Criticism of the Statute— Ratification
in Arkansas — Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida and Louisiana — Second Attempt in Georgia
to Obstruct Reconstruction — Rejection of the Constitution in
Mississippi.

Although the Supreme Court of the United States

had said, in the case of Kendall vs. the United States,

_ ..in 1838, that so far as the President's

The (liTcronr

to prevent the power is derived from the Constitution

execution of

the Recon- he is beyond the reach of any other depart-

struction Acts . . . , n . , n -, . ■,

in Mississippi ment, except in the mode prescribed by the
an orgm. Constitution, through the impeaching power,
and had also indicated, in the cases of the Cherokee
Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in 1831, and Luther
vs. Borden, in 1849, that it had no jurisdiction
over political questions, there still prevailed in many
minds the idea that the Court was the ultimate in-

144

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 145

terpreter of the Constitution in all cases of whatever
nature, and that no person was exempted from its juris-
diction on account of official station. Under the influ-
ence of this idea, W. L. Sharkey, the ex-provisional
Governor of Mississippi, appointed by President Johnson
in 1865, undertook to obtain from the Supreme Court
of the United States an injunction restraining the Presi-
dent of the United States from carrying the Reconstruc-
tion Acts of March, 1867, into effect. He was aided in
this attempt by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, and their
client in the case, as set up by them, was the " State of
Mississippi." In a powerful argument, noted for both
clearness and frankness, Mr. Johnson's Attorney-Gen-
eral, Mr. Stanbery, demonstrated that the President
of the United States cannot be made subject to the
jurisdiction of any court, while in office, except only
the Senate of the United States, as the constitutional
court of impeachment. The plea of Mr. Stanbery is
also notable for another thing, viz. : the frank way in
which he notified the Southerners that the President's
opposition to these laws ceased with their successful
passage over his vetoes, and that the President intended
to execute them in spirit and letter, as it was his sworn
duty to do. The Court decided, in 1866, in the case
of Mississippi vs. Johnson, that " a bill praying an
injunction against the execution of an act of

_, " i j i ■ i <• n • i The case of

Congress by the incumbent of the presiden- Mississippi
tial office cannot be received, whether it
describes him as President or as a citizen of a State."

Under the delusion that this decision was based en-
tirely upon the official exemption from jurisdiction of
the person sought to be made defendant, Hon. Charles
J. Jenkins, Governor of Georgia, under the reconstructed
constitution of 1865, undertook, as representing' the
"State of Georgia," to obtain an injunction against Stan-

146 RECONSTRUCTION

ton as Secretary of War, Grant as General of the army
and Pope as commander of the third military district, re-
straining them from putting the Eeconstruction Acts of
March, 1867, into operation. Mr. Stanbery again came
forward, in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Stanton,
with a most able argument against the jurisdiction of
the Court over the question involved, it be-

The case of . , . , , . . . . , . .

Georgia vs. mg, as he contended, a political question
pure and simple, and the Court again sus-
tained him, deciding that it possessed no jurisdiction
over the subject-matter presented in the bill for relief.

The generals now had free hand to go ahead accord-
ing, pretty much, to their own discretion. The law
gave them, first until September, and then
tions ofThe until October, to complete the registration,
comman ers. an(j ^ney themselves appointed and extended
the times of registration at will. They constituted the
boards of registry chiefly of army officers, Freedmen's
Bureau officers, discharged Union soldiers, and negroes.
Where white residents could be found who could take
the iron-clad oath, the oath prescribed by Congress
July 2d, 1862, they were also used in constituting these
boards. The registration was quite successful in bring-
ing out most of those qualified to register. The reason
for this was not ready acquiescence on the part of the
whites in the Eeconstruction Acts, but it was the calcu-
The regis- lation that by registering and not voting on
tration. ^he qUestion of holding a convention, or on

the question of constitutional ratification, one or both
of these propositions might be defeated, since the act of
March 23d provided, as we have seen, that a majority of
the registered voters must vote in order to carry them
in the affirmative.

In Alabama the registration reached the number of
165,813, of whom 104,518 were negroes or colored. In

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 147

Arkansas it reached the number of 66,831, of whom
less than half were known to be colored, although no
exact account of the proportion was re-

A L The num-

ported. In Florida it reached the number bers regis-
of 28,003, of whom 16,089 were colored. In tered'
Georgia it reached the number of 191,501, of whom
95,168 were colored. In Louisiana it reached the num-
ber of 129,654, of whom 84,436 were colored. In Mis-
sissippi it reached the number of 139,690, of whom, it
was well known, a large majority were colored, although
no exact figures giving the proportions were reported.
In North Carolina it reached the number of 179,653,
of whom 72,932 were colored. In South Carolina it
reached the number of 127,432, of whom 80,550 were
colored. In Texas it reached the number of 109,130, of
whom 49,497 were colored. In Virginia it reached the
number of 225,933, of whom 105,832 were colored.

It will thus be seen that of the ten " States " to be
reconstructed five were to be recreated through an elec-
torate in which the majority would be negroes and
mulattoes, about all of whom had been, three years be-
fore, slaves ; while in the other five the majority of the
constructing electorate would be whites by a compara-
tively small number. This was a tremen- The change
dous bouleversement of the political society rat^in^the
of these sections. A large majority of the South-
old leaders were disfranchised completely and a goodly
number of the old Unionists were deterred by social con-
siderations from taking any part in the work, while
negroes, "poor white trash," "carpet-baggers" and a
few self-denying respectables formed the new electorate
for recreating " State" governments.

There is no doubt that Congress had the constitu-
tional power to do this thing, on the theory, of course,
that these communities were not ' ' States " of the Union ;

148 RECONSTRUCTION

but it was a reckless thing, and a monstrous thing.
Anybody of common sense and common honesty could,
at the time, have foreseen some of the horrible results
which were sure to follow.

So soon as the registration was completed, the com-
manders ordered elections to be held and the vote to

The eiec- De taken, first, upon the question of con-
tione. vention or no convention, and, at the same

time, for the choice of delegates to the conventions.
The commanders did their best to get out the vote.
They met every device for keeping the negroes away
from the polls and foiled it by means of their arbitrary
powers, and they kept the polls open for two and three
days, and in the case of Georgia, for five days. There
is no doubt that there was repeating, although the
military authorities exerted themselves most sincerely
to prevent it. Their purpose was not, in any case,
to permit fraud, but to give every opportunity to the

Efforts of freedmen to vote. Their efforts were aided
er8Ctomg™t7he hJ the fact that the elections in the North-
vote out. ern "States" during the autumn showed, in
most quarters, large Democratic gains, and by the fact
that in one of the great Northern " States," Ohio, the
proposition to enfranchise negroes by an amendment
to the " State " constitution was rejected by a large
popular majority. The effect of these facts was to en-
courage the whites in the South, who had registered
with the intention of defeating the proposed reconstruc-
tion by abstention from voting, to vote with the hope
of securing a majority of the delegates to the proposed
conventions.

The result was that in all the communities to be re-
constructed as " States " a majority of the registered
voters voted on the question of convention or no con-
vention, and a large majority of those voting voted in

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 149

every case for the holding of the convention. The
figures were as follows : In Alabama, of the 165,813
registered voters, 96,866 voted on the question of con-
vention or no convention, and 90,283 voted

TflG rGPult

for holding the convention. In Arkansas, of the eiec-
of the 66,831 registered voters, 41,134 voted
on the question, and 27,576 of these voted in favor of
holding the convention. In Florida, of the 28,003 reg-
istered voters, 14,503 voted on the question, and of these
14,300 voted in favor of holding the convention. In
Georgia, of the 191,501 registered voters, 106,410 voted
on the question, and of these 102,283 voted in favor of
holding the convention. In Louisiana, of the 129,654
registered voters, 79,089 voted on the question, and of
these 75,083 voted in favor of holding the convention.
In Mississippi, of the 139,690 registered voters, 76,016
voted on the question, and of these 69,739 voted in
favor of holding the convention. In North Carolina,
of the 179,653 registered voters, 125,967 voted on the
question of convention or no convention, and of these
93,006 voted for holding the convention. In South
Carolina, of the 127,432 registered voters, 71,046 voted on
the question, and of these 68,768 voted for holding the
convention. In Texas, of the 109,130 registered voters,
56,129 voted on the question, and of these 44,689 voted
for holding the convention. And in Virginia, of the
225,933 registered voters, 169,229 voted on the question,
and of these 107,342 voted for holding the convention.

The great mass of those who registered and refrained
from voting were the whites who were opposed to the
Congressional Acts for Reconstruction, and The charac-
hence the persons voting were chiefly the ventfon^deie-
newly enfranchised. This was likewise true gates chosen-
in the voting for the delegates to the conventions, with
the result that radical men were, for the most part,

150 RECONSTRUCTION

chosen. They were new men to the political society of
the South. There were a few of the old Whigs among
them, who had remained true to the Union in their senti-
ments during the rebellion, but the most of them were
"carpet-baggers/' that is adventurers or new settlers
from the North, " poor white trash " and negroes. In
the South Carolina convention there were 63 negro dele-
gates to 34 white. No such hideous bodies of men had
ever been assembled before upon the soil of the United
States for the purpose of participation in the creation
of a " State " of the Union, and but for the control ex-
ercised over them by the military commanders, and the
co-operation between the commanders and the small
conservative white element in these bodies, the result
of their work would have been the most ghastly
travesty of justice, common-sense, and common honesty
which the republic had ever been called upon to wit-
ness.

During the winter and spring of 1867-68 the work of
these conventions went on under the greatest extrava-
gance and incompetence of every kind. The

The work of b . f . „ -J.

the conven- constitutions which came irom them provid-
ed for complete equality in civil rights and,
in some cases, in advantages of a social character, such
as equal privileges in public conveyances, etc. They
also not only established negro suffrage, as in fact was
required by the Eeconstruction Acts, but they, in most
cases, disfranchised those whites whom the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify from holding
office. In Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana they went
even further than this and disfranchised also, in the
case of the first two, all who " had violated the rules of
civilized warfare/' and in the case of the last, all who had
voted for secession, or had advocated treason against
the United States in the press or the pulpit. It is true

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 151

that in most cases ways were provided for removing
these disabilities, but they were generally connected
with such self-stultifying requirements as to make them
worthless.

The restrictions upon eligibility to hold office or man-
date were in general the same as those imposed on the ex-
ercise of the suffrage, and in some cases they went even
further, as in the cases of the Mississippi and Virginia
instruments, by both of which anybody who had volun-
tarily participated in the rebellion, or had voluntarily
given aid or comfort to those who had, was disqualified.

The next step in the procedure was the submission of
these constitutions to the voters. The registration was
effected in the same manner as for the vote
on the question of holding the conventions, upon ratifica-
and the election of the delegates : and the tlon-
elections were held, as before, under the direction and
control of the military commanders. The voting upon
the question of ratification came off first in Alabama.
General Pope had issued orders that the votes of persons
registered in one precinct might be received in another,
and that " State" officers and legislative members should
be elected at the same election with the vote on ratifica-
tion, and by the same voters. There is no doubt that the
General only desired to secure the freedmen, who were
then moving about restlessly, in their right of suffrage
under the Reconstruction Acts, and to expedite the
process of reconstruction so far as possible. But he
undoubtedly opened the door to fraudulent Fraudulent
voting by offering unrivalled opportunities ^j^ffi aVo£
for repeating, and he also violated the law ins-
and practice under the Constitution of the United States
in regard to the qualified electors of ll State " officers
and legislators. Such officers and legislators could have
been constitutionally elected only by the electors desig-

152 RECONSTRUCTION

nated in the constitution submitted for adoption. The
qualifications of the electors who vote upon the question
of the adoption of the first " State" constitution are
necessarily fixed by Congress, but Congress has no con-
stitutional power to fix the qualifications of the electors
of " State " officers and legislators. Neither has the con-
stitutional convention, which frames the first "State"
constitution any such power, for the constitution which
it frames is only a proposition, and ratification by the
electors designated by Congress is necessary to its valid-
ity. Furthermore, any resolution which it might pass
ordering the election of " State " officers or legislators by
the electors designated by the Congressional statute is
only a proposition to those electors, which must be ac-
cepted by them by a preliminary vote before they can
proceed to the election of such officers and legislators.
The General certainly did not understand these niceties
of constitutional law and practice, and his desire to
hurry up the re-establishment of civil government was
rather laudable than otherwise. The President, how-
ever, who had in his Attorney-General one

The recall

of Pope and of the ablest lawyers of the country, under-
mentof Meade stood well the constitutional limitations upon
the General's powers and duties. He recalled
the reckless commander and sent the more conservative
Meade to take his place, December 28th, 1867.

Before the election came off, however, a bill was in-
troduced into Congress, and passed the House of Repre-
Rejeedonof sentatives, and was making its way, a little
uoenC?n8Aia- more slowly, but surely, through the Senate,
bama. which authorized the election of " State" of-

ficers and legislators in the communities suffering recon-
struction at the same time that the vote should be taken
upon the ratification of the new constitutions and by the
same electors. Congress had not a whit more power to

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 153

do this than the commanders, and the President knew
this well enough, but he gave no instructions to Meade,
and so the commander permitted the voting for " State "
officers and legislators at the same election that the vote
was taken upon the question of the ratification of the con-
stitution and by the same electors. But the registered
voters refrained from voting upon the question of ratifi-
cation in sufficient numbers to reduce the vote to several
thousand less than half the registration. The proposed
constitution was thus rejected under the provision of the
Eeconstruction Acts which required a vote exceeding the
half of the registration, as well as a majority of that
vote, for ratification. The " State " government chosen
at this same election was thus in the air.

The Senate now passed the House bill providing that
the approval of a majority of those voting, no matter
what the proportion of the vote to the regis- The statute
tration might be, should be regarded as a cha^ginf^he
sufficient ratification of the proposed " State " p™p8°£ ;y*
constitutions for the communities suffering ratification 'of
reconstruction ; and although this Act was a constitution,
passed more than a month after the vote on the constitu-
tion was taken in Alabama, and although, furthermore,
General Meade reported that a majority of the registered
voters had not voted on the question of ratification, and
that he interpreted this to mean that a majority of the
registered voters did not want the constitution, yet
Congress, as we shall see later, applied this new law of
March 11th to the Alabama election which had taken
place in the first days of the preceding February.

In the original requirement that the vote to be effec-
tive must exceed half of the registration, Congress
was still upon the ground of correct principle. When
it left this ground it virtually accepted the principle
that republican " State" governments may be legiti-

154 RECONSTRUCTION

mately created by a minority of the lawful voters against
the will of a majority of the lawful voters, and that, too,
criticism of n°t by allowing that minority to demonstrate
this statute. ^s political superiority to the majority by
greater intelligence, or shrewder management, or even
by brute force, but by the aid of poiver coming from
without. -Now this is not, in correct political science,
"State" government in a federal system, autonomous
local government, at all. It is provincial government in
local affairs, more or less complete as the necessity for
the outside aid is more or less continuous. The Eepub-
licans had denounced the Johnson " State " governments
upon the ground, among other grounds, that they were
minority governments, minority governments in the
vague and uncertain sense that not a majority of the
adult males had been enfranchised, and not in the clear
and distinct and unmistakable sense that a minority of
the enfranchised, supported by the military power of
the United States, might impose its will upon a major-
ity of the enfranchised. There was nothing disloyal
in the registered voters of Alabama giving Congress to
understand that a majority of them preferred the con-
tinuance of the military regime, or the creation of a
Territorial government for them by Congress, to the
" State " constitution offered them. But it was utter
self-stultification for Congress to take the ground that
the Johnson " State " governments were unrepublican
because they did not enfranchise all adult males of
whatever race, color, or condition of mind or estate
and overthrow them on that ground, and then proceed
to create new " State " governments in their places
upon the basis of a minority of the already duly quali-
fied and registered voters. No impartial student, at this
day, can view this terrible inconsistency in any other
light than that of a high political crime.

EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS 155

While the Senate was proceeding with the bill,
another of the Southern communities was rapidly ap-
proaching the date fixed for voting upon the Ratification
proposed "State" constitution, viz., Ar- "» Arkansas,
kansas. The bill was passed by Congress the day before
the voting began in Arkansas, but it was not known
in Arkansas that it had been passed until near the close
of the second day of the election. It could, however,
be claimed that it was applicable to the case, and it cer-
tainly made all figures unnecessary except in regard to
the actual voting. The " State" officers and legislators
under the constitution to be adopted were chosen at the
same time, by the Congressional electorate in Arkansas,
and not by the " State " electorate, created by the new
constitution.

In the course of the next two months, April and May,
voting upon the question of ratifying the _ .
new "State" constitutions took place in in North caro-
North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida Carolina,
and Louisiana. As the Congressional Act ida°andLouisi-
of March 11th was in full force at this time,
the result was affirmative in all cases.

During the Reconstruction proceedings in Georgia

Governor Jenkins had refused to issue an order to the

"State" Treasurer to pay a sum of forty Second at_

thousand dollars, on the ground that the tempt in Geor-

n »»!•! /t -i \ gia to obstruct

"State legislature (Johnson government) Reconstruc-

had not made any such appropriation. For
this refusal Meade removed him and the " State " Treas-
urer and Controller General, and appointed military men
in their places. These new officers seized the " State"
buildings, but Jenkins succeeded in getting away with
the money in the treasury. He went to Washington
and undertook to institute a proceeding in the Supreme
Court of the United States against Generals Grant and

156 RECONSTRUCTION

Meade to restrain the officers appointed by Meade from
levying taxes npon the people of Georgia, and from col-
lecting the same and the other income of the " State,"
as well as from exercising other functions. The Court
gave its permission to the filing of the bill, but put off
the hearing of the argument until the next term, and
before this arrived, the new constitution had been rati-
fied, and new " State" officers elected along with the
ratification. In the other communities mentioned no
opposition to the reconstruction process was offered.

On the other hand, the opponents of the proposed
" State " constitution in Mississippi went into a most ear-
Rejection of nest and energetic campaign against its ratifi-
tion inMissie" cation and succeeded, at the election on June
eippi- 22d, in rejecting the same by between seven

and eight thousand majority. Many of the better class
of negroes voted with their old masters, that is with
such of these as were allowed by the Congressional acts
to register and vote, against ratification. Those in favor
of ratification claimed that fraud was practised by
their opponents, in the face of the fact that they had
the elections in their own hands, and they petitioned
the military authorities to put the proposed constitu-
tion, notwithstanding its rejection at the polls, into
operation. This these authorities refused to do.

CHAPTEE IX

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT

Grant in the War Office — The President's Message of December 3d,
1867 — The President's Special Message Concerning the Sus-
pension of Stanton — The Senate Resolution in Regard to the
Suspension of Stanton — Grant's Disobedience toward the
President — The Unbearable Situation in which the President
now Found Himself — The Dismissal of Stanton from Office —
General Thomas Appointed Secretary of War ad interim —
Stanton's Resistance — Thomas and the President — The Attitude
of the Senate toward the Dismissal of Stanton — The Move-
ments in the House of Representatives — The Arrest of General
Thomas — Thomas's Second Attempt to Take Possession of the
War Office — The House Resolution to Impeach the President
— The Withdrawal of Stanton's Complaint against Thomas
— The Fear of the Republicans to Test the Tenure-of-Office
Act before the Courts — The Managers of Impeachment — The
Charges against the President — The President's Answer to the
Complaint — The Withdrawal of Mr. Black from the President's
Counsel — The Contents of the President's Answer — The Repli-
cation of the House to the President's Answer — The Trial —
Conduct of the Managers — The Evidence in the Case — The
Argument — The Law in the Case — Mr. Stanton's Violations of
Law — The Nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary
of War — The Vote upon Impeachment — The Truth of the Mat-
ter— The Abdication of Stanton — Scbofield's Confirmation as
Secretary of War, and His Acceptance of the Office.

During this same period, another act in the drama
of Reconstruction was being played, a fit companion
piece to what was occurring in the unhappy communi-
ties of the South. It was the attempt to dispose of the
President, and the presidency, by the impeachment of
the President.

157

158 RECONSTRUCTION

The history of the President's relations to Mr. Stanton,
his Secretary of War, has already been given down to

Grant in the the suspension of Mr. Stanton in August
war office. of 186^ and the designation of General
Grant to succeed him ad interim. Grant immediately
assumed the duties of the office, and Mr. Stanton then
regarded General Grant as a friend of the President in
the controversy between himself and the President.

In his annual Message to Congress, the Fortieth Con-
gress, of December 3d, 1867, the President said nothing

The Presi- directly in regard to his suspension of Mr.
KeSblr Stanton from office. He put forward a
3d, 1867. strong argument, couched in moderate and

respectful language, against the policy and constitution-
ality of the Eeconstruction Acts, as measures establish-
ing martial law in times of peace, and as doing it for the
purpose of establishing negro rule over the Southern
communities, and he urged the repeal of these Acts,
and the immediate admission of the Kepresentatives and
Senators from these communities, or " States " as he con-
sidered them, to their seats in Congress. What he said
upon these subjects is, for the most part, entirely con-
vincing to the impartial mind, at this day, and all of
it was apparently animated with true patriotism and
earnest desire to promote the common weal. At the
close of the argument, however, the President intro-
duced into his Message some ambiguous expressions
which were unfortunate, to say the least, and which
roused to a high degree the suspicions and the hatred
already entertained against him by the radical Repub-
licans.

He wrote as follows: "How far the duty of the
President ' to preserve, protect, and defend the Con-
stitution * requires him to go in opposing an unconstitu-
tional act of Congress is a very serious and important

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 159

question, on which I have deliberated much and felt
extremely anxious to reach a proper conclusion. Where
an act has been passed according to the forms of the
Constitution by the supreme legislative authority, and
is regularly enrolled among the public statutes of the
country, Executive resistance to it, especially in times of
high party excitement, would be likely to produce vio-
lent collision between the respective adherents of the
two branches of the Government. This would be simply
civil war, and civil war must be resorted to only as the
last remedy for the worst of evils. Whatever might
tend to provoke it should be most carefully avoided. A
faithful and conscientious magistrate will concede very
much to honest error, and something even to perverse
malice, before he will endanger the public peace ; and
he will not adopt forcible measures, or such as might
lead to force, as long as those which are peaceable re-
main open to him or to his constituents. It is true that
cases may occur in which the Executive would be com-
pelled to stand on its rights, and maintain them regard-
less of all consequences. If Congress should pass an act
which is not only in palpable conflict with the Constitu-
tion, but will cer.tainly, if carried out, produce immedi-
ate and irreparable injury to the organic structure of
the Government, and if there be neither judicial remedy
for the wrongs it inflicts nor power in the people to pro-
tect themselves without the official aid of their elected
defender — if, for instance, the legislative department
should pass an act even through all the forms of law to
abolish a co-ordinate department of the Government —
in such a case the President must take the high respon-
sibilities of his office and save the life of the nation at all
hazards. The so-called Eeconstruction Acts, though as
plainly unconstitutional as any that can be imagined,
were not believed to be within the class last mentioned.

160 EECONSTEUCTION

The people were not wholly disarmed of the power of self-
defence. In all the Northern ' States ' they still held in
their hands the sacred right of the ballot, and it was
safe to believe that in due time they would come to the
rescue of their own institutions. It gives me pleasure
to add that the appeal to our common constituents was
not taken in vain, and that my confidence in their
wisdom and virtue seems not to have been misplaced."
These last words referred undoubtedly to the recent
rejection, by popular vote, in a number of the most im-
portant Northern " States," of proposed amendments to
" State" constitutions conferring suffrage upon negroes.
Most of the Eepublicans in Congress interpreted this
whole paragraph in the Message as a threat to violate
Th . the Eeconstruction Acts, although this was

pre tat ion disavowed, rather indistinctly it is true, and

DI3.C6Q DV ttl6

Republicans to violate also the Tenure-of -Office Act. It
dent's Mes- is very difficult to say what the President was
aiming at in giving such a warning to a body
already excited against him to a high degree. It was
certainly a faux pas of the worst kind, to say the least
about it.

Just nine days later the President sent his special
Message to the Senate in regard to his suspension of Mr.
The Presi- Stanton. The gist of it was that mutual
Messaglpecon- confidence between himself and Mr. Stanton
8uspen«onhof no l°nger existed, and that when he asked
stanton. jy[r> Stanton to resign Mr. Stanton had de-

clined to do so and had strongly intimated that his
reason for declining was his own lack of confidence in
the President's patriotism and integrity. The Presi-
dent claimed that such an attitude, on the part of a
subordinate toward his superior, was unendurable, was
in fact official misconduct of a grave order, and he also
referred to Stanton's withholding Baird's telegram from

THE ATTEMPT TO EEMOVE THE PEESIDENT 161

him just before the New Orleans riot. The President
furthermore discussed Mr. Stanton's letter in reply to
his order to him suspending him from office and com-
manding him to turn over the records and property of
the office to General Grant. This letter contained a
declaration by Mr. Stanton denying the right of the
President, under the Constitution and laws, to suspend
him from office, without the advice and consent of the
Senate, and without legal cause, and affirming that he
yielded, under protest, to the superior force wielded by
the General of the Army who had been designated to
succeed him.

This contention of Mr. Stanton that the President
could not suspend him under the Constitution and
laws of the United States gave the President the op-
portunity of saying that Mr. Stanton must be claim-
ing the protection of the Tenure-of-Office Act of March
2d, 1867, and of revealing to the Senate Mr. Stanton's
most decided condemnation of that Act when it was a
bill before the President. The President asserted that
Mr. Stanton, as every other member of his Cabinet,
advised him that the bill was unconstitutional, in that
it was a dangerous encroachment upon the President's
constitutional prerogatives, and urged him to veto it.
He also said that all the members of his Cabinet who
had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln — and Stanton was
one of these — appeared to be of the opinion that their
tenures were not fixed or affected by the provisions of
the bill. The conclusion arrived at by the President
evidently was that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not
cover Mr. Stanton's case, but left it under the law and
practice existing before the passage of that measure, and
that if it did cover it, the Act was unconstitutional, and
was so considered by Mr. Stanton himself, and every
other member of the Cabinet.

162 RECONSTRUCTION

It is hardly credible that the President intended to rec-
ognize the validity of the Act by sending this Message to
the Senate. It is true that the second section of the
Act provided that the President might suspend an offi-
cer during a recess of the Senate, and designate an ad
interim successor, and must, within the first twenty
days of the next meeting of the Senate, report the sus-
pension to the Senate, and it does appear, from a casual
view, that the President was acting under the authority
of this provision, or rather under the duty imposed by
it, in suspending instead of removing Mr. Stanton and
in making this report of Mr. Stanton's suspension to the
Senate. But the President could claim that he was pro-
ceeding under his general constitutional power and duty
of suspending from office, as a power included in the
power of removal, and of sending such communications
as he saw fit to Congress or to either House thereof.
And the fact that he disputed the constitutionality of
the Act in the Message itself is good internal evidence
that he did not consider that he was in any way acting
under the authority granted to him by it, or in any way
estopping himself, so to speak, from making future dec-
larations against the constitutionality of the Act, or even
from disobeying its requirements.

The Senate, however, conceived at once that the Pres-
ident was acting under the Tenure-of-Office Act, and
The senate a^er considerable discussion, passed a reso-
resoiution in lution, on the 13th day of January, 1868,

regard to the . . • J . . -, -,

suspension of which provided that, " having considered
the evidence and reasons given by the Pres-
ident in his report of December 12th, 1867, for the
suspension of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Sec-
retary of War, the Senate does not concur in such sus-
pension." The body then instructed its secretary to
send copies of this resolution to the President, Genera]

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 163

Grant and Mr. Stanton. It is also evident that General
Grant supposed the President was acting under the
Tennre-of-Office Act both in suspending Stanton, in
appointing himself ad interim, and in making report of
these proceedings to the Senate ; for upon receiving his
copy of the Senate's resolution from the secretary of
the Senate, he immediately left the room of the Secre-
tary of War, locking the door after him and giving the
key to the Adjutant-General, and repaired to the official
head-quarters of the General of the army. Stanton
manifestly regarded the matter in the same way, for
upon receiving his copy of the notice of the Senate's
action, he went to the room of the Secretary of War,
and resumed the duties of Secretary of War without
further ceremony. He did not even go to see Grant,
but sent word over to the head-quarters of the General
of the army summoning Grant to wait upon him in the
Secretary's room.

There is no question now in any calm and impartial
mind that the Senate acted most inconsiderately, not to
say wrongfully, in passing that resolution. .

The situation was a perfectly plain one. The the senate res-

-10 it i olution.

President and Stanton could not work to-
gether, since they had lost all confidence in each other.
Common-sense and common decency required in such
a case the retirement of the subordinate. The Senate
itself had committed itself to this view in the discussion
and votes upon the Tenure-of-Office bill, in its original
form and in its final form. General Grant, the man
who stood first in the confidence of the whole people,
was in possession of the War Office. He had held it
already nearly six months, and had in that short time
improved the administration of it very greatly. At the
end of the six months, at farthest, the President was
held by the law of 1795, a law whose constitutionality

164 RECONSTRUCTION

he did not dispute, to make a nomination to the Sen-
ate of a permanent incumbent. The Senate would
then be able to prevent the appointment of any person
to the office who did not have the confidence of the
Senate and the country. No possible harm could thus
have come to the country from acquiescing in Stanton's
suspension, and it is hard to see that anything but harm
did come to it in not doing so. No perfectly fair and
unprejudiced mind could have failed to see that then ;
but the radical Eepublicans — and most of the Eepub-
licans in Congress at that moment were radical, or at
least intensely partisan — were bent upon attacking and
destroying the President in any way they could. They
were ready to lay traps .for him, and then to so excite
him by encroachments upon the prerogatives and the
dignity of his office as to make him fall into them.
They were determined to sustain Stanton against the
President, the subordinate against his lawful superior,
simply because they despised the President. They
claimed that the welfare of the country demanded it,
and most of them probably thought so, but everybody
can see the fallacy of that now, and anybody fit to be a
Senator of the United States ought to have been able
to see it then.

It is also a question whether General Grant did not

act hastily, and inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully,

_ ... . in yielding the post without dispute to Mr.

Criticism J . i

of General Stauton. The President certainly under-

Grant s act.

stood General Grant to promise him to hold
on to the office in case the Senate should not approve
of Stanton's suspension, and thereby compel Stanton to
have recourse to the courts to regain possession, and thus
secure a judicial determination of the constitutionality
of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or to give the office back to
the President before the Senate reached its determina-

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 165

tion, so that he might have opportunity to put it into
the hands of a man who would be willing to incur this
responsibility ; and the President was able to back this
understanding by the testimony of five members of his
Cabinet. On the other hand, General Grant was just as
sincere in his view that his remarks to the President on
the subject did not amount to a promise, and if they
did, he had fulfilled it when on the 11th of January,
two days before the Senate acted, he indicated to the
President his unwillingness to involve himself in a law-
suit to test the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office
Act. It is true that when he spoke with the President,
on the 11th, he did not offer to resign the office, and that
it was understood that he would see the President again
on the subject, and that he did not see the President, nor
attempt to see him, before the Senate acted. But he
explained this apparent failure to keep faith by saying
that he was extremely busy during the two days between
the 11th and the 13th, and that the Senate had acted
much more hastily than he expected it would.

There is little doubt that General Grant thought the
Senate would acquiesce in Stanton's suspension, and was
taken by surprise when it did not do so, and that until the
action of the Senate on the 13th, he had never seriously
considered that any opportunity or necessity for a ju-
dicial proceeding would arise. When, then, the alterna-
tive was suddenly presented to him of obeying the
Tenure-of-Office Act, or disputing its constitutionality
by forcibly holding possession of the War Office, he de-
cided that it would be wrong for the General of the
army to assume the attitude of defiance to Congress,
whatever a civilian might consider his duty to be.
He thought that such an act on his part would look
like a contest between the civil and military powers of
the Government, and he was unwilling to provoke it.

166 RECONSTRUCTION

The President blundered very seriously when he did
not accept the explanation from General Grant and
The Presi- drop the matter. The General was friendly
tn me attitude m ^s feelings toward the President, and
toward Grant. wnen Stanton repossessed himself of the War
Office in his cavalier way, without seeking any under-
standing with Grant, and sent the General a rude sum-
mons to wait upon him, the General was very naturally
and properly indignant with Stanton. The way was
here open for the President to make a close friend of
General Grant, by simply appreciating Grant's point of
view in surrendering the War Office, and saying nothing
more about it. But the President was not a prudent
man when crossed in his purposes. He generally thought
that the motives of all men who differed with him
were bad. He showed in this trait his common origin
and his vulgar breeding. He thought that Grant had de-
ceived him and made a scapegoat of him, and he resolved
to have it out with him. He did not seem to under-
stand at all that in an issue of veracity between Gen-
eral Grant and himself, the country would believe Grant,
no matter who told the truth, and who the lie. The
utter impossibility of coming out winner in a contest
with a national hero, no matter what the merits of the
case might be, does not seem to have occurred to him at
all. And so he plunged into that unfortunate con-
troversy with General Grant in the public prints, which
made Grant his enemy for life, at a time when he
needed most his friendship, and might have had it by
the exercise of a little common prudence.

The outcome of this whole course of crimination and
recrimination was that the country came to the belief
that the President first tried to force the responsibility
of a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act upon the
popular General of the army, and then, when the Gen-

THE ATTEMPT TO EEMOVE THE PKESIDENT 167

eral foiled him in his purpose/undertook to impugn his
honor and his integrity, and destroy his character hef ore
the pnblic. An impartial study of the facts The result
and the correspondence will not sustain any °ersy between
such view now, but in the state of feeling ahnd? Genera!
then prevailing, no such impartial study was Grant-
possible. The President ought to have known this, and
to have controlled his indignation until a more propi-
tious time.

General Grant's letter closing the controversy is dated
February 11th. In the interval between his quitting
the War Office and this latter date, the Presi- Grant's dis-
dent instructed the General not to obey any toward "the
orders from Stanton until he knew they PreBident-
came from the President. This instruction was given,
first, verbally on January 19th. Grant demanded, on
January 24th, a written order from the President on the
subject, and repeated this request on the 28th. The
President replied on the 29th that " General Grant is
instructed, in writing, not to obey any order from the
War Department, assumed to be issued by the direction
of the President, unless such order is known by the
General commanding the armies of the United States
to have been authorized by the Executive." Grant re-
sponded, on January 30th, that he had been informed by
the Secretary of War that he (the Secretary) had not
received from the Executive any order or instructions
limiting or impairing his authority to issue orders to the
army as had theretofore been his practice under the law
and the customs of the Department, and that while this
authority to the War Department was not countermanded
it would be satisfactory evidence to him (the General)
that any orders issued from the War Department by the
formal direction of the President were authorized by
the Executive. This was coming very nearly up to the

168 RECONSTRUCTION"

line between obedience and disobedience on the part of
the General of the army toward the constitutional
Commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the
United States. The General must have himself felt
that he was on rather shaky ground, for in the closing
paragraph of his letter of February 11th he disclaimed
any intention of disobeying " any legal order of the
President distinctly communicated." But this was still
an ambiguous situation. Who was to determine whether
an order of the President to the General was legal or
not ? If the President, then there was no need of quali-
fying the word " order " by the word "legal." The
language used, therefore, indicates that the General con-
sidered it within his power to decide this question. But
if the subordinate can determine upon the legality of
the orders of his superior, and disobey them in case he
considers them illegal, then farewell to all discipline in
civil or military service. It is very clear from these
expressions of the General that Stanton's successful in*
subordination was already exercising its demoralizing
influence, and was confusing the minds of those high in
command in regard to the interpretation of their duties
and responsibilities.

The situation was utterly unbearable for the Presi-
dent. Here was the constitutional Executive of the
United States, the Commander-in-chief of

TtiG rmnfiftr*

able situation the army and the navy, virtually excluded

in which the , n , . , -.. . .

President now by one of his own subordinates irom any
oun imse . reiatjon ^0 foe business of one of the most
important departments of the Government for which he
alone was responsible, and his subordinate sustained in
this attitude by the legislative branch of the Govern-
ment.

Matters were now rapidly approaching a crisis which
could be avoided only by the resignation of the Presi-

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 169

dent or by the retreat of the Senate from its indefens-
ible position. If both stood firm the clash must follow,
and that too very quickly. On the 21st (Feb- The dis-
ruary) it came. The President addressed an sUnton1 from
order of that date to Mr. Stanton dismissing office-
him from the office of Secretary of War, and another
order of the same date to General Lorenzo Thomas,
Adjutant-General of the army, commanding him to
take possession of the War Office and administer its
affairs ad interim. He, on the same date, informed the
Senate of his action, and transmitted to that body a
copy of the orders to Stanton and Thomas.

Upon receiving the order, General Thomas repaired
immediately to the Secretary's room in the War Office,
and handed to Mr. Stanton both of the

General

documents, they having been put into his Thomas ap-
hands by the President's private secretary, tary of war
Upon reading the one addressed to himself,
Mr. Stanton immediately asked General Thomas whether
he wished him to vacate at once or would give him time
to remove his private property. Thomas replied, " act
as you please." Stanton then read the order addressed
to Thomas designating him Secretary ad interim, and
asked Thomas for a copy of it.

Thomas then left the Secretary's room and went into
his old room, the Adjutant-General's room, to have a
copy of the order made. He returned at stan ton's
once with it, and when he handed it to Mr. resi8tance-
Stanton, the latter said: "I do not know whether I will
obey your instructions, or whether I will resist them."
General Thomas had certified the correctness of the
copy, and had signed himself Secretary of War ad in-
terim. The two then went into General Schriver's
room just across the hallway, and there Stanton declared
outright that Thomas should not issue orders as Secre-

170 RECONSTRUCTION

tary of War, and that if he did he (Stanton) would
countermand them, and he then and there directed
General Schriver and General Townsend, both of whom
were present, to disobey any orders coming from General
Thomas as Secretary of War. Mr. Stanton then caused
General Townsend to prepare a written order to Thomas,
signed by Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War, which was
as follows : " Sir : I am informed that you presume to
issue orders as Secretary of War ad interim. Such con-
duct and orders are illegal, and you are hereby com-
manded to abstain from issuing any orders other than
in your capacity as Adjutant-General of the army."

General Thomas then went over to the White House
to see the President about the matter. He told the

Thomas and President of his conversation with Mr. Stan-
the President. iou^ an(j repeated to him Stanton's replies
verbatim. The President simply said to him : " Very
well ; go and take charge of the office and perform the
duties." Thomas did not, however, return to the Sec-
retary's room in the War Office that day, and did not
see Mr. Stanton again on that day.

While these things were occurring in the executive
offices matters were seething at the other end of the

The attitud avenne- The Senate was deliberating, if we
of the Senate may call such a stormy procedure as took

towflrd t li p

dismissal of place a deliberation, upon the President's
communication. It very quickly passed the
following resolution: " Whereas, the Senate have re-
ceived and considered the communication of the Pres-
ident stating that he had removed Edwin M. Stanton,
Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjutant-
General of the army to act as Secretary of War ad
interim : Therefore, Resolved by the Senate of the
United States, That under the Constitution and laws of
the United States the President has no power to remove

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 171

the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to
perform the duties of that office ad interim" A copy
of this resolution was sent to the President, another
copy to Mr. Stanton, and another to General Thomas.

The excitement in the other House was still more in-
tense and irrational. The Senate resolution had hardly
passed when the radical Mr. Covode pre- The move-
sented a motion to the effect that " Andrew House o°Rep-
Johnson, President of the United States, be resentatives.
impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors." This
resolution was referred to the Committee of the House
on Reconstruction, which was, as we have seen, com-
posed of members nearly all of whom were radical Re-
publicans.

Encouraged and strengthened by these movements in
the legislature, and hearing that Thomas had threatened
to force his way into the office, Mr. Stanton
resolved to forestall all possible movements of General
of General Thomas for gaining possession of
the office of Secretary., of War. He procured a warrant
of arrest for the General, and on the next morning, the
morning of the 22d, the warrant was served on Gen-
eral Thomas just after he had risen from his bed, and
before he had taken his morning meal. The officers
who arrested him, the Marshal of the District, and his
assistant, and a constable, took the General at once be-
fore Judge Cartter, the Chief Justice of the District of
Columbia. On the way from the General's residence to
the court-room, the General asked the officers to allow
him to see the President, and inform the latter of 'his
arrest. The Marshal went with the General to the
White House, and was present at the interview between
the General and the President. It lasted but a mo-
ment. The General told the President that he was
under arrest. The President replied that he was satis-

172 RECONSTRUCTION

fied to have the case go into the courts, that he wanted
it judicially determined. He then directed the General
to go to the Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery. The
Marshal permitted him to call at Mr. Stanbery's apart-
ment in his hotel, and inform the Attorney-General of
his arrest. He then took him before Judge Cartter.
Nobody was with the General before the Judge, except
the officers who had arrested him. The Judge held
him to bail in the sum of five thousand dollars to appear
on the following Wednesday morning, the 26th. After
about an hour friends of the General came in and signed
his bail bond, and the General was released, the Judge
informing him that he was not suspended from any of
his official functions. The General then went back to
the White House and informed the President of his re-
lease under bail, and the President again replied that he
wanted the case in the courts.

Finally, the General went over to the rooms of the Sec-
retary of War. There he found some six or eight mem-
Thomas's Ders of Congress with Mr. Stanton, evidently
tempt nto take awaiting the denouement. He demanded the

possession of 0ffice. Stanton ordered him to his room as Ad-

the War Of-
fice- jutant-General. He refused to obey. He de-
manded the office of the Secretary of War a second and a
third time, and a second and a third time Stanton refused
to yield it to him and ordered him to his room as Adju-
tant-General. The General then left the room of the
Secretary of War, and went across the hall into General
Schriver's room. Stanton followed him and asked him
if he insisted on acting as Secretary of War. The Gen-
eral replied that he did, and would demand the mails of
the War Office. The two then fell into a friendly chat,
General Thomas saying that he had had nothing to eat
or drink that day and requesting Mr. Stanton the next
time he might have him arrested not to do it before

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 173

breakfast, and Stanton appealing to Schriver to bring
out his whiskey, which Schriver did, and the two men,
Thomas and Stanton, drank a little together on Stan-
ton's invitation. With this Thomas's attempt to get
possession of the "War Office seems to have ended. On
the same day the President sent to the Senate for con-
firmation as Secretary of War the name of Thomas
Ewing, Sr. Mr. Ewing was a man of undoubted ability
and of the purestloyalty. He had been one of Lincoln's
best friends and supporters and was the father-in-law
of General Sherman ; but the Senate denied that the
President had any power to send in a nomination, that
is, denied that there was a vacancy.

On the same day, also, the 22d, the Eeconstruction
Committee of the House, to whom the re^oTuEion for
impeaching the F*resident had been referred, The House
reported it back with the recommendation topeach^the
that it be passed, and the chairman, Mr. President.
Thaddeus Stevens, urged that it might pass without de-
bate. But the members began at once to debate it hotly,
and continued to do so through the day and deep into
the night. The following day was Sunday, the 23d. The
House had, therefore, one day of recess in which to cool
clown. But on Monday the angry determination of the
Republican leaders was even more manifest than on the
preceding Saturday. All day long the war of words
went on. The reproach and the odium heaped upon
the President were simply immeasurable. Read from
the point of view of to-day, and at this distance from
the event, most of it appears highly extravagant, and
some of it ridiculous and even puerile. Late in the
afternoon the vote was reached, by application of
the previous question rule. The House resolved to
impeach the President before the Senate by a vote of
126 to 47. All those voting in the affirmative were

174 RECONSTRUCTION

Republicans, and all those voting in the negative were.
Democrats.

By another strict party vote the House authorized the
Speaker to appoint_a_committee to acquaint the Senate

The com- with its_resolution to impeach the President
House on im- before that body., and. another committee to
peachment. draw up the articles of impeachment. The
Speaker, Mr. Colfax, appointed Mr. Stevens and Mr^,
Bingham to constitute the first committee/ and Mr.
Boutwell, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bingham, Mr: Wilson, Mr.
Logan, Mr. Julian and Mr. WafcT~to constitute the sec-
ond. This committee immediately set about its work,
and on the 29th was ready to report.

Meanwhile the day for General Thomas to appear in
court, February 26th, arrived. By this time the General
had taken legal advice, and the plan of his counsel was to
refuse to give further bail, allow him thus to be commit-
ted to jail, then sue, out a writ of Habeas Corpus from a
United States judge, and bringjn this way the question of
the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act to judi-
cial determination. But Judge Cartter foiled this plan,
according to the word of Judge Luke P. Po-
drawai of land of Vermont, who drew the complaint
plaint against against Thomas, by declining to make any
further order requiring bail, and on the same
day Mr. Stanton withdrew the complaint, and the case
was thus prevented from reaching the United States
courts at all.

There is little doubt that the Kepublicans were afraid
to have the Tenure-of-Office Act tested judicially They

The fear of preferred recourse to the Court of Impeach
cans^otestthe ment to settle the matter so far as President
AceAcTbefOTe Johnson was concerned. It is true that
the courts. Stan ton alleged that he brought the case
against Thomas in order to test judicially the right of

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 175

Thomas to the office of Secretary of War, and that he
withdrew the complaint as superfluous after the House of
Kepresentatives had resolved to impeach the President,
but that may have been a mere legal form of excuse.

Three days after this, as we have seen, the committee
charged with preparing the articles of impeachment
reported to the House. They were debated

1 . J The man-

until March 3d, when they were adopted by agers of im-
a strict party vote, and the managers to con-
duct the prosecution were elected. They were Messrs.
Bingham, Boutwell, Wilson, Butler, Williams, Logan
and Stevens.

Disregarding the legal order and form of the eleven
articles of impeachment, we may say briefly that the
charges against the President were : mu .

T-i-1 • i m <> The charges

First, that he violated the Tenure -of- against the
Office Act in issuing an order deposing Stan-
ton from the office of Secretary of War, and another
order appointing Thomas to the office of Secretary of
War ad interim.

Second, that he violated the Anti-conspiracy Act of
July 31, 1861, in conspiring with Thomas to expel Stan-
ton by force from the War Office, and to seize upon the
property and papers of the United States in the War
Office, and to unlawfully disburse the money appropri-
ated for the military service and the Department of War.

Third, that he violated the Act of March 2, 1867,
which, among other things, directed that the military
orders and instructions of the President and Secretary
of War should be issued through the General of the
army, by attempting to induce General Emory, the
commander of the troops around Washington, to disre-
gard this law and take his orders immediately from the
President.

And fourthly, that he committed high misdemeanors

176 RECONSTRUCTION

in his speeches denouncing the Thirty-ninth Congress,
and declaring it to be a Congress of only a part of the
"States."

These charges were presented by the managers of the

impeachment to the Senate on March 5th, the day upon

m , which the Senate organized itself as a Court

Tdg cliEirsrcs ~

presented to of Impeachment, by assembling under the
presidency of the Chief Justice of the United
States, who administered the oath to the Senators
as members of the court. The court directed its ser-
geant-at-arms to serve its summons upon the President
to appear before its bar and answer to the charges pre-
ferred against him, and then adjourned to the 13th of
the month. On the 13th the court reassembled. The
chief clerk read the return of the sergeant-at-arms to

ThePresi- the writ of summons, to the effect that he
?nc '1 entered nad served the writ upon the President at
by Ms counsel. seven o'clock p.m. of Saturday, the 7th day
of the month ; and the President entered his appearance
by his counsel, Henry Stanbery, Benjamin E. Curtis.
JerermaTTSTBlack, William MTEvarts and Thomas A. K.
Nelsjcm, and asked for forty days" for the preparation
of his answer to the charges. The first four of these
men were the most noted constitutional lawyers of the
country, and the fifth was one of Mr. Johnson's loyal
Tennessee friends and his chief ally in the Union cause
in Tennessee during the years of sorest trial. Mr.
Stanbery had resigned the office of Attorney-General
of the United States in order to take the leading part
in the defence of the President.

The managers on the part of the House very ungen-

The Presi- erously objected to giving the President any
txfthe con?- ^me at a^ ^or ^ne preparation of his answer
piamt. further than what he had had since the

service of the summons upon him, but the Senate re-

THE ATTEMPT TO KEMOVE THE PKESIDENT 177

solved to give him ten days, that is until MarchJ23d.
Upon the latter day the Senate resumed its sitting as a
Court of Impeachment, and the President's counsel
appeared with his answer to the charges made against
him.

An incident occurred at this point in the history of
the procedure, which should be related, although it
interrupts somewhat the thread of the nar- m, . ,_

T t ? Tne wltn"

rative. It was the disappearance of Mr. drawai of Mr.
Black from among the counsel for the Pres- the President's
ident, and the appearance of Mr. Groesbeck a>unse •
in his place. It was the gossip among the enemies of
the President, and this gossip was sedulously spread
abroad throughout the whole country by them, that
Black on examining the case had become convinced of
the President's guilt and had retired from the case for
this reason, and for the further reason that he had be-
come disgusted with the President's conduct. It did
not become known until later that during this time
Judge Black was counsel for a firm composed of one
Patterson and one Marguiendo, which firm claimed a
guano island in the West Indies, called Alta Vela, and
that one of Judge Black's colleagues in the prosecution
of the Patterson-Marguiendo claim, one J. W. Shaffer,
procured a letter of the date of the 9th of March, 1868,
that is one week after the House of Eepresentatives had
resolved to impeach the President, signed by General
Benjamin F. Butler and approved by John A. Logan,
J. A. Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead, Thad-
deus Stevens, J. G. Blaine and John A. Bingham,
some of them the most bitter among the President's
enemies, which contained the statement that these gen-
tlemen were clearly of the opinion that the citizens of
the United States had the exclusive right to the guano
beds of Alta Vela island, and an expression of their sur-

178 EECONSTEUCTION

prise that the President had not upheld this right by
force against the claims of the Dominican Government
to the island, and caused this letter to be placed in the
hands of the President on the 16th day of March, and
that on the 17th or 18th of March Judge Black had an
interview with the President and urged him to send an
armed vessel of the United States to Alta Vela to take
possession of the island, and that the President, view-
ing this approach to him at this time as an attempt to
take advantage of his situation, refused, and that on
the next day, the 19th of March, Judge Black declined
to appear further as the President's counsel in the im-
peachment trial.

It must have taken a good deal of self-control on
the part of the President, in possession of all these
facts, to keep them quietly to himself for more than a
month from the time of Judge Black's retirement from
his case, while his enemies were pointing the finger of a
supposed triumphant scorn at him as being unworthy
to have so honest a man as Judge Black among his
counsel, and then to allow them to be given out only
under provocation from the managers of the impeach-
ment, taunting him with his treatment of Judge Black,
and with Judge Black's withdrawal from his case.

But to return to the President's answer to the charges
against him. Disregarding again legal verbiage and
The con- order, the President answered substantially
president's that Stanton's case was not affected by the
answer. Tenure-of-Office Act, and that he held his

office, according to the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and the wording of his commission, at
the pleasure of the President ; that even if Stanton's
case were covered by the Act, the President was within
his right and was not thereby committing any crime or
misdemeanor at all, to so act as to make up an issue be-

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 179

fore the Supreme Court of the United States, whereby
the constitutionality of the Act might be tested ; that
the authority given to General Thomas to act as Secre-
tary of War ad interim was not an appointment nor
an attempt to make an appointment, but was only a
designation of a person to act temporarily until an
appointment could be made by and with the consent
of the Senate, a thing which the President was empow-
ered to do by the Act of February 13th, 1795, still in
force ; that he had not entered into any conspiracy with
Thomas or anybody else to force Stanton out of the "War
Office, or to seize the property and papers of the United
States in the War Office, that he could not in fact do so,
since Stanton was not lawfully in the War Office, and
since the President of the United States was the ulti-
mate lawful custodian of the property and papers of the
United States in the War Office, but that his communi-
cations with Thomas were orders from the President
to a subordinate officer, to whom the President gave
no authority to use force for their execution, and who
did not use any force in his attempts to execute them,
the intention of the President only being, if his author-
ity should be resisted by Mr. Stanton, to create an issue
before the Supreme Court of the United States, and
secure thereby a judicial determination of the rights
and powers of the parties concerned, and not to do any-
thing unlawful ; that he had never undertaken to in-
duce General Emory to take his orders immediately
from himself in violation of the Act of March 2d, 1867,
which provided that all of the military orders and in-
structions issuing from the President and the Secretary
of War should pass through the hands of the General of
the Army, but that he had only expressed to General
Emory, as he had to Congress, his conviction that the
Act was in violation of the Constitution, which latter con-

180 KECONSTKTTCTION"

ferred upon the President the Commandership-in-chief
of the army and the navy ; and finally, that his speeches
were simply the expression of his opinions as a free citi-
zen of the Republic, which right was guaranteed to
him and to every other citizen by the Constitution of the
country, and could not be made out in any way to have
any of the qualities of a crime or a misdemeanor, and
that his declaration that the Thirty-ninth Congress was a
Congress of only a part of the " States " was intended by
him in no other sense than that of an assertion that ten
"States" of the Union were not represented in it, all of
which ought to be so represented when they should send
loyal men to take seats therein, and that he had nevei
intended by this declaration to deny the validity of the
acts of the Congress or its power to originate and adopt
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

After the filing of this answer, the counsel of the
President asked the Court of Impeachment for thirty
days' time after the replication of the House of Eepre-
sentatives to this answer should be filed for the prepar-
ation of the President's case. But the managers on the
part of the House again very ungenerously opposed giving
them any time at all for this purpose. The debate over
this point lasted until after the replication of the House
was filed on the following day, that is on the 24th of
March. The Court of Impeachment then decided to
give them until March 30th, and ordered the trial to
proceed on that day.

The replication filed by the House of Representatives,
_ .. on the 26th, was an exception to the answer

The replica- * r

tion of the of the President as insufficient, a denial of
President's all the averments of the answer, a declara-
tion of the guilt of the President of the high
crimes and misdemeanors charged, and an offer to prove
the same.

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 181

On the 30th, the trial opened with the fierce, not to
say brutal, attack of Mr. Butler on the President.
During the entire course of the trial, from

The trial

the 30th of March until the 16th of May, the
managers followed a line of conduct which no impartial
student of this day can fail to condemn, and which,
even in that time of hostile passion against Cond ,ict of
the President, lost to them a large measure the manaserB-
of popular favor. They tried to prevail upon the Court
of Impeachment to regard itself as a political body in-
stead of a court, to renounce all limitations upon its
powers, and to accept common rumors against the
President as good evidence of his guilt. On the other
hand, they objected to the introduction of evidence by
the President to prove the purpose of his acts, and to
show the advice upon which he had proceeded in their
commission. They succeeded in inducing the Court of
Impeachment to refuse to hear the President's evidence
upon these points, although the Chief Justice had ruled
in favor of its reception. There is no doubt that their
cause was greatly weakened in the public esteem by this
manifestation of partisanship on the part of the court.

The evidence in the case showed no conspiracy with
Thomas to do anything, and no orders to him to use

any force in what he was authorized to do,

The e vi-
and no attempt to induce General Emory to dence in the

violate any law or any orders received from
or through the General of the Army or any other legal
authority. The case, thus, rested chiefly upon the
question as to whether the President had violated the
Tenure-of-Office Act ; and the transactions of the Presi-
dent in regard to this subject were matters of record.

When one, at this lapse of time from the events,
peruses the calm, dignified, convincing and masterful
arguments of the President's counsel, and compares

182 RECONSTRUCTION

them with the passionate, partisan harangues of the
managers, it is very difficult to understand how the lat-
The argu- ter could have made any serious impression
ment at all. There was only a single point upon

the law seemingly involved in the case in regard to which
they held the better reason. That was the claim on their
part /that the President had no right to violate an act of
Congress for the purpose of testing its validity before the
United States courts, or for any other purpose. They
argued with much force that to allow the President the
power to violate an act of Congress, or to omit to execute
an act of Congress, in order to make up an issue before the
courts upon the question of its constitutionality, would
be virtually to attribute to the President the once hated
royal power of suspending the law at the pleasure of the
Executive. They contended that the veto power was
placed in the hands of the President for the purpose of
allowing him to be heard at the proper time, and to act
at the proper time, in regard to the passage of any law,
and that no other power was given him in relation to the
subject ; that after he had exhausted this power, he was
bound to execute the legislation of Congress, and could
not suspend it or violate it for any purpose whatsoever ;
and that the constitutionality of any of the acts of Con-
gress could be raised before the courts only by persons
not charged with the execution of the law and having
such interests affected by the act in question as would
warrant a judicial procedure.

Judge Curtis was so influenced by the consideration
that to claim such a power for the President would give
him a double veto upon all of the acts of Congress, a
veto when acting as a part of the legislature in the en-
actment of law, and then a purely executive veto which
could be overcome only by an adverse judicial decision,
that he expressed his contention on the subject in very

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 183

cautious language. He declared that the President
claimed no such general power as that, but he said
" when a question arises whether a particular law has
cut off a power confided to him by the people through
the Constitution, and he alone can raise that question,
and he alone can cause a judicial decision to come be-
tween the two branches of the Government to say which
of them is right, and after due deliberation, with the
advice of those who are his proper advisers, he settles
down firmly upon the opinion that such is the character
of the law, it remains to be decided by you, Senators,
whether there is any violation of his duty when he takes
the needful steps to raise that question and have it peace-
fully decided."

The great lawyer refused thus to commit himself upon
this fundamental question of constitutional law. And
well he might, for to recognize any such power in the
President would be to enable him to rule with such arbi-
trariness as to upset the principles and practices of all
free government. The President can constitutionally
defend his prerogatives with the veto power, a power
which nothing short of a two-thirds majority of both
Houses of Congress can overcome, and he has no other
power of defence confided to him by the Constitution. He
must execute the laws passed over his veto upon matters
which in his opinion touch his executive prerogatives,
just the same as upon all other matters, and if persons
not connected with the administration of the laws do
not call such measures in question before the courts, the
remedies provided by the Constitution for the people
of the United States are either the election of members
of Congress who will repeal the enactments, or else the
amendment of the Constitution so as to repeal them.
It was, however, a question whether, in showing the sole
purpose of making an issue before the courts, the Presi-

J 84 RECONSTRUCTION

dent would not clear himself of any criminal intent.
Happily his case did not require this, as was demon-
strated by his counsel and by Senators Trumbull and
Fessenden in their opinions.

The law governing the President's case was perfectly
clear to anyone who could divest himself of political
The law in prejudice and of personal hostility. It was
the case. briefly this. By an Act of the First Congress,
of the date of August 7th, 1789, Congress interpreted
the Constitution as giving the President the power to
remove any officer of the United States, except judges
of the United States courts, at his discretion, as an in-
cident of his sole executive responsibility, and in an es-
pecial sense recognized this constitutional power as be-
longing to the President in the case of the heads of the
governmental departments, the members of the Cabinet,
as they afterwards came to be called, since these persons
stood, and must stand, in a peculiarly confidential rela-
tion to the President, as his official advisers. This in-
terpretation of the Constitution as to the President's
power of removal and the practice built upon it re-
mained untouched by the Congress until the 2d of
March, 1867, when, as we have seen, Congress enacted,
"that every person holding any civil office to which he
has been appointed by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, and every person who shall be hereafter
appointed to any such office, and shall become duly
qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold
such office until a successor shall have been in like man-
ner appointed and duly qualified, except as herein other-
wise provided: Provided, That the Secretaries of State,
of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the In-
terior, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-Gen-
eral, shall hold their offices respectively for and during
the term of the President by whom they may have been

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 185

appointed, and one month thereafter, subject to removal
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

It will be remembered that in the Tenure-of- Office
bill as it originated in the Senate the members of the
Cabinet were entirely excepted from its operation ; that
the House in passing the bill included them ; that the
Senate would not agree to their inclusion ; that the bill
was then sent to a conference committee ; that this
committee invented the compromise contained in the
proviso ; that this proviso was understood to give to
each President the power to choose his own Cabinet
officers once during his term, and therefore to remove
any Cabinet officer not originally appointed by him, but
holding under a commission from a former President,
and remaining in office only by the sufferance of the ex-
isting President ; that this was especially the true mean-
ing of the proviso in regard to those Cabinet officers
then in office, but who had been appointed and com-
missioned by Mr. Lincoln during his first term to hold
during the pleasure of the President ; and that it was
upon this explanation of the meaning of the proviso
that the Senate voted the resolution of the conference
committee.

From all this it is entirely clear that the President
had the legal power to remove Mr. Stanton, no matter
whether the Tenure-of-Office Act was constitutional or
not, simply because his case was excepted by the proviso
in the first article in the Act from the operation of the
Act, and was left to the operation of the laws in exist-
ence at the time the Act was passed. There is little
question now that that Act was not in accordance with
a fair interpretation of the Constitution, but it was not
at all necessary to hold that view in order to clear the
President of the accusation of having violated the Con-
stitution and the laws of the land.

186 RECONSTRUCTION

The law in reference to the ad interim appointment,
or designation, of General Thomas was equally plain to
the impartial eye. The Constitution provides only for
vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Sen-
ate, and empowers the President to fill all such by grant-
ing commissions which shall expire at the end of its
next session. By an act of May 8th, 1792, Congress
empowered the President, in case of the death, sickness,
or absence from the seat of government, of the Secretary
of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary
of War, whether these events should occur during a
session, or a recess, of the Senate, " to authorize any
person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the du-
ties of the said respective offices until a successor be
appointed, or until such absence or inability by sickness
should cease."

Another act of Congress of February 13th, 1795, em-
powered the President, in case of vacancy from any
cause in the offices of Secretary of State, Secretary of the
Treasury, or Secretary of War, happening either during
a recess or a session of the Senate, " to authorize any
person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the
duties of the said respective offices until a successor be
appointed or such vacancy be filled/' provided, however,
that no one vacancy should be supplied in that manner
for a longer time than six months.

It will be seen that neither of these statutes provided for
the temporary filling of vacancies in any of the Depart-
ments, except those of State, the Treasury, and War.
In practice, however, the Presidents have followed the
analogies of the law of 1795, when it became necessary, in
their opinion, to make a temporary designation in the
other Departments. On the 22d of September, 1862,
President Lincoln appointed J. B. L. Skinner Post-
master-General ad interim. It was Mr. Lincoln himself

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 187

who called the attention of Congress to the fact that he
had no literal legal authority for this, and who on Janu-
ary 2d, 1863, asked Congress to extend the Act of May
8th, 1792, so as to cover the cases of the other Depart-
ments, and empower the President to make ad interim
appointments to fill vacancies in these Departments hap-
pening on account of death, sickness, or absence from the
seat of government. Why the President did not ask for
the extension of the Act of February 13th, 1795, which
covered all vacancies happening from whatever cause, in-
stead of the Act of 1792, which covered those only which
might happen from death, sickness, or absence from the
seat of government, we do not know. We only know
that in January, 1863, both the President and Congress
were greatly pressed by the exigencies of the war, and
did things generally in haste and without much consid-
eration. In answer to the President's suggestion, Con-
gress passed the Act of February 20th, 1863, extending
the Act of 1792 so as to cover all the executive Depart-
ments in the cases of vacancy provided for in that Act,
viz., by cause of death, sickness, or absence from the
seat of Government — adding resignation — and limiting
the President, however, in these appointments to per-
sons already officers in one or the other of the Depart-
ments, and providing that no one vacancy should be so
supplied for a longer period than six months. The
vacancies which might happen from expiration of term
or by removal were not at all provided for by the Act of
1863 ; and as the Act of 1863 did not expressly repeal
the Act of 1795, but only declared that "all acts and
parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby re-
pealed," the Act of 1795 remained in force as to all
vacancies caused by expiration of term or by removal,
whether happening during a recess or a session of the
Senate.

188 RECONSTRUCTION

Neither did the Tenure-of-Office Act of 1867 repeal
the Act of 1795 in regard to first vacancies happening
among the Secretaries of Departments by other causes
than those provided for in the Act of 1863, either ex-
pressly or by implication, since these first vacancies
were expressly excepted from the operation of the Act
of 1867, by the proviso attached to the first article.
And even if it should be held that the Act of 1867 did
repeal that of 1795 entirely, yet, in that it did not forbid
the President to make ad interim appointments in the
cases where a Secretary's term expired, or a Secretary
was lawfully removed by him, the President's designa-
tion of Thomas could not be considered as a violation of
law but only as an act without warrant of law, the very
kind of an act committed by Mr. Lincoln in his appoint-
ment of Skinner as Postmaster-General ad interim in
1862, and committed by other Presidents in other
cases.

The managers made much of the argument that the
President had recognized the validity of the Tenure-of-
Office Act in suspending Stanton the preceding August,
and reporting his suspension to the Senate, and in noti-
fying the Secretary of the Treasury of the suspension,
as provided in the Act, and asserted that he was there-
fore estopped from denying its constitutionality. But
while it can be easily shown that these acts of the Presi-
dent did not at all militate against his claim that other
parts of the statute were unconstitutional, still this was
not at all necessary to the President's defence, under
the view here advanced of the relations between the
Acts of 1867, 1863, and 1795. It made no difference,
under this view, whether the Act of 1867 was, or was
not, constitutional and valid. In either case the Presi-
dent had violated no law, either constitutional or statu-
tory.

THE ATTEMPT TO EEMOVE THE PEESIDENT 189

The fact is that Mr. Stanton and those who abetted
him were the violators of law. Every official act which
he committed after receiving the notification Mr gtan
from the President of his removal, on the ton's vioia-

tions of law.

21st of February, was a usurpation of gov-
ernmental powers by a private citizen, and the gather-
ing of armed men about him with the purpose of sus-
taining him in holding on to the War Office after his
dismissal by the President was treason. It is a ques-
tion whether his official acts after the 13th of Jan-
uary and down to February 21st were not also usurpa-
tions. That depends upon whether the Tenure-of-Office
Act was, or was not, constitutional, and whether, if
it were, the right of a member of the Cabinet, sus-
pended from office, to resume the functions of the office,
after disapproval of the suspension by the Senate, was
made, by the Act, to apply to such members of the
Cabinet as were excepted from the operation of the first
article of the Act by the proviso to that article. The
best Eepublican lawyers in the Senate, Trumbull, Fes-
senden, Grimes and Doolittle, took the view of the law
in the President's case as here explained. They, with
one other Republican, Van Winkle of West Virginia,
filed, after the vote on impeachment, opinions in the
case expressing substantially this view.

It is now known that during the trial some of these
men expressed to one of the President's counsel the be-
lief that Mr. Johnson could not be convicted

.-, -. , ., ,, , Thenomina-

upon the law and evidence in the case, and tion of Gener-
that should the Senate vote to remove him, besecretaryof
' ' it would be done wholly from supposed
party necessity/' and from fear of what the President
might do in case he were acquitted, and that they sug-
gested to this member of the President's counsel the
wisdom of the President's sending to the Senate, at that

190 RECONSTRUCTION

juncture, a nomination for the Secretaryship of War,
which would allay all reasonable apprehension that the
President would, if acquitted, use the War Department
for the accomplishment of any arbitrary purposes, and
that they mentioned General Schofield as a man who
would be satisfactory. These communications were
made about the 20th of April. The President was im-
mediately informed of them, as was General Schofield,
and, on April 24th, the President nominated General
Schofield to the Senate to be Secretary of War. Whether
this move on the part of the President influenced any
Senator to vote for acquittal is unknown. It certainly
served to allay popular apprehension, if the testimony
of the newspapers of the day may be taken on that
point.

Fifty -four Senators from the twenty-seven "States"

represented constituted the membership of the Court of

Th Impeachment under the presidency of the

upon im- Chief Justice. The President must, there-

peachmeDt. . . , ,

lore, have nineteen votes m order to escape
conviction. Of these fifty-four, only eight were
Democrats. It was practically certain that all of
these would vote for acquittal. He needed, therefore,
at least eleven Eepublican votes in his favor. The clos-
ing of the case by the prosecution occurred on the 6th of
May, and, on the 7th, the court passed the resolution
to take the vote of its members upon the articles of im-
peachment on the 12th. On that day Mr. Chandler of
Michigan informed the court that his colleague, Mr.
Howard, was too ill to appear, and asked the court to
adjourn to the 16th, in order to give Mr. Howard the
opportunity to be present. The court agreed to this
request. On the 16th, with all the members present, the
voting began. The last article, the eleventh, was, by an
order of the court, taken first, and the Chief Justice

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 191

put the question to each Senator : " Mr. Senator — how
say you ? Is the respondent Andrew Johnson, Pres-
ident of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a
high misdemeanor, as charged in this article ?" Thirty-
five votes were cast in the affirmative, and nineteen in
the negative. So soon as it was known that the Pres-
ident had been acquitted upon this article, a motion
was made by Mr. Williams of Oregon to adjourn the
court to the 26th. After the announcement of the vote
by the Chief Justice, this motion was carried and the
court adjourned to the 26th. On that day it reassem-
bled and proceeded to vote upon the second article and
then on the third, with the same result as upon the
eleventh. Whereupon Mr. Williams moved that the
Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment adjourn sine
die, and the motion was carried by a vote of 34 to 16,
4 not voting. The Republicans who voted " not guilty "
were Messrs. Dixon of Connecticut, Doolittle of Wiscon-
sin, Fessenden of Maine, Fowler of Tennessee, Grimes
of Iowa, Henderson of Missouri, Norton of Minnesota,
Patterson of Tennessee, Ross of Kansas, Trumbull of
Illinois, and Van Winkle of West Virginia. The coun-
try and the Republican party itself were placed under
the deepest obligation to these men for their courage
and independent action. They saved the country from
the direst results of the great political scandal of the
age, and they saved the Republican party from the com-
mission of a deed which would have destroyed its hold
upon the people.

The truth of the whole matter is that, while Mr.
Johnson was an unfit person to be President of the
United States — which may be also affirmed The truth of
of some others who have occupied the high thematter-
place — he was utterly and entirely guiltless of the
commission of any crime or misdemeanor. He was

192 RECONSTRUCTION

low-born and low-bred, violent in temper, obstinate,
coarse, vindictive, and lacking in the sense of pro-
priety, but he was not behind any of his accusers in
patriotism and loyalty to the country, and in his will-
ingness to sacrifice every personal advantage for the
maintenance of the Union and the preservation of the
Government. In fact, most of them were pygmies in
these qualities beside him. It is true that he differed
with them somewhat in his conception of what meas-
ures were for the welfare of the country and what not,
but the sequel has shown that he was nearer right than
they in this respect.

So soon as the Court of Impeachment pronounced its
acquittal of the President, Mr. Stanton addressed to the
The abdica- President a letter announcing his relinquish-
tion of Stan- ment of the War Department, and his de-
livery of the papers and properties thereof to
General Townsend, subject to the President's directions.

The Senate now confirmed the nomination of General
Schofleid'e Schofield to be Secretary of War. The Gen-
a°slflsecretary era^ a^ once accepted the appointment and
hfs acceptance entered upon the duties of his office, and
of the office, administered these duties to the end of his
term, according to his own testimony, in perfect har-
mony with the President.

Some of Stanton's friends have tried to make out
that but for Stanton's resistance and the impeachment,
and its nearness to success, Johnson would have ap-
pointed a tool of his own to the War Office and have
rode rough-shod over the laws of the land, and that he
was frightened out of this purpose, and frightened into
an implied agreement with certain Senators and Gen-
eral Schofield that the Reconstruction laws should be
executed as Stanton understood them, and not as the
President understood them. There is little ground for

THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT 193

any such assumptions. There is certainly none in the
character of the men whom the President asked to
take the War Office, Grant, Sherman and Ewing ; and
it must be remembered that through Mr. Stanbery, in
the case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, he had long before
announced to the Southerners that his opposition to the
Eeconstruction Acts ceased with his unsuccessful veto of
them, and that he should execute them both in letter
and in spirit. It was Republican Senators who sug-
gested to the President's counsel the nomination of
General Schofield, a man entirely friendly with the
President and acceptable to him. Neither the Presi-
dent nor the President's counsel approached any Sena-
tor with the proposition. It was the Republican Sena-
tors who were frightened, rather than the President or
his counsel. These Senators knew that the law and the
evidence were with the President, and that the Repub-
lican party was on trial, as much so as the President ;
and they knew that, if the Republican Senate should,
upon the showing made by the President's counsel of
the law and the evidence in the case, convict the Presi-
dent and remove him from office, the party would stand
arraigned before the people for having destroyed the
constitutional balance between the executive and the
legislature in order to gain a partisan end. They recog-
nized the dilemma into which the hot-headed leaders of
the party in the House of Representatives had, by their
hasty impeachment procedure, brought the party, and
they were very much relieved to secure any understand-
ing with the President's counsel whereby the chance of
averting the catastrophe to the party, as well as to the
country, might be increased. The suspicion that Mr.
Stanton was playing his part for the purpose of secur-
ing the Republican nomination for the presidency in
1868, rather than from any motives of disinterested

194 RECONSTRUCTION

patriotism, has about as little foundation as has the theory
of salutary terror, produced by the impeachment, con-
trolling the President's subsequent actions against his
own preconceived plans and purposes. Both of these
speculations are no valid parts of the history of this great
transaction. What we have as certain facts are that
the judgment was an acquittal, that it was rendered in
accordance with law and evidence, and that it preserved
the constitutional balance between the executive and
the legislature in the governmental system of the coun-
try ; and that for this the judgment of history coincides
with the judgment of the court.

■

CHAPTER X

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED

The McCardle Case — The Congressional Acts Admitting the Sena-
tors and Representatives elect from the Reconstructed " States "
to Seats in Congress — The Veto of these Bills by the Presi-
dent— The Vetoes Overridden — Ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the President's Proclamations Declaring Re-
construction Completed — Seward's Proclamation Declaring
the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Re-
quired Number of " States " — The Questions Suggested by
Mr. Seward's First Proclamation — The Concurrent Resolution
of Congress upon these Questions — The Correct Procedure —
The National Conventions of 1868 — Platform and Nominees of
the Republican Party — Democratic Platform and Nominees —
The Election and the Electoral Vote — The Conduct of the
President during the Campaign — Congress and the President
— The President's Last Annual Message — The President's
Amnesty Proclamation of December 25th, 1868 — The Presi-
dent's Veto of the Bill in Regard to the Colored Schools in the
District of Columbia — The Fifteenth Amendment — Criticism
of the Republican View — Johnson's Retirement from the Presi-
dency— The President and the Republican Party.

Duking the period of the impeachment trial, a case
was in progress before the Supreme Court of the
United States, which in its final settlement The McCar-
was destined to deprive the President of any dle case-
hope that a judicial decision in regard to the constitu-
tionality of the Eeconstruction Acts could ever be at-
tained. We have seen that in the cases of Mississippi
vs. Johnson and of Georgia vs. Stanton the Presi-
dent had resisted the jurisdiction of the Court when

195

196 RECONSTRUCTION

aimed directly at the Executive and his immediate
agents. This was his duty, and he performed it sin-
cerely and successfully. But it is not to be inferred
from this that he would not have welcomed a judicial
decision from the Supreme Court of the United States
pronouncing these Acts null and void, if it could have
been reached through the forms of a proper case, one
not involving the executive authority at all.

Such a case had appeared in this Court in the winter
term of 1867-68, and the argument as to the jurisdic-
tion of the Court, and the decision of this point in the
affirmative, had both been made before the impeach-
ment trial began. One William H. McCardle, arrested
and held by the military authorities in Mississippi for trial
before a military commission on charge of having pub-
lished in a newspaper, of which he was editor, libellous
and incendiary articles, petitioned the Circuit Court
of the United States for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The
writ was issued, and return was made by the military
commander, General A. C. Gillem, admitting the ar-
rest and detention of McCardle, but contending that
these acts were lawful. The Circuit Court, on the 25th
of November, 1867, remanded McCardle, who had been
held in custody between the time of the return to the
writ and this date by the United States marshal, to the
custody of General Gillem. McCardle then appealed
from this judgment of the Circuit Court to the Su-
preme Court of the United States. Upon a motion to
dismiss the appeal, made by the counsel of the military
authorities, this Court decided that under the statute of
February 5th, 1867, the Supreme Court of the United
States could hear the appeal, and denied the motion to
dismiss it.

The question was now before the Supreme Court
upon its merits, and it involved the constitutionality

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 197

of the Reconstruction Acts. It was argued very ably,
and the part of the Reconstruction Acts putting the
districts of the South under martial law two years
after the Civil War had ended, and when the civil au-
thority of the United States was everywhere recognized
and enforced, was pretty clearly shown to have been a
very serious stretching of its powers by Congress, if
not a distinct usurpation. The Republicans in Con-
gress were greatly frightened, and while the case was
under advisement in the Court, they hastened to repeal
the Act of February 5th, 1867, and to make the repeal
apply to appeals already taken under that Act, as well
as to such as might be attempted in the future. The
repealing bill was vetoed by the President on the 25th
of March, but it was immediately repassed by the ma-
jority necessary to override the veto, repassed without
the slightest regard to the President's very sound and
convincing objections. This Act of the 27th of March
was intended to prevent any decision upon the consti-
tutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, and did do so
most effectively, but it was an abominable subterfuge
on the part of Congress and a shameful abuse of its
powers.

As will be remembered, seven of the ten Southern
communities, viz., North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas,
had already before the close of the impeachment trial
ratified the " State" constitutions framed for them by
the " carpet-bag, scalawag, negro conventions " held
in each for them, had elected " State " officers and legis-
lators, and the legislature of one of them, Arkansas, had
ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, as the legislature of
each of them was required to do before it could be ad-
mitted to representation in Congress.

198 RECONSTRUCTION"

Congress now looked upon the work of its hands and

pronounced it good, and proceeded to pass the acts, neces-

The con- saiT in i^s conceit, to admit these communi-

irct8s8 admft- ties ^° representation in the legislative houses

ting the sen- 0f the Nation. First came the Act in reference

ators and Rep-

resentatives to Arkansas, of the 22d of June, 1868, since,
reconstructed as has been just said, the new legislature of
seats in Con- Arkansas had already ratified the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment. It provided " that
the State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to repre-
sentation in Congress, as one of the States of the Union,
on the following fundamental condition : That the con-
stitution of Arkansas shall never be so amended or
changed as to deprive any citizen, or class of citizens, of
the United States of the right to vote who are entitled
to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except
as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies
at common law, whereof they shall have been duly con-
victed under laws equally applicable to all the inhabi-
tants of said State : Provided that any alteration of
said constitution prospective in its effect may be
made in regard to the time and place of residence of
voters."

Three days later, that is on the 25th, Congress pro
vided in a single act for the admission of the Senators
and Representatives from the other six reconstructed
" States " to the national legislature in the following
language : " Be it enacted, &c, That each of the States
of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to
representation in Congress as a State of the Union when
the legislature of such State shaUJiavejlui^L ratified
the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as
Article XIV., upon the following fundamental condi-

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 199

tions : That the constitution of^neither of said States
shall ever be so amended or changed as to deprive any
citizen, 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, except as
a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at
common law, whereof they shall have been duly con-
victed under laws equally applicable to all the inhabi-
tants of said State : C Provided, that any alteration of
said constitutions may be made with regard to the time
and place of residence of voters." } It was also further
provided that the legislature of Georgia should, by
solemn public act, declare its assent to the fundamental
condition that the article of the new constitution of
Georgia prohibiting the courts within the " State " from
entertaining any suit against any resident of the ' ' State "
for any debt existing prior to June 1st, 1865, and pro-
hibiting the judicial and ministerial officers of the
" State " from executing any process in reference to such
debts, should be considered and treated as null and void.
The President had placed his veto on both of these
bills. The veto of the Arkansas bill bears the date of June
20th, and that of the other bill bears the date

' The veto of

of June 25th. There are parts of the Presi- these Mils by

the President

dent's argument which are entirely convinc-
ing to any candid mind at the present day. He pointed
out that the fundamental condition imposed by Congress,
in all these cases, upon the admission of Senators and
Representatives to Congress, viz., that no change should
ever be made in the suffrage qualifications provided in
these " State " constitutions whereby any citizen or
class of citizens of the United States having the right
to vote under these constitutions should be deprived of
such right, was an assumption of power by Congress to
regulate a subject, within the " States/' which by the

200 RECONSTKUCTION"

existing Constitution of the United States belonged
exclusively to the "States," to each "State" for it-
self.

There can be no question that the President was en-
tirely correct in this contention. The Fifteenth Amend-
ment was as yet no part of the Constitution. It had not
even been proposed by Congress to the " States." It is
very questionable whether a majority in Congress could
have been found, at that time, in favor of making such
a proposition, much less the required extraordinary ma-
jority of two-thirds. And until the Fifteenth Amend-
ment had been ratified as a part of the Constitution of
the United States, Congress had no power to exact such
a concession, or anything like it, from any "State" as
the price of the admission of representatives from it to
the Houses of the National Legislature. And even
since the Fifteenth Amendment has become a part of
the Constitution, the Government of the United States
cannot prohibit such changes in a " State " consti-
tution, unless the deprivation of suffrage is made on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servi-
tude.

The President also called attention to the fact that no
way was provided in the bills whereby the "States"
should signify their acceptance of this "fundamental
condition " of admission to representation in Congress,
and that no penalty was prescribed for a violation of the
condition. Did Congress mean that, in case of any
violation of its " fundamental condition," it would
throw the " State " back under martial law, and proceed
to reconstruct anew ? That was a question which might
well be asked in view of what Congress had already done ;
and it was a question which was not calculated to allay
uneasiness in the minds of the people in the Southern
communities.

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 201

Finally, in the veto of the Arkansas bill, the Presi-
dent expressed his very serious doubts whether the new
"State" constitution had been ratified by the electorate
created by the Acts of Congress for that purpose, since
a section in that constitution prescribed that no person
would be allowed to vote upon the ratification of the
constitution who had not previously taken an oath to
the effect " that he accepted the doctrine of the civil
and political equality of all men, and agreed not to at-
tempt 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," thus adding a new qualification for reg-
istration and voting to those prescribed in the Recon-
struction Acts of Congress. There is no question that
the President was right about this, too. And there is no
question that this new qualification was entirely null
and void, in so far as it applied to voting upon, and reg-
istering to vote upon, the ratification of the constitution
itself, unless we ascribe constituent power to the con-
vention which framed the constitution, instead of the
power of initiation only. We know that no constitu-
tional convention has, or then had, any such powers in
our system. It was nothing more or less than a pal-
pable usurpation of constituent power when the conven-
tion in Arkansas presumed to add this qualification to
those prescribed by Congress for voting upon the ratifi-
cation of the constitution itself. Of course it would
have been lawful and regular for the " State " consti-
tution to make this additional requirement for voting
in all future elections, after the constitution prescrib-
ing it should have been adopted by the electorate
created by the Congressional Acts, although the re-
quirement itself would have been unreasonable and
oppressive. But for the convention, a mere proposing

202 RECONSTRUCTION

body, to ordain this new qualification for voting on the
question of the adoption of the constitution itself was
a political outrage of the first order.

Congress was not, however, in a state of mind to
listen to any suggestions from the President, no matter

The vetoes now correct and important they might be.
overridden. Both Houses promptly, almost mockingly,
passed the two bills over the President's vetoes.

Such of the legislatures created under the new e ' State "
constitutions as were not already in session were quick-
Ratification ty summoned to assemble, and by July 21st
teenthAmeud- ail of them had ratified the proposed Four-
President1'! teenth Amendment to the Constitution of
proclamations the United States, and the legislature of

declaring Re- ' &

construe- Georgia had also pledged by solemn act that

tioncom- ° . • -i ■ i

pieted. the repudiation article of the new constitu-

tion should never be enforced. By July 27th the Presi-
dent had issued his several proclamations, as required by
the Act of June 25th, announcing the ratification of the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment by these legislatures,
and consequently the admission of these "States" to
representation in Congress ; and so far as the seven
"States" of Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Louisiana were concerned
the work of reconstruction was now completed. Vir-
ginia, Mississippi and Texas still remained under mar-
tial law.

On the 28th day of July, Mr. Seward, the Secretary

Seward's of State, issued his proclamation, declaring

tion° declaring the ratification of the proposed Fourteenth

of^the^Four^ Amendment to the Constitution of the

teenthAmend- United States bv the legislatures of thirty

ment by the " .

required States of the Union, and its consequent valid-
" states." ity as a part of the Constitution of the
United States.

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 203

Eight days before this proclamation, that is on the
20th, Mr. Seward had issued a proclamation declaring
that the legislatures of twenty-three States, Th
viz., of. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ten- tions suggest
nessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New Seward's first
York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Kan- pr°'
sas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota,
Ehode Island, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Mas-
sachusetts, Nebraska and Iowa, had ratified the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment, and that six " newly-consti-
tuted and newly-established bodies avowing themselves
to be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of
the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisi-
ana, South Carolina, and Alabama" had also ratified it ;
that the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had subse-
quently passed resolutions withdrawing their ratifica-
tion of the Amendment ; and that, if these latter reso-
lutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey should
be disregarded, the proposed Fourteenth Amendment
had been adopted by the legislatures of twenty-nine of
the thirty-seven " States " of the Union and had thus
become a valid part of the Constitution of the United
States.

Besides the question expressed in this Proclamation,
Mr. Seward indicates by his language a further question,
viz., whether the six " newly-constituted and newly-
established bodies, avowing themselves to be, and acting
as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkan-
sas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina,
and Alabama" were genuine " State " legislatures. They
were the legislatures established under the Reconstruc-
tion Acts of Congress, but as Congress had refused to rec-
ognize the " States " for whom these bodies acted as en-
titled to representation in Congress, that is as "States"
having the rights of "States" of the Union, until

204 RECONSTRUCTION

after these bodies had ratified the proposed Fourteenth.
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
it was no wonder that so good a constitutional lawyer
and so logical a thinker as Mr. Seward had his doubts
as to whether these bodies were genuine " State " legis-
latures.

In order to quiet these doubts, if possible, the two
Houses of Congress passed on the following day, July
The concur- 21st, the following concurrent resolution:
tionnofecon- " Whereas the legislatures of the States of
fhese ques^ Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Ore-
tious. g0n^ Vermont, West Virginia, Kansas, Mis-

souri, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, New York,
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Ne-
vada, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maine,
Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama,
South Carolina and Louisiana, being three-fourths and
more of the several States of the Union, have ratified
the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitu-
tion of the United States, duly proposed by two-thirds
of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress ; there-
fore, Eesolved by the Senate (the House of Represent-
atives concurring), That said Fourteenth Article is
hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the
United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such
by the Secretary of State." Upon the basis of this reso-
lution, which decided, in so far as Congress can decide,
that the consent of the legislature of a " State" to a
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United
States cannot be withdrawn when once given, and that
the " newly-constituted and newly-established bodies,
avowing themselves to be, and acting as, the legislat-
ures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida,
North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Ala-
bama" were genuine " State " legislatures qualified to

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 205

vote upon the ratification of a proposed amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Seward is-
sued his proclamation of the 28th of July, above recited.
As the Georgia Legislature ratified the proposed amend-
ment on the 21st inst. and also gave its pledge not to
allow the repudiation article in its constitution to be
enforced, Mr. Seward included Georgia in this last
proclamation.

It will be seen that both Mr. Seward and Congress
counted all of the Southern communities which had
ever been " States " as being " States," making the
whole number of "States " thirty-seven, and the number
necessary for ratification of the amendment twenty-
eight. Upon this basis of calculation two more than
the necessary number had ratified at the date of Mr.
Seward's final proclamation. It will also be seen that
both Mr. Seward and Congress, that is that both the
legislative and executive departments of the Govern-
ment, ignored the attempt of Ohio and New Jersey to
withdraw their consent to the amendment, and fixed the
precedent in the constitutional practice of the United
States that a "State" legislature cannot reconsider its
ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States at any time. This means, when scientifi-
cally appreciated, that the ratification of an amendment
to the Constitution of the United States is not an agree-
ment between the "States," and therefore becomes valid
as to each only after three-fourths of the " States," the
constitutional number necessary to make the proposed
amendment a valid part of the Constitution, shall have
ratified it, but that ratification by a " State " legislature,
and a fortiori by a convention of the people within a
" State," is only an indirect vote of a part of the people of
the United States upon a question submitted to the suf-
frages of the whole people of the United States. When,

206 RECONSTRUCTION

therefore, this affirmative vote has been once officially
announced by the proper authorities within the " State
to the proper authorities of the United States there is
no further control over it by the authorities within the
" State."

If, however, the votes of Ohio and New Jersey had not
been counted in the affirmative, there was still a three-
The correct fourths majority of thirty-seven " States "
procedure. jn favor 0f ratification. And if the ten
Southern communities had been left out of the compu-
tation altogether, which would have made the Union to
consist, so far as that part of it erected into ' ' States " was
concerned, of twenty-seven " States," there would still
have been more than a three-fourths majority in favor of
ratification, with or without Ohio and New Jersey. The
correct procedure, from a scientific point of view, would
undoubtedly have been to have computed the necessary
majority upon the basis of twenty-seven " States," to
have included Ohio and New Jersey among the " States "
whose legislatures voted for ratification, and then to have
admitted the ten Southern communities as "States"
under the Constitution of the United States, with the
Fourteenth Amendment as an already established part of
it, concerning which they had no more to say than they
had in regard to any other part of the Constitution.
But, however that may be, no objection can be made to
the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground
of the majority by which it was ratified. In whatever
way we may compute the whole number of " States " and
the majority voting in the affirmative, the Amendment
was lawfully ratified.

During these movements in execution of the Eecon-
struction Acts, the national party conventions for the
nomination of candidates for the presidency and for
the formation of platforms were held. That of the

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 207

Republican party assembled first, on the twenty-first

day of May in Chicago, at the moment when its radical

elements were filled with rage and chagrin

at the failure of the impeachment of the convention of

President.

It made General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut,
its presiding officer ; adopted a platform, a large part of
which was devoted to denunciation of the putform
President, to the promise of bountiful pen- of1he°itepub-
sions, and to a twist of the British lion's tail ,ican Partv-
on the subject of expatriation; the main principles of
which, however, were good faith in the payment of the
public debt with sound money, and equal suffrage by
Congressional law in the Southern communities ; and
nominated Grant and Colfax for the presidency and the
vice-presidency.

In pronouncing for the guaranty of negro suffrage at
the South by Congressional law, the platform attempted
to steer clear of the prejudices against negro suffrage at
the North by a sort of proviso, which read, " While the
question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly be-
longs to the people of those States." This was certainly
inconsistent, not to say hypocritical. Negro suffrage
at the North would have been a comparatively harm-
less thing on account of the fewness of the negroes
as compared with the whites in that section, and on
account of the superior average intelligence of the
negroes of the North when compared with that of those
of the South. There was no sound principle in this
article of the platform. It was a mean, shuffling bit of
partisan politics. The party itself felt it to be so in the
course of the campaign, and came out finally for the set-
tlement of the whole question of negro suffrage upon the
same basis for the whole country and by means of a con-
stitutional amendment.

208 RECONSTRUCTION

The nominees immediately accepted their nominations
in characteristic letters, that of General Grant being
short, crisp, modest and ending with the now famous
sentence : " Let us have peace," and that of Colfax be-
ing more lengthy and wordy and containing a rhetorical
defence of some of the more questionable parts of the
platform.

The Democratic convention assembled in New York
on the 4th day of July. It was confronted at the start
Demo ratic w^n the Greenback heresy, and the can-
piatform and didacy of the Greenback champion for the
presidency, Mr. George H. Pendleton of
Ohio. This heresy was in a sentence the doctrine that all
the public debt of the United States not made expressly
payable in coin should be paid in United States paper,
which Congress might order to be stamped, issued, and
made legal tender, to any amount it might please. The
shibboleth was, " the same currency for the bond-
holder and the plough-holder." It had taken firm hold
in Ohio, and was rapidly spreading through the valley
of the Mississippi. The Eastern Democrats, however,
looked upon it with disfavor, and were determined to
defeat the nomination of Mr. Pendleton. They were
obliged, however, to accept the platform, in so far as it
related to this subject, as dictated by their Western
compatriots. The third plank in the platform read,
" . . . and where the obligations of the Government
do not expressly state upon their face, or the law
under which they were issued does not provide, that
they shall be paid in coin, they ought in right and in
justice to be paid in the lawful money of the United
States." The fifth plank also read, "one currency for
the Government and the people, the laborer and the
officeholder, the pensioner and the soldier, the pro-
ducer and the bondholder." It is true that the plat-

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 209

form did not expressly pronounce in favor of an
unlimited issue of paper money with which to pay
the bonds, but it was generally understood that this
was what was meant. The questions then of sound
money and of the faithful discharge of the public obli-
gations were thus put in issue. The Democrats also
met squarely the Eepublican doctrine of Reconstruc-
tion. They demanded the " immediate restoration of all
the States to their rights in the Union under the Con-
stitution, and of civil government to the American
people," with " amnesty for all past political offences,
and the regulation of the election franchise in the
States by their citizens." And they denounced the
Radical party, as they termed the Republicans, " for its
disregard of right, and the unparalleled oppression and
tyranny which have marked its career/' declared the
Reconstruction Acts to be unconstitutional, revolution-
ary and void, and lauded President Johnson for his un-
flinching resistance to " the aggressions of Congress
upon the constitutional rights of the States and the
people."

There is no question that the platform of the Demo-
crats, with its paper money doctrine, and its hostility
to Reconstruction and universal suffrage, was weakness of
a shaky foundation for any party to attempt the Platform-
to stand upon at that juncture. Not much conscience and
not much sentiment could be aroused with such tenets.
Conscience and sentiment were much more amenable to
the appeals of the Republican platform upon these points.
Moreover, the tremendous popularity of the Republi-
can candidates had to be reckoned with. Where could
the Democrats find a candidate who would both match
Grant in the popular affection and overbalance also the
weakness of the platform ? The New Yorkers in the
convention, led by Seymour, Tilden, Schell and Kernan,

210 RECONSTRUCTION

had their man for this emergency, but they dared not
reveal at the outset their plan. They were resolved to
nominate Chief Justice Chase. They thought that
Chase's well-known devotion to the principles of uni-
versal suffrage and his career as Secretary of the Treas-
ury would satisfy the Eastern men in regard to the
platform, and that his attachment to the principles of
civil government versus militarism would, in some de-
gree at least, neutralize the popularity of the military
hero. The delegates from Ohio, Mr. Chase's own
" State," suspected the purpose of the New Yorkers, and
were determined to foil it. If they could not get Pen-
dleton, they were determined not to have Chase. After
the first six ballots without result, Pendleton, however,
leading, the New Yorkers brought forward Hendricks
of Indiana, in order to break down Pendleton's vote.
Having succeeded in this after some six more ballots,
the name of Chase was brought before the convention
by a half vote from California. The purpose was prob-
ably to feel of the convention. It was highly success-
ful. The announcement of the half vote was received
with enthusiastic applause. Masking themselves be*
hind Hancock, who was at that juncture in the lead,
and Hendricks, the New Yorkers now prepared to pre-
sent Chase ; but the Ohioans were too quick for them.
They succeeded in withdrawing Pendleton and present-
ing Seymour himself as their candidate, before the New
Yorkers knew what they were about. Seymour, who
was occupying the presidency of the convention, declared
from his seat that he could not accept, but the Ohioans
stuck to their nomination, and the New Yorkers had to
assent. They were fairly caught in their own net.

Seymour finally yielded, and the convention addressed
itself to the nomination of its candidate for the vice-pres-
idency. The ex-Confederate General William Preston of

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 211

Kentucky presented the name of the noted Union Gen-
eral Francis P. Blair of Missouri for the place. The
nomination was seconded by the ex-Confeder- The ^^
ate General Wade Hampton of South Caro- nees-
lina, and was made by acclamation. While General Blair
was a noted Union soldier of high ability and undoubted
loyalty, he was a fierce enemy of the Reconstruction
Acts of Congress, and was for this reason very popular
with the ex-Confederates. In an open letter to Colonel
J. 0. Brodhead of St. Louis, written five days before
the assembly of the Democratic convention, he not
only denounced the Reconstruction Acts as unconstitu-
tional, but advanced a method for getting rid of them
and their effects in case a Democratic President should
be elected. He proposed that the new President should
" declare these Acts null and void, compel the army to
undo its usurpations at the South, disperse the carpet
bag State governments, allow the white people to re-
organize their own governments, and elect Senators and
Representatives." He said, further, that the House of
Representatives would contain a majority of Democrats
from the North, who would admit the members elected
to that body from the South to seats, and that the House
with the President would exert such a pressure on the
Senate as to cause the doors of that body to be opened to
the members from the Southern " States." When Gen-
eral Blair wrote this letter he was being spoken of as a
candidate for the presidency, and this letter was taken as
the declaration of what he would do if elected to the posi-
tion of Chief Magistrate of the nation. After his nomina-
tion for the vice-presidency, in his speech and letter of
acceptance, he announced the chief issue in the contest
to be the relief of the South from martial law and negro
domination. The ex-Confederates represented it the
same way at the South, and threw themselves into

212 RECONSTRUCTION

the campaign with great enthusiasm for Seymour and
Blair.

On the other hand, the bland, politic and persua-
sive Seymour pursued a much more moderate and con-
ciliatory course, and when it became evident that General
Blair's violent expressions and revolutionary purposes
were ruining the Democratic prospects at the North, he
went into the campaign personally, and by his diplo-
matic manners and fine oratory succeeded in stemming
the tide which, running against the Democrats from the
moment when their platform was proclaimed, had been
driven on to a flood by General Blair's indiscretions, to
put it very mildly, in speech and conduct. But while
some lost ground was regained, it was evident that the
hopes of the Democrats had been blasted.

The electoral votes of thirty-four " States " were
counted, Virginia, Mississippi and Texas being still re-
garded by Congress as unreconstructed. Of

The election .

and the eiec- these thirty-four, eight cast their votes for
Seymour and Blair. These were New York,
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Oregon,
Georgia and Louisiana. The rest went for Grant and
Colfax. The electoral vote stood eighty for Seymour
and Blair and two hundred and fourteen for Grant and
Colfax. The popular vote stood two millions seven
hundred and three thousand two hundred and forty-nine
for Seymour and Blair, and three millions and twelve
thousand eight hundred and thirty-three for Grant and
Colfax. The exclusion of Virginia, Mississippi and Texas
from the vote and the inclusion of the suffrages of the
' ' carpet-baggers " and the negroes, under the protection
of the military, in the reconstructed "States," had saved
the day for Grant and Colfax. If the electorate of the
South had been as in 1860, or probably as it was in the
years of the Johnson governments, Seymour and Blair

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 213

would have triumphed. As it was, but for the Greenback
plank in the Democratic platform and the indiscretions
of General Blair, they might have triumphed. That is
to say, if the Keconstruction policy of Congress had been
the sole issue, it is quite possible that the Eepublicans
would have lost the election, even with the most popu-
lar man in the North as their standard bearer.

Meanwhile the President had continued to ply the
Congress with his vetoes and messages and to address
the country with his proclamations. He had The con
thought that he ought to be vindicated by diet of the

i • i t» » -i President dur-

bemg nominated by the Democrats for the mg the cam-
presidency, and had actually received sixty-
five votes on the first ballot. His failure before the
convention ought to have taught him that he was no
longer a factor to be reckoned with in the domain of
politics, and that his proper course was to execute
quietly the functions of his office to the end of his term,
and then retire to private life. But he seemed to think
that his political opinions were still of great value, and
in a very few days after the adjournment of the Demo-
cratic convention he addressed a message to Congress
advising a most radical change in the structure of the
government by means of constitutional amendment. He
therein recommended that Congress should propose to the
" States" so to amend the Constitution as to provide for
the election of the President and Vice-President by a
direct vote of the people, for the ineligibility of these
officers for a second term, for the designation of the
members of the Cabinet in a certain order, beginning
with the Secretary of State, as the persons to discharge
the duties of the President in case of a vacancy in the
presidential office by the death, resignation or removal
of both the President and the Vice-President, for the
election of the Senators by the direct vote of the people,

214 RECONSTRUCTION

and for the limitation of the terms of the United States
judges to a period of years. There was sound reason for
the third of these suggestions, the designation by the
Constitution of the Cabinet officers in a certain order as
the successors to the powers and duties of the President,
when the country might be without both a President
and a Vice-President, and it has since then been made
law under the form of a statute of Congress.

But the Congress was not then in a mood to hear

anything from Mr. Johnson. Two days later, July

20th, the President vetoed the -joint reso-

Congrees % J J

andthePresi- lution passed by the two Houses, exclud-
ing from the electoral college in the coming
presidential election the votes of " States " lately in rebel-
lion which should not have been reorganized under the
Eeconstruction Acts of Congress. In this veto he went
over his whole argument once more against the consti-
tutionality of these Acts and in favor of his own method
of Eeconstruction. But the Congress treated the mes-
sage with contempt and promptly repassed the resolution.
On the 9th of December President Johnson sent his
last annual Message to Congress. It was a grave, dignified

„,. D . and statesmanlike document both in form and
The Presi-
dent's last an- content. In it he told Congress plainly and

nual Message. ° x . J

respectfully that its Eeconstruction policy
had arrayed the races against each other at the South,
had impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations
that had previously existed between them, and had
given mortal offence to the civilized race by placing the
uncivilized race in domination over it ; and he urged
that legislation which had produced such baleful conse-
quences ought to be abrogated. He also told Congress
that it had seriously impaired the power of the Presi-
dent to exact the necessary accountability of the public
officers by its Tenure-of- Office Act, and had embarrassed

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 215

the Executive in the exercise of his constitutional mili-
tary functions by the Act of March 2d, 1867 ; and he
urged the repeal of both of these measures. He also
gave a most serious and startling account of the condition
of the public finances, and of the consumption of the
wealth of the Nation by the bondholders, officials and
pensioners. He pointed out that the public debt, which
in 1860 was 64,000,000 dollars, had become 2,527,-
129,552 dollars ; that the annual expenditure, which was,
in 1860, 63,000,000 dollars, had become 336,000,000
dollars and more, and that the expenditure per capita,
which was two dollars in 1860, had become nearly ten
dollars. And he suggested the ways in which this
threatening condition might be relieved, viz., by a re-
funding of the bonds at a lower interest, by a speedy
resumption of specie payment, by a reduction of the
army and of the horde of Eeconstruction officials in the
South, and by a strict accountability of the revenue
officials to their superiors and of these latter to the
President. From the point of view of sound political
science, good public policy and true patriotism all of
these suggestions were at least worth consideration, but
Congress took no more notice of them than it did of the
distant murmurs of the waters of the Potomac.

Only once again did the Congress break over its ap-
parent resolve to ignore the President, and that was
upon the occasion of his issue of his uni- ThePresi-
versal and unconditional pardon and am- fyntprodama-
nesty to all persons who had participated, Member* 25ttT
either directly or indirectly, in the rebellion, 1868-
with the restoration of all their rights, privileges and
immunities under the Constitution and the laws made
in pursuance thereof. The date of this document was
December 25th, 1868. On the 5th of January, 1869,
the Senate called him to account for this by a res-

216 RECONSTRUCTION

olution calling upon him " to transmit to the Senate a
copy of any proclamation of amnesty made by him since
the last adjournment of Congress, and also to commu-
nicate to the Senate by what authority of law the same
was made." The President replied on the 18th, send-
ing a copy of his proclamation of December 25th, 1868,
and declaring that he issued it by authority of the sec-
ond section of Article second of the Constitution, which
vested in the President the power to grant reprieves
and pardons for offences against the United States, ex-
cept in cases of impeachment, and in accordance with
precedents established by his predecessors in office,
Washington, Adams, Madison and Lincoln. The Sen-
ate did not say that he had no right to claim any con-
stitutional prerogative, and that he was not worthy to
act under precedents set by Washington, Adams, Mad-
ison, and Lincoln, but most of the Senators evidently
so thought. The proclamation had no effect upon the
qualifications for suffrage in the face of the Eecon-
struction Acts and the " State " constitutions framed
and established in accordance with them. It was little
more than the bull against the comet.

As a sort of final stroke the President vetoed the bill

The Presi- concernmg the transfer of the control of

dent's veto of the colored schools in the District of Colum-

theBill in re- . .

gardtotnecoi- bia, and the bill for raising the duties on

ored schools . , , TT

in the District imported copper and copper ores. He gave
o ran m. exceuent reasons for both of these vetoes, but
Congress had long ceased to be guided by reason in
matters which related to the President.

On its side it was busy with a project which, though
not intended as a blow at him particularly, was not
in accordance with his view that the regulation of the
suffrage within the "States" was, and should be, left
to the "States" respectively, and exclusively, viz.,

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 217

the proposed Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitu-
tion. Eeference has already been made to the incon-
sistent doctrine, we might almost say the The Fif.
timorous subterfuge, of the Republican plat- teenthAmend-
form on the matter of negro suffrage, and
to the growing conviction on the part of the Republicans
during the campaign that this question must be settled
for the entire country alike, and by a constitutional
amendment. At the opening of Congress in December,
and during the first days of the session, the proposi-
tion was presented which finally took on the form
given it by the conference committee of the two Houses
in the words : " The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall
have power to enforce this article by appropriate leg-
islation." It was passed by both Houses with the
requisite two-thirds majority on the 26th of February
and sent to the legislatures of the " States " for rat-
ification. The Republicans had at last come to the
view that the emancipation of the freedmen involved
their civil equality with the whites, and that such
equality could not be maintained unless they possessed
the elective franchise, and that it was cowardly for the
" States " of the North to force negro suffrage on the
South without accepting it for themselves.

It is certainly true that full freedom implies civil
liberty and civil equality, but there was another way,
and a better way, to have secured these than
by the immediate and universal suffrage of the Repub-
the newly emancipated in all their ignorance,
immorality and poverty, and that was by the national-
ization of civil liberty, and its protection and enforce-
ment by the United States courts. Most of the Repub-

218 RECONSTRUCTION

licans believed, at that moment, that that had been se-
cured by the Fourteenth Amendment ; and there can be
little question that a very important consideration with
such was the fear that after Reconstruction should be
accomplished, the Southern "States" might amend negro
suffrage out of their ' ' State " constitutions, and thus de-
stroy the Republican party in these " States," unless the
Constitution of the United States should be so amended
as to prevent it. The most radical among them were
no doubt moved chiefly by the extravagant humanitari-
anism of the period, which had developed in their minds
to the point of justifying not only the political equal-
ity of the races, but the political superiority, at least
in loyalty to the Union, the Constitution and republi-
can government, of the uncivilized negroes over the
whites of the South ; but that this conviction was not
very strong among the masses of them can be readily
concluded from the fact that that party is to-day the
party which is following the European idea of the duty
of civilized races to impose their political sovereignty
upon uncivilized, or half civilized, or not fully civilized,
races anywhere and everywhere in the world. No party
can, in so short a time, so completely change its funda-
mental principle of political ethics when it is really and
conscientiously believed in by the masses of the party.

This proposed Fifteenth Amendment was not sent to
the President for his approval, but went, according to
Johnson's ^ne custom, to the Secretary of State, to be
f r ommtehne submitted to the " State " legislatures. The
presidency. President was now within a very few days of
the end of his term. His sun had fairly set, and the
disrespect felt for him by the members of the dominant
party in Congress and out of Congress was expressed in
the rude and quite unprecedented refusal of General
Grant to sit in the same carriage with him in the pro-

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 219

cession from the White House to the Capitol, on the
4th of March, for the ceremonies of the inauguration of
the new President. Discredited, despised, and scoffed at,
as a traitor to his party, to his political creed, and to his
country, Mr. Johnson stepped down from the high office
which he had occupied during one of the two most crit-
ical periods in American history since the establishment
of the present Constitution.

And yet it is certainly true that the Eepublican
party had left him rather than that he had left the
party. This party began simply as a Union The Presi-
party and an anti-slavery extension party. Republican
Mr. Johnson, an original Democrat, joined p*"-^-
with the Republicans upon this basis, and he never
left it. On the other hand, when the necessities of
the war for the Union made it evident that the slaves
within the Southern communities which had declared
secession, and were engaged in rebellion, must be pro-
claimed free, Mr. Johnson still went with the Re-
publicans in the justification of this measure. And
when, finally, the war was ended and the Union was
preserved, and the Republicans decided that the legiti-
mate outcome of the victory was the prohibition of
slavery everywhere within the United States by an
amendment to the Constitution, Mr. Johnson still
marched with them, at the head of the column. It was
only when they became more and more radical in their
policy, and insisted upon transforming rather than re-
storing the "States" of the South, by placing civil
rights under national protection instead of " State "
protection, disfranchising the whites of the South, and
enfranchising the negroes, and upon overcoming the
Executive's objections to these movements not simply
by overriding the veto, but by generally subordinating
the Executive to Congress — it was only then that he

220 RECONSTRUCTION

separated from them and fell back naturally on such
support as he could get, which was chiefly from the
Democratic party.

No fair mind can claim that the Republicans in their
quarrel with the President had not departed from their
solemn declaration made in Congress assembled in those
dark July days of 1861, just after the first great defeat
of the Union arms, " That this war is not waged upon
our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any pur-
pose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of over-
throwing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of the Southern States, but to defend and
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to
preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and
rights of the several States unimpaired." And it was
upon the basis of this understanding that the Democrats
in Congress, Mr. Johnson among them, stood with the
Republicans in the prosecution^oLthe war. It is indeed
a serious question of politicaKcasuistry) as to how far
declarations of policy are binding upon a political party.
They are certainly not like agreements entered into
between sovereign states, and the law of development
rather than the law of contract must be the constructive
force in party creed. But this, at least, must be held,
viz., that a man originally not of a given political party,
but acting with it upon the basis of a given creed, can-
not be accused of being an apostate from that party if
he does not continue with it when it adopts a new creed
in many respects the very opposite of that given creed,
except in the most groveling sense of machine politics ;
and that when he and it do part company, more by
its own departures from the given creed than by his,
he is certainly not on that account to be necessarily
considered as a traitor to his country. The truth is,
that while all men who occupy high station are pecul-

RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED 221

iarly subject to wanton, as well as ignorant, assaults upon
their purposes and their conduct, few men that have
occupied so high a station have ever been so unreasona-
bly slandered and vilified as Andrew Johnson. His own
unfortunate and irritating manners and methods will ac-
count for a good deal of the misunderstanding of his
character, but the violence of the times was the oc-
casion of a great deal more of it. The true Union men
of Tennessee will, however, never forget the hope, and
encouragement, and support which he gave to them,
when they were left in the lurch by their own natural
leader, John Bell ; and the Nation should for this, if
nothing else, write his name in the book of its heroes.

CHAPTEK XI

PRESIDENT GRANT AND -RECONSTRUCTION

The Situation at the Moment of Grant's Accession to Power — The
Georgia Question — The Attitude of the New President toward
Reconstruction — The Virginia Case — Grant's Message to Con-
gress of April 7th, 1868, and His Proclamation of May 14th
— Ratification of the Virginia Constitution and Election of
" State " Officers under it — The Restoration of Virginia to
Her Federal Relations — Ratification of the Mississippi Consti-
tution and Election of " State " Officers and Legislative Members
under it — The Restoration of Mississippi to Her Federal Re-
lations— Ratification of the Texas Constitution and Election of
" State " Officers and Legislative Members under it — Restora-
tion of Texas to Her Federal Relations — Grant and the Tenure-
of - Office Act — Congress and the Tenure - of - Office Act after
Grant's Accession to the Presidency — The Modification of the
Tenure-of-Office Act— The President's Dissatisfaction with the
Measure — The Facts in the Georgia Case — New Conditions
Imposed on Georgia— The Final Restoration of Georgia to Her
Federal Relations — Negro Rule in the South from the Point of
View of Political Science and Ethnical Principle.

At the moment of Grant's accession to power, four of

the Southern communities were still denied recognition as

"States" upon the floor of Congress. Three

The situs.-

tion at the of the four had not yet adopted ' ' State " con-
Grant's acces- stitutions, viz. : Virginia, Mississippi and
sion to power. Texag . and the fourth^ Georgia, the repre-
sentatives from which to the lower House of Congress
had been admitted in December of 1868, was still un-
represented in the Senate, for the reason that the legis-
lature of Georgia, after electing United States Senators,

222

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 223

had rejected the negro members-elect of that body on
the ground that negroes were not eligible to legislative
seats in Georgia.

When the news of this procedure reached Washington,
the Senate held back from admitting the Senators-elect
from Georgia to seats and did not admit The Georgia
them during the last session of the Fortieth question.
Congress ; and at the opening of the Forty-first Congress,
on March 4th, 1869, the day of Grant's inauguration,
one of the first acts of the respective Houses was to re-
fuse admittance to the representatives from Georgia to
either House, and to refer their credentials to the Com-
mittee of each House on Elections.

In his inaugural Address the new President made no

reference to these questions, but he had hardly been one

month in the presidential office before lie

recognized the difficulties with which his of the new
i ijt~ v. 4. jiii President tow-

predecessor had been beset, and asked and ard Recon-

almost demanded of Congress relief from Btruction-
them. On the 7th day of April he addressed a message
to Congress requesting that body to provide for sub-
mitting to the voters of Virginia the " State " constitution
drafted and adopted by a constitutional convention at
Eichmond nearly a year before, and recommending that
"a separate vote be taken upon such parts as might be
thought expedient," and that the constitution, " or such
parts thereof as shall have been adopted by the people,"
should be submitted to Congress on the first Monday of
the following December, and that the officers provided
for under the said constitution should be chosen at the
same election.

The President also suggested that the constitution
framed by the convention in Mississippi and rejected
by the voters might be resubmitted in the same way.
The events in Mississippi culminating in the rejection

224 RECONSTRUCTION

of the proposed State constitution by the voters in June
of 1868 have been already related.

The case of Virginia, on the other hand, which
differed in several material respects from that of any
The Virginia °^ the others, has not been as yet sufficiently
case- stated for a clear understanding of the Presi-

dent's meaning in his recommendations to Congress of
April 7th. It will be remembered that a loyal govern-
ment of Virginia, with its seat first at Wheeling and
then at Alexandria, existed during the entire period of
the Civil War, and that from 1861 to 1864 Virginia,
under this government, had been represented in Con-
gress, and that it was this government which consented
to the partition of Virginia recognized by Congress.
On the 23d day of May, 1865, this government trans-
ferred itself from Alexandria to Kichmond, having been
recognized by President Johnson on May 9th as the true
government of Virginia. The legislative department of
it met in secsion on the 20th of June following. The
Governor, Mr. Pierpont, recommended, in his message
to that body, that a constitutional amendment should
be drafted, and proposed by it to the voters for ratifica-
tion, which would enfranchise, and qualify for office, a
much larger proportion of the people than was the case
under the revised constitution of Virginia of 1864,
adopted by the loyal convention at Alexandria. The
legislature followed the Governor's advice and proposed
an amendment to the voters which granted suffrage
and eligibility substantially to the old ante-bellum electo-
rate and eligibles on the condition of future loyalty to
the United States. This proposition was voted on at
the elections held on the 12th of October for the choice
of members of the legislature and of the lower House of
Congress, and was ratified by a large majority. The
election was held in every county and the result was fairly

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION" 225

representative of the people. There was lacking bnt one
thing more for the complete restoration of the " State "
to its federal relations, viz., the admission of the Senators
and Eepresentatives from it to seats in Congress. They
presented themselves at the opening of the Congressional
session on the first Monday of December following, and
were excluded, along with the Senators and Eepresenta-
tives from the other "Johnson States," by the Stevens
resolution.

For more than a year, however, this government
continued to act as the "State" government of Vir-
ginia, under the limitations placed upon it by the
presence of the military of the United States, and the
interference of the commanding general in behalf of
the freedmen. On January 15th, 1866, the legislature
chosen at the October elections of the preceding year
passed the vagrant act, which defined as va- TheVagraut
grants "all persons who, not having wherewith Act-
to maintain themselves and their families, live idly and
without employment, and refuse to work for the usual and
common wages given to the laborers in the like work in
the place where they are," and which authorized the con-
demned vagrant to be hired out, and his wages applied to
his own use or the use of his family, and, in case of his
running away from the hirer, to be apprehended on the
warrant of a justice and returned to the hirer, who
should have one month of service extra, and without
wages, for the interruption of the service contracted for,
and other trouble and expense, and should also have the
right, by permission of the justice, to work the returned
vagrant with ball and chain, in order to prevent a repe-
tition of his flight. On the 24th, just nine days after
the passage of the act, General Terry, the military com-
mander at Eichmond, issued an order setting aside this
measure as to the freedmen. He based his order on the

226 RECONSTRUCTION

tendency of the statute to influence employers to com-
bine for the purpose of lowering the wages of the freed-
men to a point that would pauperize them and drive
General Ter- them into vagrancy, and create thus the very
img aside ttie situation which, under the operation of the
Vagrant Act. measure, would lead to a species of servitude
worse than the old domestic slavery. He had no reliable
facts of experience upon which to base his theory. It
was a bit of political and economic prophecy on his part.
It was sufficient, however, to call down maledictions from
the Congress at Washington and the people of the North
upon the legislature at Eichmond and the people of
Virginia and of the South generally.

Congress, however, gave this legislature one more
opportunity to redeem itself. The proposed Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was
submitted to it for ratification in June of 1866. After
long deliberation upon it, the legislature rejected it on
the 9th of January, 1867. This act sealed the fate of
that legislature. Virginia was brought, with the other
Southern communities which had rejected or not adopted
the proposed Amendment, under the Reconstruction Acts
of March, 1867, and became the first military district
under those Acts, with General Schofield as commander.
Schofield ordered the election for delegates to a constitu-
tional convention, by the voters designated in the Recon-
struction Acts, to be held in November of 1867, and
ordered the delegates so elected to assemble in Richmond
on the 3d of the following December. These orders
were successfully executed under the super-

Virginia . J ,, r

made a Mm- vision and control of the military. Schofield
himself appeared in the convention, and
urged the delegates to be moderate in the propositions
for the disfranchisement and disqualification of those
who had participated in rebellion. But the delegates

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 227

elected under the Reconstruction Acts, and by the elec-
torate created through them, were not only radical, but
bent upon retaliation. They would not listen to the
wise counsel of Schofield, but drafted and adopted such
provisions in regard to suffrage qualifications and eligi-
bility to office and mandate as would have put the
" State " government, based on such a constitution, in
the hands of negroes, " scalawags " and " carpet-bag "
adventurers. The opposition to these provisions on the
part of the commander and the Administration at Wash-
ington was, however, sufficiently effective to delay in-
definitely the submission of the constitution to the
voters. Near the end of the year 1868, a conference of
prominent Virginians assembled at Eichmond and ap-
pointed a committee, and sent its members to Washing-
ton to petition Congress to allow the disfranchising and
disqualifying clauses, and the clauses in reference to
county organization, to be voted on separately from the
other parts of the proposed constitution. This com-
mittee proceeded to Washington in January of 1869,
and argued their case before committees of both of the
Houses of Congress, and also presented the same to the
new President-elect, General Grant.

It was in consequence of such representations and
prayers, that President Grant sent his message of April
7th to Congress, requesting authority to ac- Qr
cede to the petition of the Virginians, and sage to con-

n,/-y • t -i ii gress of April

that Congress immediately conferred the au- 7th, 1868, and
thority upon him. Armed with this author- tionProf May
ity, the President issued a proclamation on
the 14th day of May, 1869, commanding the " State " con-
stitution framed for Virginia by the convention which
assembled on December 3d, 1867, at Richmond, to be
submitted to the voters, on July 6th, 1869, for ratifica-
tion or rejection, and also commanding that those pro-

228 RECONSTRUCTION"

visions disqualifying persons from voting and holding

office who had in any way aided the rebellion against

the United States should be separately submitted.

At the election ordered by the President, the consti-

t, .-„ .■ tution without these clauses was ratified, and

Ratification '

of the Virginia the conservative Republican candidates for
office and legislative membership were elected.
At the next session of Congress, in December of 1869,
the Senators and Representatives presented themselves
The reatora- for admission. Their claims were sustained
ia°to°heI1^ed- by the President, who reported to Congress
erai relations. that Virginia had fulfilled all of the condi-
tions required of her for readmission to her full privi-
leges as a member of the Union, having among other
things ratified by legislative acts both the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and urged the admission of the Sena-
tors and Representatives from the " State " to Congress.
After a good deal of discussion and some wrangling, the
bill for the accomplishment of this object was passed, and,
in the last days of January of 1870, Virginia was re-
stored to her proper federal relations, on the conditions
that the constitution of the " State " should never be so
amended as to deprive any person enfranchised therein
of the suffrage, or any citizen or class of citizens of the
United States of the educational rights and privileges
provided therein, or any citizen of the United States of
the equal right to hold office, on account of race, color
or previous condition of servitude, or of the school
rights provided in the constitution of the " State." The
Congressional Act also undertook to purge the new
" State " legislature by requiring that every member
must take an oath that he was not disqualified by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, or that, if he had been, he had also been

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 229

relieved by the Congressional Act authorized for the
case in the Amendment.

The Act of Congress of April 10th empowered the
President to deal with the question of Eeconstruction in
Mississippi in the same manner as in Vir- Katmcation
ginia. By virtue of this power, the Presi- °f *£? ^nlti-
dent issued a proclamation, on the 13th of tution-
July, 1869, commanding the resubmission to the voters
of the constitution adopted by the Mississippi conven-
tion, on the 15th of May, 1868, and rejected by the
voters as stated on a previous page, and designating the
30th day of November, 1869, as the date of the election.
As in the case of Virginia, the President ordered a
separate vote to be taken upon the disfranchising and
disqualifying clauses of the constitution which . pro-
hibited any person from voting or holding office who
had given any aid or comfort to persons in rebellion.

The result of the vote on the constitution was the
same as in Virginia. The constitution was ratified
without these clauses ; and on the 23d of
February, 1870, the bill for the restoration tion of Missis-
of Mississippi and the admission of the Sena- Federal reia-
tors and Representatives from the "State"
to Congress, on the same conditions as those exacted of
Virginia, became law.

The Act of April 10th, 1869, also invested the Presi-
dent with the power of ordering the submission of the
constitution framed and adopted by the con- „ ... „

r J Ratification

vention at Austin, Texas, in June of 1868, to of the Texas

,.„,. t\ • i i • Constitution.

the voters for ratification. By virtue of this
authority, the President ordered a vote to be taken upon
this instrument on the 30th day of November, 1869.
This proposed constitution did not contain any such dis-
franchising and disqualifying clauses as those which
rendered the Virginia and Mississippi instruments ob-

230 RECONSTRUCTION

noxious to the intelligence of these communities, and
the vote was, therefore, ordered to be taken upon the
entire constitution at once. The result was ratification ;

Restoration and on the 30th of March, 1870, the Con-
hVr6 Federal gressional measure for the complete restora-
relations. £jon 0f Texas to her proper federal relations,
upon the same fundamental conditions as those required
of Virginia and Mississippi, became law.

Thus while the new President did not, as his prede-
cessor had done, dispute the power of Congress to direct
and control the reconstruction of the disrupted Southern
communities as " States " of the Union, he appealed to
Congress for the authority to relieve some of them still
suffering under military rule from the hard alternative
of negro domination, and when Congress gave him the
power requested, he used it for the amelioration of the
situation. This was true statesmanship. If President
Johnson had done this instead of insisting upon his
constitutional power to reconstruct, independently of
Congress, these communities, and repeating continually
his unsound, though specious, arguments in support of
his view, it is quite possible that he might have main-
tained his influence, in some degree at least, with the
Eepublican majority, and at the same time, and in con-
sequence thereof, might have accomplished something in
the interest of a true conservatism in Reconstruction.
This is not, however, certain. Johnson had none of
Grant's vast popularity with the people of the North
whereby to overawe Congress, and there is no doubt,
deny it as we may to conscious reflection, that down
below consciousness there was a sort of distrust of a
Southern Union man on the part of a large portion of
the people of the North. Mr. Johnson had to suffer
under the influence of this feeling, like all others of
his class, and whenever he suggested any moderate

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 231

course in the treatment of former rebels, he fell un-
der the suspicion of masking sympathy with their sen-
timents under a pretence of Unionism. He was, thus,
rather an object of Congressional distrust from the
first, and could probably never have done so much as
Grant succeeded in doing for conservatism in Virginia
and Mississippi, even though he had recognized the
power of Congress in the work of reconstruction, and
had preferred respectful requests, instead of asserting
presidential prerogatives.

Likewise the new President found, as soon as he be-
gan the work of administration, that the Tenure-of-
Office Act was an unendurable hindrance to
the efficient discharge of his duties. None the Tenure-of-
of Mr. Johnson's Secretaries, it is true, gave ce ct'
him any trouble by attempting to hold on to office for
the one month allowed them after the expiration of
Mr. Johnson's term. The men nominated by President
Grant for his Cabinet of chiefs and advisers were im-
mediately confirmed, and, with one exception, inducted
into office. These men were E. B. Washburne, of Illi-
nois, as Secretary of State ; A. T. Stewart, of New
York, as Secretary of the Treasury ; A. E. Borie, of
Pennsylvania, as Secretary of the Navy ; J. D. Cox, of
Ohio, as Secretary of the Interior ; E. R. Hoar, of Massa-
chusetts, as Attorney-General ; and J. A. J. Creswell,
of Maryland, as Postmaster-General. No immediate
nomination was made for the Secretaryship of War, and
General Schofield remained for a few days at the head of
the Department. The President soon found that Mr.
Stewart, being a large importer of foreign goods, was dis-
qualified by statute from holding the office of Secretary
of the Treasury. He first suggested to the Senate the re-
moval of the disability by a joint resolution of Congress,
and, on objection being made to the introduction of a

232 RECONSTRUCTION

bill repealing the disqualifying statute, he withdrew the
suggestion. Mr. Stewart then relieved the situation by
sending in his declination and the President nominated
Mr. G. S. Boutwell of Massachusetts for the office,
which nomination was immediately confirmed, and Mr.
Boutwell took immediate charge of the Department.
Mr. Washburne, the Secretary of State, resigned the
office within a few days, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, of
New York, was nominated and appointed to succeed him.
General Schofield next resigned the War Office, and
was succeeded by General John A. Eawlins of Illinois.
Finally, Mr. Borie resigned in June the Secretaryship of
the Navy, and was succeeded by Mr. G. M. Robeson of
New Jersey. The Senate put nothing in the way of
these changes. But President Grant made up his
mind in a very few days after his inauguration not to
have his hands tied in regard to any of the officers for
whose acts he was responsible. He gave the Republi-
can leaders in Congress to understand that he would
allow the existing incumbents of the offices to remain
in office, unless they should commit some such offence
as would call for their suspension, so long as the Tenure-
of-Office Act should remain on the statute book. The
Republicans were hungry for a new distribution of the
spoils. They called it a righteous desire for the " clean*
ing of the Augean stables." Whatever it was, they
were thrown into a great state of trepidation by this
covert threat of the President not to clear the way for
their friends.

On the 9th day of March, less than a week after the
accession of the new President to power, a bill was in-
troduced into the House of Representatives providing for
the immediate repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and
was passed, immediately and without debate, by a vote
of 138 to 16. These 16 were naturally Republicans.

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 233

The Democrats voted for the repeal on principle. "When
the bill reached the Senate it was sent to the Judiciary-
Committee. This Committee quickly re- congress
ported to the Senate a substitute for the bill ™J-5?q8E
of the House. This substitute provided that Act after

, Grant's acces-

the Tenure-of-Office Act should be suspended sion to the
from operation until the next session of Con- pref
gress. No more shameless piece of partisanship was ever
advanced on the floor of the Senate than this. It simply
meant, suspend the Act when the Republicans wanted
to get the offices, and keep it in force when they might
be in danger of being put out. The Senate itself could
not be brought to vote this proposition of its Judiciary
Committee. It was withdrawn by the committee, and
Mr. Trumbull proposed to supersede the existing law
with a measure which would allow the President to sus-
pend from office without assigning any cause for the
same to the Senate, or even reporting the suspension to
the Senate, and to nominate to the Senate a person to
fill the vacancy, and in case of rejection by the Senate
to nominate another person ; and only when the session
of the Senate should come to a close without a ratifica-
tion should the suspended officer be restored.

It was pretty clear that the President would not find
any trouble with such a measure as this, but it seemed
to the House that the Senate was tryiDg to cling to a
certain control over the Executive, and the House refused
<?oncurre*u?<? \n the bill. The matter was finally referred
so a eonte/ence committee, and this committee speedily
matured and reported a measure, which allowed the Pres-
ident, during a recess of the Senate, to sus- The modm-
pend any civil officer appointed by and with Tenure-of-ot
the consent of the Senate, except judges of flceAct-
the United States courts, until the end of the next ses-
sion of the Senate, and to designate some other person

234 RECONSTRUCTION

to discharge the duties of the vacant office in the mean-
time, and made it the duty of the President simply to
nominate to the Senate, within thirty days from the be-
ginning of its next session, some one to succeed to the
office permanently, and in case the Senate should refuse
to ratify the nomination, to nominate another person.
Both Houses accepted the recommendation of the Com-
mittee and the bill agreed upon by its members became
law April 5, 1869.

Still the President was not satisfied with it. He
thought that any control whatever of the Senate over
The Presi- dismissal from office was not warranted
isfaction^with Dy the Constitution, and he regarded the
the measure, attempt of the Senate to cling to any
shadow of such a power as a personal affront to him-
self.

In his first annual Message, that of December 6th, 1869,
he earnestly recommended the total repeal of the Tenure-
of-Office Acts, and declared them both unconstitutional,
and inconsistent with " a faithful and efficient admin-
istration of the Government." His recommendation
was probably an effective warning to Congress against
any attempt to hamper him by claiming any power
under them to control his dismissals and suspensions,
but they still remained on the statute book for nearly
two decades longer. The glaring inconsistency of a bare
and bald repeal of the Acts was too great even for the
partisan Congress. It was willing to make them prac-
tically null and void, but it wanted a shadow with which
to cover its nakedness. At any rate, the position taken
by President Grant toward them was a complete vindi-
cation of President Johnson's views concerning them,
and, in no small degree, of his deeds also.

At the date of this Message all of the Southern com-
munities had completed the acts required by Congress

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 235

for their restoration as " States " of the Union, but the
result of the elections held in Mississippi were not known
in Washington. The President simply expressed the
hope that the constitutions submitted in these commu-
nities to the voters would be ratified, and " thus close
the work of Reconstruction." As we have seen, the
elections resulted as the President hoped, and these
communities were restored, on the basis of the " State "
constitutions adopted, to their proper federal relations.

The case of Georgia still remained, however, un-
settled, and the President suggested that Congress
should enact a law authorizing the Governor
of Georgia, Mr. Bullock, "to convene the the Georgia
members originally elected to the legislature,
requiring each member to take the oath prescribed by
the Reconstruction Acts, and none to be admitted who
were ineligible under the third clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment." The situation was briefly as follows :
The Senators and Representatives from Georgia had
been refused admission to seats in Congress at the first
session of the Forty-first Congress which convened the
4th of March, 1869, because the legislature of Georgia
had expelled the colored men elected to that body as
ineligible, and had rejected the proposed Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It is true that the Senators from Georgia had been
elected by the legislature before the colored members
were expelled, and that the Representatives had been ad-
mitted to seats in the House during the last session of the
Fortieth Congress, and that the ostensible reason for not
admitting the members to the lower House of the Forty-
first Congress was that they had not been elected to the
Forty-first Congress. However, Georgia had no represen-
tation in either House of Congress at the date of Presi-
dent Grant's first annual Message in December of 1869.

236 EECONSTRUCTION

Her ' ' State " government seems, therefore, to have been
considered by Congress as being still only provisional,
despite the fact that by the Act of June 25th, 1868, she
had been declared entitled to admission to representa-
tion in Congress upon conditions which she had subse-
quently fulfilled.

A bill had been introduced into Congress soon after
the opening of the session beginning March 4th, 1869,
dealing with the subject. It was claimed in the preamble
of this bill that the Georgia legislature had not purged
itself of disloyal members as required by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
that it had violated the constitution of Georgia and the
Constitution of the United States and the fundamental
principles of the Reconstruction Acts by expelling the
negro members for ineligibility, and that the civil au-
thorities in the " State " could not, or did not, protect the
loyal citizens in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties
or even in their persons. The bill proposed to meet these
difficulties by providing that the Governor of Georgia
should reconvene the originally elected members of the
legislature, reseat the expelled negro members, and ex-
pel such members as could not swear that they were not
disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States. It may be remarked
here in passing that the Fourteenth Amendment does
not disqualify anybody, in express language, from being
a member of a "State " legislature. It disqualifies all per-
sons who have engaged in rebellion after having taken
an oath, as a member of Congress or of a "State " legis-
lature, or as a United States or a " State" officer, to sup-
port the Constitution of the United States, from holding
a seat in Congress or from being an officer of the United
States or of a "State," but not from holding a seat in a
" State " legislature. The word officer in the public

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 237

jurisprudence of this country does not include member-
ship in a legislative body. But to return to the bill.
It provided finally for making United States troops in
Georgia subject to the Governor's call for assistance.
This bill was so seriously opposed by the Democrats and
the conservative Republicans that it did not pass, and
during this session Congress did nothing further for the
restoration of Georgia.

On the other hand, the conservatives in Georgia un-
dertook to do something for themselves. They got up
a test case in the Supreme Court of the The case of
" State" to determine the rights of negroes to ^hitet and
hold office. The case was that of White and
Clements, and the office involved was a county court
clerkship. Of course the decision was not binding upon
the legislative houses in judging of the eligibility of
their members, but it was thought that it would have
an influence upon their views. The court decided that
under the new constitution of Georgia and the code
of Georgia negroes could hold office, since the constitu-
tion of 1868 declared that all persons born or naturalized
in the United States and residents in Georgia were
citizens of Georgia, and the code declared that among
the rights of citizens was the right to hold office.
Of course the legislature could abolish or amend the
code. After the rendering of this decision the conserva-
tive members of the legislature requested the Governor,
Mr. Bullock, who was a radical Republican, and a New
Yorker by birth, to reconvene the legislature for the
purpose of reseating the expelled negro members. The
Governor refused, apparently not desiring to anticipate
the action of Congress in the case. The attempt of the
conservatives to help themselves thus came to naught,
and the unhappy community drifted on toward anarchy
and violence, according to the report now made by

238 RECONSTRUCTION

General Terry to the President, who declared it to be
his opinion that the United States Government must
intervene anew in order to preserve it against that
fate.

It was then with a good deal of irritation that Con-
gress came to consider the subject of Reconstruction
New condi- *n Georgia again in the session of 1869-70,
tions imposed and the determination soon became manifest

on Georgia. . .

to impose additional and harder conditions
upon this community than upon the others. Moreover,
as matters appeared at that juncture, the ratification
of the Fifteenth Amendment by the legislature of
Georgia would be necessary to make out the required
three-fourths majority. It was in this temper, and un-
der the pressure of this supposed necessity, that Congress,
acting promptly upon the general suggestion in the
President's Message, passed a bill which provided that
the Governor of Georgia should forthwith summon the
persons declared by the proclamation of General Meade,
of the date of June 25th, 1868, to be members-elect
of the legislature, to assemble at Atlanta ; that every
such person should take an oath or affirmation that he
had never, after having been a member of Congress or of
a " State " legislature, or an officer of the United States
or of a " State" "engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or given any aid or comfort
to its enemies, or rendered, except in consequence of di-
rect physical compulsion, any support or aid to any in-
surrection, or rebellion against the United States, or
held any office under, or given any support to, any
government of any kind acting in hostility to the
United States, or levying war against the United States,"
or should make oath or affirmation that, if he had so
acted, he had been relieved by Congress from any dis-
ability attaching to such act in the manner provided in

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 239

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ; that
in case any person claiming to be a member of the
legislature should fail to make such an oath or af-
firmation he should be excluded from a seat in the
body ; that no member-elect should be excluded on ac-
count of race, color or previous condition of servitude ;
that, on application of the Governor, the President
should employ the military power of the United States
to enforce the provisions of the Act ; and that the legis-
lature of Georgia should ratify the proposed Fifteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
before Senators and Eepresentatives from Georgia
should be admitted to seats in Congress. This bill was
approved by the President on the 22d of December,
1869.

So great was the opposition to Reconstruction, under
these hard conditions, on the part of the white people
in Georgia, that the Governor was obliged Eesumption
to call for the military of the United States ^inment
to aid him, and finally to step aside for in Georgia.
General Terry, who by an order from the President,
dated January 4th, 1870, was authorized to resume the
powers in Georgia of the commander of a military dis-
trict, as provided under the Reconstruction Act of March
2d, 1867. The General found a number of members in
the legislature recognized by General Meade's procla-
mation who could not take either of the oaths or affirma-
tions prescribed. These he caused to be removed from
their seats in very arbitrary ways. This procedure put
the Republicans in the legislature in majority, and they
filled these vacancies by admitting persons who had re-
ceived the next highest number of votes to those cast
for the expelled members in the election, and who could
take one or the other of the oaths or affirmations pre-
scribed in the Act of the 22d of December, 1869.

240 EECONSTEUCTION'

The legislature as thus reconstructed was approved by
the military authorities, and it now proceeded to fulfil

Ratification the final condition required of Georgia, viz.,
teenthlnlend- the ratification of the proposed Fifteenth
SSSWyt Amendment to the Constitution of the
lature. United States. It also ratified the Four-

teenth Amendment. This was, from a legal point of
view, entirely superfluous, since the Fourteenth Amend-
ment was, at the moment, already a part of the Consti-
tution, as much so as any other Article, and in resuming
the status of a " State " in the Union, Georgia was, of
course, subject to all parts of the Constitution alike.
The legislature might, with equal reason, have ratified
specially any other part of the Constitution. The idea
seems to have been to correct any possible defects in the
ratification of this amendment which the Georgia legis-
lature had voted on July 21st, 1868.

This purified legislature now elected United States
Senators, both of them Eepublicans, of course. All
Further de- these things were done in the latter part of
m3is^ionaof January and the early part of February of
uvea from 1870, and as the Congress was in session,
Georgia. there was reason to expect that Georgia would

be, at once, fully restored as a " State" of the Union.
A bill was reported in the House of Eepresentatives on
the 25th of February from the Committee on Kecon-
struction for this purpose. It was nearly identical in its
provisions and language with the Virginia and Mis-
sissippi bills, but it dragged along through nearly five
months of debate and partisan wrangling before it
became law. The reason of this delay was that, on
March 4th, General Butler proposed an amendment to
the bill which provided : " That the power granted by
the constitution of Georgia to the general assembly to
change the time of holding elections, and prescribe the

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 241

day of meeting of the general assembly, shall not be so
exercised as to postpone the election of the next general
assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November in the year 1872, nor shall such power ever
be by any future legislature so exercised as to extend the
term of any office beyond the regular period named in
said constitution ; and the said general assembly shall
by joint resolution consent to this condition before this
Act shall take effect."

This language was at once taken to mean that Congress
would undertake to empower the legislature of Georgia to
extend the terms of the members of the Georgia legislature
and of the Governor, elected in April of 1868, by two
years, on the ground that the " State " government of
Georgia was still provisional, and would so remain until
the passage of this Act, and that these terms would, there-
fore, not really begin until the passage of this Act. The
conservative Eepublicans as well as the Democrats repu-
diated this interpretation of the powers of Congress to
extend, or to authorize the " State " legislature to ex-
tend, the terms of the members of the legislature and of
" State " officers as an unprecedented usurpation. Some
of them repudiated the idea that there could be a provi-
sional "State" government, and declared that any
further legislation in regard to the reconstruction of
Georgia was unnecessary, since the Act of June 25th,
1868, had restored Georgia to her position as a " State"
of the Union, along with North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, upon certain
conditions, all of which Georgia had fulfilled, just as
the others had done, and since all the others had
been admitted to the enjoyment of all of their rights
and privileges as " States " of the Union without
any further legislation than the Act of June 25th,
1868.

242 RECONSTRUCTION

There is no doubt that the Butler amendment meant,
and was intended by its author to mean, just what was
charged by the conservatives. General Butler at last
acknowledged and avowed it, and attempted to justify
it. But he was unable to rally a majority to sustain it,
and he withdrew it in the face of an amendment offered
by Mr. Bingham on the 7th, which provided that noth-
ing contained in the bill should be construed either to
vacate any of the " State " offices in Georgia, or to extend
the terms of the present holders of them beyond the time
provided in the " State" constitution, or deprive the peo-
ple of Georgia of the right under their " State " con-
stitution of electing members of their legislature in the
year 1870.

This amendment was passed on the 8th of March,
and the bill as thus amended was passed by the House
of Eepresentatives, and sent to the Senate on the same
day. It was immediately referred to the Judiciary
Committee of that body and on the next day, the 9th, it
was reported back to the Senate by this committee, with-
out amendment. The Senate now considered it in
committee of the whole from this time to April 19 th,
and when it was reported to the Senate it had been
changed to a bill which declared the existing govern-
ment of Georgia to be provisional and subject to the
provisions of the Eeconstruction Acts of 1867 ; or-
dered an election in Georgia on the 15th day of Novem-
ber, 1870, for members of the "State" legislature as pro-
vided for in the " State " constitution of 1868; ordered
the assembly of this legislature on the 13th of Decem-
ber, 1870, and its organization preparatory to the ad-
mission of the " State" to representation in Congress ;
declared that the powers and functions of the members
of the existing legislature should cease on the 13th day
of December, 1870 ; and made it the duty of the Pres-

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 243

ident of the United States, in case of domestic violence
in any municipality in the "State/' reported to him by
the legislature or Governor of the State, to suppress by
military power such domestic violence, and " to exercise
all such powers and inflict such punishments as may by
the laws, or the rules and articles of war be exercised
or inflicted in case of insurrection or invasion." The
Senate concurred in the recommendations of the com-
mittee of the whole, and added a provision repealing
that part of the Act of March 2d, 1867, which prohibited
the organizing of any militia force in Georgia.

In this form and with this content the bill was re-
turned to the House. Here it was again debated, off
and on, until June 24th, when it was finally The f. .
agreed upon with the following contents : restoration of

mi in r-i ■ 1 • t Georgia to her

" That the State of Georgia having complied Federal re-
with the Reconstruction Acts, and the Four-
teenth and Fifteenth Articles of Amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States having been ratified in
good faith by a legal legislature of said State, it is
hereby declared that the State of Georgia is entitled to
representation in the Congress of the United States.
But nothing in this act contained shall be construed to
deprive the people of Georgia of the right to an election
for members of the general assembly of said State, as
provided for in the constitution thereof," and " That
so much of the Act of March 2d, 1867, as prohibits
the organization, arming, or calling into service of the
militia forces in the States of Georgia, Mississippi,
Texas and Virginia be, and the same is, hereby re-
pealed."

The Senate disagreed to the bill in this form and
with these contents, and asked for a conference com-
mittee. The House agreed and appointed members.
The conference committee agreed upon the bill as per-

244. EECONSTEUCTION

fected by the House with the addition to the second
section of these words : " And nothing in this or any
other Act of Congress shall be construed to affect the
term to which any officer has been appointed or any
member of the general assembly elected, as prescribed by
the constitution of the State of Georgia." Both the
Senate and the House accepted and concurred in the
recommendations of the committee, and the bill, as thus
perfected, became law on the 15th day of July, 1870.
This bill terminated the era of Reconstruction legisla-
tion by Congress, and at the next session of Congress,
the session of 1870-71, the Senators and Eepresentatives
from Georgia were admitted to their seats, the Senate
admitting those chosen to that body in July of 1868,
Messrs. Hill and Miller. The attempt of Governor Bul-
lock to prolong the terms of the members of the legislat-
ure and of the officers of the "State" government was
decidedly disapproved of by President Grant's Adminis-
tration, and an election was held for members and county
officers and for Eepresentatives in Congress in December
of 1870. The white residents of the " State " stood well
together, and carried the election by a large majority
against the Republicans. So soon as the result was
known Governor Bullock, whose term had still two more
years to run, abandoned his office and left the " State,"
and Georgia was thus early rescued from negro domina-
tion, or rather " carpet-bag " domination through negro
suffrage. Her harder experiences during the years
from 1868 to 1870 had worked out to her advantage,
in that it brought the respectable and capable portion
of her white citizens together earlier than was the case
in the other reconstructed Commonwealths similarly
situated.

From the point of view of a sound political science
the imposition of universal negro suffrage upon the

PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION 245

Southern communities, in some of which the negroes
were in large majority, was one of the " blunder-crimes "
of the century. There is something natural Negr0 rule
in the subordination of an inferior race to a in th?. SoH*

from the point

superior race, even to the point of the en- of view of po-

, . t ■ o i n • litical science

slavement of the inferior race, but there is and ethnical
nothing natural in the opposite. It is entirely prmcip
unnatural, ruinous, and utterly demoralizing and bar-
barizing to both races. It is difficult to believe that
the creation of such a relation between the blacks and
whites of the South was at all within the intentions of
the framers of the Reconstruction Acts. They were
irritated because these communities would not accord
civil equality to the freedmen, would not accept the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and had passed acts
which created a new species of slavery or quasi-slavery of
the blacks. They thought they were placed between
the alternative of continuing military government in
the South indefinitely, or giving the negro the political
power with which to maintain his civil rights.

Opposition to military government in time of peace
was an ingrained principle of the American people, and
there was a large part of people of the North, nearly all
adhering to the Republican party, who believed that man-
hood suffrage was the true principle of a sound political
science. And it was thought that the only way of creat-
ing " States " in the South which would sustain the
Republican party was by giving the negro the suffrage.
It is not surprising, then, that they adopted the course
which they did. There was a third alternative, as has
already been pointed out, viz., the placing of these com-
munities under Territorial civil government and keep-
ing them there until the spirit of loyalty to the Nation
was established and the principle and practice of civil
equality among all citizens was made thoroughly secure.

246 EECONSTEUCTION

But, as has been said, the idea that these communities
were " States" of the Union, notwithstanding their re-
bellion against the United States and their attempted
secession from the Union, seemed to prohibit the follow-
ing of this course, the only true and sound course. And
so these unhappy communities were given over, as sham
"States" of the Union, to the rule of the ignorant and
vicious part of their population, to be sustained therein
by the military power of the Nation, under the excuse
that that part alone was loyal.

A period of darkness now settled down upon these
unhappy communities blacker and more hopeless than
the worst experiences of the war. The conduct of the
men who now appeared upon the scene as the creators of
the new South was so tyrannic, corrupt, mean and vul-
gar as to repel the historian from attempting any detailed
account of their doings, and incline him to the vaguest
outline. Moreover it is most difficult to fix upon re-
liable facts in this period of confusion and political night,
illuminated only by the lurid gleams of passion and
hatred. It is best for the North, best for the South,
best for the whole country, and best for the world that
this terrible mistake of the North and this terrible deg-
radation of the South should be dealt with briefly and
impersonally, and that lessons of warning should be
drawn from these experiences, instead of multiplying
criminations and recriminations in regard to them.

CHAPTEE XII

"CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE
SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN 1868 AND 1876

Escape of Virginia, Georgia and Texas from Negro Rule — North
Carolina's Rapid Recovery from Negro Rule — The Loyal
League — Origin of the K. K. K.'s — Methods of the Ku-Klux — ■
Periods in the History of Negro Rule — The Act for the Enforce-
ment of the New Amendments — The Corruption in the New
" State " Governments — The Supplemental Enforcement Act
—The President's Proclamation of March 23d, 1871— The Ku-
Klux Act of April 20, 1871— Interference of the United States
Military Power in the Affairs of South Carolina — The Presi-
dent's Proclamation of May 3d, 1871 — The President's Procla-
mation to the People of South Carolina — The Ku-Klux Trials
— Corruption in the State Governments of the South— The Re-
volt in the Republican Party — The Liberal Republican Con-
vention of 1872 — Acceptance of the Liberal Republican Can-
didates by the Democrats — Division in the Democratic Party
— The Republican Platform and Nominees — The Republican
Triumph — Events in Alabama — Events in Louisiana — The
Downward Course between 1872 and 1874 — The Election of
1874 — The Change in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas — The
Status in South Carolina in 1874 — The Day of Complete De-
liverance— The Status in Mississippi in 1875 — Fiat Money and
the Resumption of Specie Payments — The Inflation Bill of
1874 and the Veto of it by the President.

Virginia, Texas and Georgia had been in no great
hurry, as we have seen, to exchange military government
exercised by the white officers of the United _ „ „ ,

J Escape o f

States army for "State " government under Virginia,

° . Georgia and

the electorate proposed m the Reconstruction Texas from

Acts. In this they were wise. The army

officers did not, as a rule, sympathize with the radical

247

248 RECONSTRUCTION

movements of the Eepublicans in Congress, and they so
executed the duties imposed upon them as to cause
the least suffering and inconvenience. Their rule,
though exercised under a repellent title, was in fact
far milder than, and far preferable to, the civil govern-
ment of the adventurer and the negro. They mingled
socially with the old families, and, in many cases, mar-
ried their fair daughters. The common soldiers from
the Northern " States " also fraternized with their race
relatives in the South. They did not fancy the black
soldiers either of the regular army or the " State " mi-
litia, and many were the cases in which they intervened
between the defenceless ex-Confederates and the brutal
blacks in blue. It is even said by men who have every
opportunity to know that many of them doffed their
uniforms on election day, went to the polls, and voted
the Democratic ticket.

In spite of the threats of Congress, and the ever-in-
creasing conditions imposed by that body upon the per^
mission to resume the " State " status, these three com-
munities held out under military rule until so many of
their leading citizens had been amnestied by Congress
and made again eligible to office and mandate, and until
so much better provisions concerning the enfranchise-
ment of the ex-Confederates had been secured, as to put
them in a far better position to resume " State" govern-
ment than was the case two years before. Moreover, these
communities had larger white than black populations.
After their full restoration, consequently, Virginia and
Georgia escaped largely the suffering experienced by most
of the others, and Texas also managed to pull through
the years from 1870 to 1874 with only about a four-fold
increase of taxation, and the creation of a debt of only
about 5,000,000 of dollars, when she reached the period
of union of almost all her best citizens in the Demo-

" CAKPET-BAG " AND NEGRO DOMINATION 249

cratic party, which, in the election of Kichard Coke as
Governor in 1874, and of a majority of the legislative
members, permanently triumphed in Texas. Mississippi
also had held back in 1868 and 1869, as we have seen,
in order to secure better terms for the ex-Confederates
in the enfranchising and disfranchising provisions of the
" State" constitution, and by doing so had accomplished
this result. But Mississippi was one of the three South-
ern communities in which the negro population far out-
numbered the white. Mississippi was not, for this rea-
son chiefly, so fortunate as Virginia, Texas and Georgia.
She was obliged, with South Carolina and Louisiana, to
pass through the fiery furnace in order to fuse the re-
spectable white elements in her population into a single
political party with a well-understood and a well-de-
termined purpose.

Of all the " States" included in the Congressional Act
of June 25th, 1868, only North Carolina had been fort-
unate enough to rid herself, before 1872, of North caro-
the rule of the adventurers and their igno- covery^rVim
rant negro support. This happened because negr0 rule-
matters were driven to a crisis sooner here than else-
where. The legislature of 1868 had proceeded prompt-
ly to authorize the issue of $25,000,000 of bonds, when
the whole taxable property of the " State " was not over
$125,000,000. From the first moment the people were
threatened with confiscation, and when to this was
added the legislative act, known as the Schaffher law,
authorizing the Governor to suspend civil government,
and institute martial law in any part of the " State,"
and when he actually undertook to do so in three coun-
ties of the " State," the whites came together in the
election of 1870, captured the legislature and redeemed
the " State " from the hideous tyranny with which it
was threatened.

250 RECONSTRUCTION

Already before the Keconstruction Acts were passed,
the political adventurers in the South had begun organ-

The Loyal izing the negroes into secret bodies, known
League. later as the Union or Loyal League. The

members of these bodies were sworn to obey the decisions
of the organization and to execute them. The original
idea seems to have been a combination for protection
against bands of lawless white people, and for mutual
aid and assistance in the hard struggle for existence to
which the freedmen were now exposed. The League
soon took on, however, a political character, and be-
came a sort of Kepublican party organization in the
South.

It is difficult to determine whether the Ku-Klux or-
ganization preceded that of the Loyal League and pro-
Origmofthe voked it or not. So far as we know, both of
k.k.k.'s. them were first heard of in the year 1866.
It is probable that the Ku-Klux had its origin a little
farther north than the Loyal League. It is said by
those who profess to know most about it, that the first
appearance of this body was in one of the southern
counties of Tennessee, Giles County ; that it was first
organized by a lot of young loafers, probably ex- Con-
federate soldiers, who lived in the town of Pulaski, the
county town of that county ; and that their first purpose
was the playing of practical jokes upon the ignorant
and superstitious negroes of the neighborhood. They
operated in the night-time, went disguised, travelled on
horseback, their horses being also disguised, and were
oath-bound to execute the decisions of the organization,
and to protect each other. Whatever may have been
its origin, this body also soon found its political useful-
ness. It soon proved to be a powerful means for intim-
idating and terrorizing the negroes, and also white men
acting with the negroes.

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 251

After the Reconstruction Acts were passed and put
into operation, and especially after the Southern com-
munities were reorganized as " States" un- Methods of
der them, and the military governments theKuKlux-
gave way to the " State " governments, this organiza-
tion spread all over the South, and contributed much
by its violent and unlawful methods toward wringing
finally the new "State" governments of the South
from the hands of the negroes and the " carpet-baggers."
As it extended, its methods became more lawless and
violent. Its members whipped, plundered, burned,
abducted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered, for the
prime purpose of keeping the negroes from exercising
suffrage and holding office. They were protected by
many respectable people who would not have partici-
pated personally in their nefarious work. And they had
confederates everywhere, who, upon the witness stand
and in the jury box, would perjure themselves to pre-
vent their conviction and punishment. It was even
said that there were many cases where members of these
Klans were able to have themselves subpoenaed as wit-
nesses, or summoned as jurors, in the trials of their
comrades, and that they were sworn to perjure them-
selves, if necessary, to clear each other. The respect-
able people of the South tried to make it appear that
these lawless bands were simply freebooters, such as
generally infest a country for a time after a period of
war, and had no political meaning or purpose whatso-
ever ; and it is probably true that the Klans never
went beyond county organization, any wider bond than
the county organization, or Klan, being rather the
moral bond of a common purpose ; but it cannot be well
questioned now that they had one purpose at least in
common, and that that was a chief purpose with them
all, viz., to terrorize the negro out of the exercise of his

252 RECONSTRUCTION

newly-granted privileges of suffrage and office-holding,
and keep him in his place as a menial.

The appearance of both the Loyal Leagues and the

Ku-Klux Klans in the manner in which they appeared,

Thenatur l- anc^ a^ ^e time wnen they appeared, ought

ness of these not to cause any surprise to the student of

organizations. J ±

history. Under the reconstruction of the
Southern communities as pursued before March of 1867
it seemed as if the freedmen were to be left to the ten-
der mercies of their former masters, irritated against
them by the act of the North in emancipating them,
and by failure in war to prevent it. It was entirely
natural, not to say praiseworthy, for them to combine
for the defence of their newly found rights, and for
mutual assistance in the hard battle against want which
they were now obliged to wage. And it was no less
natural that they should look for the intellectual power
necessary for forming such combinations to the white
men from the North who had helped them out of their
bondage, and had given them food and clothes in their
hunger and nakedness.

And, again, when by the Reconstruction Acts and
the restoration of martial law in the South under them,
Congress turned the tables upon the Southern white
people, and placed the ignorant barbarians in political
control of them, and made every open attempt to resist
this control a penal offence, it was also rather natural,
though not praiseworthy, that men should have bound
themselves together by secret oaths to do anything and
everything in their power to defeat this blunder-crime
against civilization. Whether natural or not, it always
happens when such attempts are made, and it is always
to be expected.

But to return to the order of the narrative. The for-
mation of the Union Leagues in 1867 and 1868 enabled

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 253

the negroes to vote in these years for delegates to the
constitutional conventions required under the Recon-
struction Acts, and to vote upon the ratifica- The oppor.
tion of the constitutions framed by them, and \f^} ^vent-
to participate in the election for the ' ' State " orers-
officers and legislative members under those constitu-
tions, with the help and under the direction of these or-
ganizations, and to operate the newly established " State "
governments under the same direction. This opened the
way for the ' ' carpet-bag " governments in the Southern
" States," whose deeds may be now briefly narrated.

The landing places in this story may be placed at the
years 1872, 1874, and 1876. The year 1872 is the date
of the national revolt against the policy of

. Periods in

the Washington government in the affairs the history of
of the reconstructed. " States." The year negroru
1874 is the date when some of the reconstructed " States "
succeeded in overthrowing carpet-bag and negro rule,
and the Democrats succeeded in electing a majority of
members in the lower House of Congress. And the
year 1876 is the date of the complete overthrow of that
rule and the complete establishment of the "solid South"
under white Democratic government.

Before all of the Southern communities had been ad-
mitted to representation in Congress, and before any of
them except Tennessee had gotten fairly TheActfor
under way with their new " State " govern- the enforce-

J P ment of the

ments, a bill was presented in Congress to pro- new Amend-
vide f or the enforcement of the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. It will be remembered that these Amend-
ments authorized the exercise of power by the United
States Government against " State" action only. They
read : " No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of a citizen of

254 EECONSTEUCTION

the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any per-
son of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws"; and "the right of cit-
izens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

It is entirely clear from this language that, in the en-
forcement of these new provisions of the Constitution,
the United States Government must direct its powers
against the action of the " States," respectively, through
their legislators and officials, and against that only.
But in this bill which became law on the 31st of
May, 1870, Congress enacted penalties not only against
"State" officers and agents for the violation of the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but severe
penalties against any person within the " States," as
well as the Territories, who should undertake to de-
prive by unlawful means any other person of his right
to qualify and vote at any election, and against any
person who under color of any law, statute or ordi-
nance, regulation or custom, should undertake to de-
prive any other person of his civil rights and civil
equality. Congress also, in this Act, vested the juris-
diction over such cases in the United States courts and
authorized the President of the United States to enforce
their decisions by the aid of the United States army
and navy if necessary. Now, while it may probably be
rightly claimed that the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which reads : " Neither slavery nor in-
voluntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist in the United States, or in any place subject to
their jurisdiction," empowers Congress to make laws
protecting the civil rights and civil equality o* persons

"cakpet-bao" and negro domination 255

within the "States " against infringement by other per-
sons, and to invest the officers of the United States,
both judicial and executive, with the power to enforce
these laws, since in this Amendment the prohibition of
slavery or involuntary servitude is not directed against
" State " action solely, but against any attempt made by
anybody to create an involuntary servitude, it cannot
on the other hand be claimed, with any show of correct
interpretation, that the Fourteenth Amendment war-
rants the exercise of any such power by the United
States Government, and it is entirely out of the ques-
tion to claim that the Fifteenth Amendment protects
the right of a person, within a State, to vote against
the attempt of another person or of other persons to in-
fringe the same, or even against the " State " itself to
do so, except it be on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.

There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any
good constitutional lawyer, at the present time, that
Congress overstepped its constitutional pow- „. . ism f
ers in that part of the Enforcement Act of the Act-
May 31st, 1870, which related to the exercise of the suf-
frage, and trenched upon the reserved powers of the
" States." The excuse for it was that lawless bands of
white men, the Ku-Klux Klans and the like, were in-
timidating the blacks, and in the approaching elections
of the autumn of 1870 would prevent them from voting.
But that was a matter for the " State" governments to
look out for, and the ' l State " governments in the South
were, at the time of the passage of this Act, with the ex-
ception of Tennessee, in the hands of the Republicans.

Meanwhile the new " State " governments had well
begun their career of corruption, shame and vulgarity.
They were plundering the treasury, increasing the
taxes, selling franchises, issuing bonds, and celebrating

256 RECONSTRUCTION

high carnival everywhere and all the time. The gen-
tlemen and political leaders of the old school, and the
old political class, of the South looked on aghast, with

The corrup- mingled feelings of bitter degradation and
new -state" anger> an(l the hotspurs and desperadoes
governments. Were stirred to deeds of intimidation and vio-
lence. There is little doubt that some negroes were
terrified out of exercising the suffrage in the election of
1870. Not yet, however, had enough of the disqualified
whites been amnestied, or enough intimidation been ex-
ercised, or sufficient unity among the whites been at-
tained, to work the overthrow of " carpet-bag/' negro
rule. Enough, however, was threatened to influence
the Eepublican Congress to proceed to more complete,
if not more extreme, measures for the protection of the
negro in his civil and political rights, and to move the
President to garrison the principal points in the South-
ern "States" with United States soldiers.

The Congress passed the Act of the 28th of Febru-
ary, 1871, which so supplemented the Act of May 31st,
1870, as to place the whole control of the
mental en- registrations and elections when and where

forcement Act. -■-, -, r. in 11-111

.Representatives to Congress should be chosen,
in the hands of United States officers, the supervisors,
and the deputy marshals, commissioners and judges
of the United States courts. It may be claimed that
Congress, under the power to regulate the manner of
holding Congressional elections vested in it by Article
I., section 4, of the Constitution, was authorized to pass
this law, provided it confined the action of it to the
Congressional registration and election. But since the
"State" elections were held at the same time and place,
and under the same control and direction as the Con-
gressional, it was inevitable that the control of the
United States officers would be exercised, either directly

"cakpet-bag" and negko domination 257

or indirectly, over those also. And this was unquestion-
ably the chief purpose of the Act, so far as its execution
in the Southern " States " was concerned.

But this was not yet enough in the views of the Ad-
ministration. In the two years of his incumbency of
the Presidential office, General Grant had The Pre8i.
fallen into the arms of the radical Eepub- ^asl of March
licans, who appeared to be in large major- 23"' 1871-
ity, and the usual manceuvering had begun for the
second term. Upon the basis of information, which
turned out to be very insufficient and unreliable, the
President, on the 23d of March, 1871, addressed a
message to Congress, in which he affirmed that life and
property were insecure in some of the "States," and the
carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue
dangerous ; that the power to correct these evils was not
possessed by the " State" governments ; and that it was
doubtful if the Executive of the United States, under
existing laws, had the power to meet these exigencies ;
and asked Congress to pass such laws as would enable
him to cope with the situation.

Congress answered this appeal with the noted, not to
say notorious, Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871, in
which Congress simply threw to the winds The Ku-
the constitutional distribution of powers be- A'prii^othf
tween the "States" and the United States 18n-
Government in respect to civil liberty, crime and pun-
ishment, and assumed to legislate freely and without
limitation for the preservation of civil and political
rights within the " States," and for the punishment of
the infraction of the same by individual persons con-
spiring together for that end, and for the punishment
of the conspiracy alone, whether the infraction or the
conspiracy was executed upon, or directed against, of-
ficers of the Government or merely private persons; and

258 KECONSTEUCTIOJST

in which the act of a combination of private individ-
uals defying successfully the constituted authorities of
the United States in a given " State/' or those of the
"State" concerned, was declared to be rebellion against
the United States, upon the happening, and during the
continuance, of which the President might suspend the
privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus within such dis-
tricts as he, by proclamation, might designate.

The first part of this Act was, unquestionably, an un-
constitutional encroachment upon the powers of the
" States," in so far as it is related to the pro-

The uncon- . »,..,.■ . .

stitutionaiity tection of political rights against infraction,
or against conspiracy for the purpose of in-
fraction, by private persons. The second part was prob-
ably within the powers of Congress, but it was a most ex-
treme use of its powers. The " State " governments in
the South were in the hands of the Republican "carpet-
baggers " and Republican negroes, and there is no question
that the governors and legislatures of these "States"
were quick enoughs to call in the aid of United States
troops long before it was necessary to do so. Moreover,
the militia of these " States " was composed almost en-
tirely of negroes, and the whites were forbidden to keep
arms. Under such circumstances this Act of Congress
empowering the President to establish martial law upon
his own motion in time of peace within a " State " when
combinations of private persons had successfully defied,
in any instance, the laws of the "State" was a very stiff
measure, and unwarranted by the facts of the situation.
As a matter of fact, the Governor of South Carolina
had asked the President to give him United States
soldiers for the protection of the "State" and its citi-
zens against domestic violence, and the President had,
on the 24th of March just preceding the passage of this
act, issued his proclamation commanding the persons

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 259

composing the unlawful combinations to disperse and
retire to their abodes within twenty days. This was the
method prescribed by the Constitution for bringing the
military power of the United States to the Interfereiice
assistance of a " State " government when- of the United

° . States military

ever the "State" government might not be power in the
able to maintain itself against domestic vio- South Caro-
lence. There is no doubt that General Scott
of Ohio, whilom officer in the Union army and in
the Freedmen's Bureau, the " carpet-bag," radical Ee-
publican Governor of South Carolina, attributed the
most traitorous character possible to these combinations,
exaggerated the strength and extent of them to the
highest possible degree, and called for United States
troops to suppress them at the earliest possible mo-
ment. The most trustworthy men in South Carolina
affirmed then, and have continued to affirm to this day,
that those combinations had no traitorous intent what-
soever, but were simply defensive in their nature ; that
the wholesale pardoning of criminals by the Governor
and the vagrancy of the negroes had filled the country
with desperadoes who made life, property, and female
honor insecure ; and that, as the militia was composed
of the friends of these fiends, and the " State " govern-
ment itself would not protect the white citizens, it was
absolutely necessary for the white people to create some
means of united action in self-defence and take the law
into their own hands. Statements to this effect were
made by one Judge Carpenter, a Republican "State"
official of South Carolina, before the investigating com-
mittee of Congress in 1871.

On the 3d day of May following the passage of the
Ku-Klux Act, the President issued his general procla-
mation warning the people that the law applied to the
whole country, but particularly exhorting the people

260 RECONSTRUCTION

in the newly reconstructed ' ' States " to suppress all
unlawful combinations by their own voluntary efforts,
and declaring, that while he was reluctant to make use

The Presi- of the extraordinary powers conferred on
m^tionofMay ^m by the Act, ^e would nevertheless do so
3d, 1871. jf it should be found necessary for securing

all the citizens of the United States in " the peaceful
enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the
Constitution and the laws."

On the 12th of the following October, the President
directed his proclamation to the people of South Caro-

The Presi- Hna alone, declaring that hostile combina-
tion Pto°Cthe tions of persons making armed resistance to
south' car'o* the civil authorities of the " State" and the
lina. United States, in their attempt to secure the

people in their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States and the Congressional Act of April
20th, 1871, too strong to be overcome by these author-
ities, existed in the counties of York, Marion, Chester,
Laurens, Newberry, Fairfield, Lancaster and Chester-
field, and commanding the members of these combina-
tions to deliver their arms and accoutrements into the
hands of the United States officers in those districts, and
disperse to their abodes within five days.

At the end of the five days of grace, the Presi-
dent issued a third proclamation, declaring that the

suspension memDers of these unlawful combinations
of the privi- jn the places mentioned in his former proc-

leges of the r . r

writofHabeas lamation had not dispersed and had not

Corpus by the . ±

President i n delivered up their arms and accoutrements

certain coun- , , , , . , , . .-, „

ties of south as ordered, and suspending the privileges ot
the writ of Habeas Corpus in the counties of
South Carolina above designated.

On the 3d day of the following November a fourth
proclamation was published, in which the President

_^A

"caepet-bag" and negro domination 261

acknowledged his error in including the county of Mar-
ion in the list of counties in which the privileges of the
writ were suspended, but declared that the situation in
Union county was such as to warrant the suspension of
those privileges in that county also, and warned the in-
surgents in that county to deliver up their arms and
accoutrements and disperse to their abodes within five
days. This warning not having been obeyed, according
to the views of the President, a final proclamation was
issued by him on the the 10th day of November sus-
pending the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus
in Union county.

In execution of the Act of April 20th, and in pur-
suance of these proclamations, the President now sent a
strong force of United States troops into the The Ku_
district composed of the nine counties men- Klux trialB-
tioned, the commanders of which arrested some five or
six hundred persons, kept them in confinement so long as
they pleased, and procured the arraignment of some of
them before the United States courts, where a number
of them were convicted and sentenced to fine or im-
prisonment or to both. Whether there was any neces-
sity for the exercise of such harshness as this is a grave
question. It was felt at the South to be an abominable
outrage, and the Democrats of the North held the same
opinion. More ominous than all this, however, was the
fact that many leading Republicans raised their voices
in disapproval of it, and of the law which authorized it.

During the year 1872, in addition to all this, there
came to the knowledge of Congress and of the people
of the North the frightful and scandalous corruption
corruption. of the "State" governments in government b
the South. It is very difficult to get at dis- ofthe Son*h-
tinct and reliable facts upon a subject which officials
undertake to cover up and keep shrouded in darkness.

262 KECONSTEUCTION

But the record of these doings in South Carolina was
something as follows. The Honse of Representatives,
the majority of the members of which were negroes,
in south and the presiding officer of which was the
Carolina. notorious F. J. Moses, spent ninety-five thou-
sand dollars to refurnish its assembly hall, where the
aristocrats of South Carolina had never spent over five
thousand. Clocks costing six hundred dollars each, sofas
two hundred dollars each, chairs at sixty dollars each,
desks at a hundred and twenty-five dollars each, mir-
rors at six hundred dollars each, cuspidors at eight dol-
lars each — such were the items of the bill. In the four
years from 1868 to 1872, two hundred thousand dol-
lars were expended for furniture for the legislative
chambers alone. Then came the bills of supplies, sun-
dries and incidentals, amounting in one session to three
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, one hundred and
twenty-five thousand of it for a free restaurant, lunch
counter and bar, at which the members and their
friends fared most royally, eating, drinking and smoking,
and paying not a penny therefor directly, nor indirect-
ly, since many, if not most, of the members of that leg-
islature paid no stiver of the taxes. Then came the
printing bills, averaging more than one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars a year where ten thousand dollars
would have been more than enough to pay every legiti-
mate expense of that kind.

Then came the sale of franchises of all kinds, and
the pledging of the credit of the " State " in the form of
bonds to aid all sorts of enterprises pretended to be set
on foot, or promoted as is now said, by combinations
of legislators or officials or their friends. In 1868 the
" State " debt was about five millions of dollars, with
almost enough assets to pay it. In 1872 the assets had
disappeared and the debt was more than eighteen mill-

"oakpet-bag" and negko domination 263

ions, and nothing worth mentioning to show for it.
And all this when the " State " taxes had been raised
from less than a half million of dollars a year on a val-
uation of over four hundred millions to two millions of
dollars a year on a valuation of less than two hundred
millions of property.

In Louisiana, under the leadership of the brilliant
young adventurer, Henry C. Warmoth of Illinois, the
financial history of the ' ' State " was even more i n Louisi-
scandalous. During the four years of War- ana-
moth's governorship, from 1868 to 1872, the average an-
nual expenditure of the " State " government was about
six millions of dollars, when, measured by the previous
experiences of the " State," six hundred thousand dollars
would have been ample to defray all legitimate expenses.
At the beginning of Warmoth's administration the debt
of the " State " was between six and seven millions of
dollars, with more than enough assets to extinguish it.
At the end of the four years of his power, in 1872, the
debt was nearly fifty millions of dollars, the assets had
all disappeared, and there was nothing worth mention-
ing to show for the one or the other.

In the counties and municipalities of both " States "
the corruption was equally rampant, shameless, and vul-
gar. It is impossible to obtain exact figures in regard to
it, or to estimate with any degree of exactness, or even
probability, the amounts stolen and made away with.
In the other reconstructed " States" where the advent-
urers and the negroes held sway, the " State " govern-
ments worked along the same lines, though not to the
same appalling extent.

It was the most soul-sickening spectacle that Ameri-
cans had ever been called upon to behold. Every prin-
ciple of the old American polity was here reversed.
In place of government by the most intelligent and

264 EECONSTKTJCTION

virtuous part of the people for the benefit of the
governed, here was government by the most ignorant
and vicious part of the population for the benefit,
the vulgar, materialistic, brutal benefit of the govern-
ing set.

It is no subject of surprise or wonder that, con-
fronted with these frightful results of radical Republi-
r v it can P°^cy and administration in the South,
in the Repub- such Eepublicans as Horace Greeley, Charles

lican party. • i -, T m i 1 1 -n

Francis Adams, Lyman lrumbnll, David
Davis, Carl Schurz, Gratz Brown, Stanley Matthews,
George Hoadly, J. R. Spaulding, George W. Julian,
Horace White, David A. Wells, and the like, turned
with disgust from the nauseating transactions and re-
solved to do what was in their power to put an end to
it all. Even the radical, but honest, Sumner gave his
adherence to the movement for a change of the Adminis-
tration, as the only way to check the terrible corruption
which was creeping over the land. Sumner, it is true,
had been made to feel personally the heavy hand of the
Administration. He had been dropped, the preceding
year, from the chairmanship of the Committee on
Foreign Relations at the requirement of the Adminis-
tration, because he had so strongly and successfully
opposed the Santo Domingo policy of the President
and his "aide-de-camp." But he had opposed that
because he saw in it corruption, robbery and blood-
shed.

The Liberal Republicans were bolters, of course,
from the regular organization, and there was no suffi-
The Liberal cient opportunity for them to cod struct a
Convention aof party organization for themselves in time for
1872' the Presidential election of 1872. A general

call for the leaders among them to meet in mass conven-
tion was issued from a " State" convention of Libera]

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 265

Republicans in Missouri, and the meeting took place at
Cincinnati on the 1st day of May, 1872.

The platform which it presented to the people de-
manded the removal, at once, of all political disabilities
from the white men of the South, the main- Thelr M_
tenance of impartial suffrage and of equal form-
civil rights, the cessation of military rule in the South
and the supremacy of civil over military power, the re-
form of the civil service, and a speedy return to specie
payments. Many of the Liberal Republicans were in-
clined toward a much more moderate tariff policy, but
out of respect for the opinions of those among them who
were strong protectionists, they abandoned their attempt
to insert any doctrine on this subject in the platform.
The protectionists were equally considerate, and so the
new party went to the country uncommitted upon this
very important question.

It was at first supposed that the choice of the conven-
tion for the Presidency would lay between Judge David
Davis of Illinois, Charles Francis Adams of Their nomi.
Massachusetts and Senator Lyman Trumbull nees-
of Illinois. But an unexpected hostility of a very bit-
ter nature soon developed between the supporters of
Davis and Adams, and rendered the nomination of
either of them impossible. This was evident on the
first ballot, on which Mr. Greeley, Senator Trumbull and
Gratz Brown each received more votes than Judge
Davis, and together more votes than Mr. Adams. It
was thus manifest that the Western men would not take
Mr. Adams and the Eastern men would not take Judge
Davis. The compromise was quickly made upon
Greeley, and G-ratz Brown was put with him upon the
ticket. It was an unfortunate selection. The country
did not want any brilliant experiments at the moment.
It wanted to settle clown to business. And it was to be

266 RECONSTRUCTION

foreseen that it would not be willing to make a news-
paper man President at such a juncture.

But stranger than the fact that the prince of pro-
tectionists was now running for the presidency on a

Acceptance platform which ignored protection, was the
Bepnbii^an f'dC^ that the Democratic party, strength-
thfoemo^ ened agam by its Southern wing, now ac-
crats. cepted the platform of the Liberal Kepubli-

cans, and in convention at Baltimore, in July following
the Cincinnati meeting, nominated the Liberal Bepub-
lican candidates for the presidency and the vice-presi-
dency as its own candidates. The action of the Demo-
crats, both as to the platform and the candidates, was
almost unanimous, and it would be ungracious to express
any suspicion of its sincerity. The change of profession
on the part of the Southern Democrats was very great
indeed, so great as to be surprising, but they had evi-
dently come to the conclusion that it was useless to con-
tend with the North any longer against the civil and
political rights of the freedmen, and that it was best
for all concerned to accept the inevitable, and try
to put themselves in the most advantageous position
possible for adjusting the relations of their section
to it.

Mr. Greeley was, indeed, in strange company, but the

company had come to him. He had not gone to them.

Mr Gr j He welcomed their support, and became con-

and the Dem- taminated bv it in the eyes of a vast majority

ocrats. J J "

of the people of the North. His own great
ambition to be President also caused him to say and to
do some imprudent and undignified things. More than
all, the time had not yet come for the great change. The
country was fast approaching a financial crisis, and any
shock would bring it on with such sudden violence as to
make it widespread and disastrous.

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 267

As the last move, the " straight-out " Democrats bolt-
ed the ticket in September, and at a con- „. . .

f . ' Division in

vention held in Louisville, Kentucky, nomi- the Demo -
nated Charles O'Conor of New York for
President, and John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts
for Vice-President.

The September and October elections in Vermont,
Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana demonstrated
the hopelessness of the opposition to the The Repub-
radical Republicans. They had held their S^™?
convention in Philadelphia in the early part nees-
of June, had issued a platform which simply asserted the
righteousness of what they had done and the determi-
nation to persist in the course heretofore followed, and
had nominated General Grant for re-election to the
presidency with Senator Henry Wilson, of Massachu-
setts, for his running mate.

In the election, they swept all of the Northern
" States " by heavy popular majorities, and with their
election machinery in the Southern " States " Tne Repub-
they captured a majority of these also. In hcan tnumPh-
those Southern "States" which were free from carpet-
bag negro rule the Greeley electors were chosen, that is
in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia
and Texas. In the North, a very large number of Dem-
ocrats had failed to go to the polls. They could hardly
have elected Greeley, however, had they all voted for
him. They were pretty sure of this, and they took the
opportunity of administering a rebuke to their chiefs
for not nominating candidates who were members of
their own party.

While there is no doubt that the re-election of Gen-
eral Grant, and the election of a strong Republican
majority in Congress, quieted the mind of the North,
there is also no doubt that they caused great discour-

268 RECONSTRUCTION

agement among the white people of the South, since
they operated as an encouragement to the adventurers

The effect and the negroes to persevere in their cor-
of^BepuS ruPt an(^ conscienceless management of the
licans. " State" governments.

In several of the reconstructed " States " the Demo-
crats had made strong efforts to secure control of the
" State " governments. The Amnesty Act of May 22d,
1872, had removed the disqualifications of the Four-
teenth Amendment from all the Southern leaders, ex-
cept such as had been members of the Thirty-sixth and
Thirty-seventh Congresses, or had held judicial, mili-
tary, naval, or diplomatic office under the United States,
or had been heads of departments in ministerial office.
A large number of these leaders had thus been placed
in a position to participate as candidates for office and
legislative position in the election, and to aid greatly in
the work of rescuing their " States " from negro Repub-
lican rule. In Alabama and Louisiana they had very
nearly succeeded. In Alabama they had elected the
Governor and a majority of the members to the lower
house of the legislature in the autumn of 1870, and in
1872 they claimed to have elected a majority of the mem-
bers to both houses.

In Alabama, the Democratic members-elect of the
legislature convened in the capitol, and the Eepublican

EventBin members-elect in the court-house. The
Alabama. Democratic Governor, Lindsay, recognized
the Democratic legislature, and the Democratic legislat-
ure then canvassed the votes for Governor and declared
the Republican candidate, D. P. Lewis, elected. Lewis
then recognized the Eepublican legislature, and tele-
graphed to Opelika for United States soldiers to come
to Montgomery. They arrived by the next train, and,
backed by these, the Governor and his friends, in and

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 269

out of the legislature, succeeded in constituting a legis-
lature with a small Republican majority in both houses ;
and the whites fell back again under black rule, dis-
couraged and exhausted by the exertions and the failure
to escape from it.

In Louisiana the events were far more extraordinary
and violent. Warmotb/s rule was approaching its end,
and his Republican enemies, what was known Events in
as the Custom House faction, the United LouisiaQa-
States officials, were fairly panting to get at him. To
foil them, he went over to the Democrats and promised
to give them a fair chance to elect their candidate for
Governor and their candidates for the legislature. For
this he expected protection from them against the Cus-
tom House gang, to whom he had denied what they had
conceived to be their proper share of the public plunder,
and who, if in possession of the " State" government,
would make him answer for it. Warmoth supposed he
was able with his election machinery to give the " State "
to the Democrats whether the voters should do so or
not. The election took place at the same time as the
presidential election, November 4th, 1872. The re-
turns were sent by the supervisors and commissioners of
elections to Warmoth, and he delivered them to his
Returning Board, consisting of himself, the Secretary
of State, F. J. Herron, and one John Lynch ; the other
two members of the Board as constituted by the legis-
lature, by the act of 1870, viz., Lieutenant-Governor
Pinchback and one Anderson, being disqualified from
serving, since both of them were candidates for office at
this election. The Governor had his suspicions aroused
about the loyalty of both Herron and Lynch to him be-
fore the count took place, and having the legal power to
remove Herron, he did so at once and appointed one
John Wharton, a friend upon whom he could rely, in

270 RECONSTRUCTION

Herron's place. Lynch now refused to act with them,
and Herron denied the power of the Governor to dis-
miss him from the Secretaryship of State, and from his
ex officio membership in the Returning Board. Warmoth
and Wharton proceeded, however, to supply the place
of Lynch, as they might do under the law, and Herron
and Lynch proceeded to supply the place of Warmoth.

The Warmoth Board had the returns, and it was also
generally felt that the Democratic candidate for Gov-
ernor, John McEnery, had been chosen by the voters.
Moreover, the right of Herron to retain the office of
Secretary of State was immediately brought before the
supreme court of the " State," and the court gave its de-
cision against Herron's contention. It seemed now cer-
tain that the Warmoth Returning Board would declare
McEnery to have been elected Governor. But the Re-
publican candidate, W. P. Kellogg, then a Senator from
Louisiana in Congress, was watchful and resourceful.
He secured from United States District Judge Dnrell
an injunction which forbade the Warmoth Board to do
anything except in the presence of the Lynch Board, and
forbade McEnery from claiming his election under the
returns which might be given out by the Warmoth Board.

Warmoth met this by a move which was equally a
coup de surprise. The legislature had at its last ses-

Warmotii slon passed a law vesting the power to select

andDureii. the members of the Returning Board in the
senate. The Governor had not signed this bill, and
probably never intended to sign it, since it proposed to
take the control of the Board out of his hands, but it now
seemed to furnish him a way of escape from DurelPs or-
der. He hastily signed the bill and promulgated it as
law, and as the senate was not in session, proceeded to
appoint the members of the new Board himself, under the
power of the Governor to make temporary appointments

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 271

to office when the senate was not in session. He ap-
pointed one Dr. Feriet chairman of the Board, and pnt
the election returns in his hands. This Board declared
that McEnery had been elected Governor and that the
Greeley electors had been chosen. The Governor pub-
lished these decisions officially on the 5th day of Decem-
ber, and the affair seemed to have been closed. But to the
surprise of everyone concerned, and of the whole conn-
try, in the middle of the night following, Judge Durell
issued an order to the United States Marshal, S. B.
Packard, to take possession of the capitol and hold
it at the pleasure of the Judge against all unlawful
bodies attempting to convene therein. The Judge
claimed that Warmoth had committed a contempt
against his court in the Eeturning Board proceeding,
and he declared that the Lynch Board was the legal
body. His order furthermore required the commander
of the United States troops to furnish a detachment of
soldiers to sustain the United States marshal in taking
possession of the capitol, and in enforcing the Lynch
Board's canvass and decision.

A more palpable outrage upon the lawful powers of a
" State " could hardly have been conceived. The Judge
had not a scintilla of authority upon which to rest his
proceeding. It is claimed that he was drunk when he
made the order. But this can hardly have been true, that
is he could not have been any more than ordinarily
drunk, since the order was not withdrawn when he be-
came ostensibly sober again, but was made the basis of a
proceeding which lasted through many days, and the re-
sults of which were the counting in of Kellogg and of a
Republican legislature by the Lynch Board, the imme-
diate instalment of the Lynch Board legislature, the al-
most immediate impeachment of Warmoth by it and his
removal from the governorship, the installation of the

272 RECONSTRUCTION

Lieutenant-Governor, the negro Pinchback, in his seat,
the recognition of the Lynch Board legislature and of
Pinchback by the President of the United States as the
lawful legislature and executive of Louisiana, and the
inauguration of Kellogg as Governor at the end of the
Warmoth-Pinchback term. If this was all the work
of a drunken spree, it must have been a very long one,
and there must have been many participants in it be-
sides the Judge.

The Warmoth Board Governor and legislature un-
dertook to set up government also, sustained as they
undoubtedly were both by the law, and by public opinion
in Louisiana and probably throughout the country, and
partially organized a militia force. It was the fighting
between this militia and the metropolitan police in the
streets of New Orleans which occasioned the suppression
of the McEnery government at last by United States
soldiers.

For two years more now the government of the ad-
venturers, based on negro support, continued in the

The down- " States " south of the Tennessee line, except
between0 1872 Georgia. Property was decreasing in amount
and 18T4. anf] value ; taxes were being doubled ; and new
bond issues were being made, and the bonds sold at a
great reduction upon their face value, or stolen outright.
But the day of deliverance was coming. The consci-
ence of the Nation had been aroused, and in the.elec-

t h e eiec- tions of 1874 the voters throughout the coun-
tionsof 1874. trv delivered a stunning rebuke to the party
responsible for the hideous situation in the South. It
is true that other issues were influential in producing
the bouleversement of 1874, especially the financial panic
of 1873 and the corruption in the circles of the Federal
Administration itself, the Whiskey ring frauds, and
the Indian agent peculations. We must also remem-

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 273

ber that at this very election several of the Southern
" States " relieved themselves of Bepublican rule and
sent solid, or almost solid, Democratic delegations to
Congress. But with all proper allowance for the effect
of these things, there still remained, as the chief cause
of the change of view in the North, the revolt of the
popular conscience against being any longer dragooned
into the support of the policy of the Republican party
in the Southern " States," and the popular disgust at
the everlasting "waving of the bloody shirt" whenever
the dominance of that party seemed anywhere threatened.
At any rate, it was a clean sweep, and from a majority
of two-thirds in the Forty-third Congress, the Republi-
cans found themselves in possession of only about one-
third of the seats in the Lower House of the Forty-
fourth Congress.

Moreover, three more of the Southern "States" freed
themselves, at this time, from " Black Republican " rule.
In Alabama, the respectable whites had now The change
about all gone into the Democratic ranks, Ar^fsasand
and with the election of George S. Houston Texas-
as Governor, and a legislature in large majority Demo-
cratic, the " State " won at last its self-government.
Likewise by a similar fusion of all the respectable whites
into the Democratic party, A. H. Garland was elected
Governor of Arkansas and a legislature with a large
Democratic majority was chosen, and from that time
forward the "State" government has been in the hands
of its own citizens. The same result was reached in
Texas, where the union of the respectables of all parties
upon the Democratic candidates elected Richard Coke
Governor and a legislature of reputable white men.

Even South Carolina very nearly escaped her thral-
dom, and came near to electing a white Democrat Gov-
ernor. As it was, she got a moderate Republican for

274 KECONSTRUCTION

Governor, Mr. D. H. Chamberlain, a Northerner indeed,

but a man of great ability and undoubted honesty, who

The status ^^ everything in his power to redeem the

insouthcaro- " State " from the miserable condition into

lma m 1874. . .

winch the errors and crimes of his prede-
cessors had brought it. He naturally soon found him-
self in conflict with some of the leaders of his own party
in the " State " and at Washington, and was greatly
impeded by them in carrying out his own purposes. At
last, in 1875, the break between him and the members
of his party in the legislature was completed by the
act of the legislature in electing the notorious F. J.
Moses, Jr., and the negro, W. J. Whipper, "State"
judges. The Governor was so incensed at this act of

Governor downright depravity that he refused to com-
chamberiain. mjssion the two judges-elect to the judicial
offices to which they had been chosen. "Whipper
threatened to use force to gain possession of the office,
and the Governor issued his proclamation threatening
to arrest every person who should give Whipper any
aid or support in this attempt as disturbers of the pub-
lic peace. The Governor triumphed and protected the
" State " against the terrible degradation which impended
over it, but his brave attitude ruined him with the
radical and base elements of his party.

The day of complete deliverance was now, however,
rapidly approaching. The election of 1875 in Mississippi

_. , , showed that the domination of the "Black

The day of

complete de- Republicans" in the Southern " State "gov-

livGrancc

ernments could last no longer. Here was a
"State "in which the negro population exceeded the
white very largely, but in the election of 1875 the whites
finally got together and what they could not accomplish
in one way they did in another. The whites organized
themselves into rifle clubs, attended the Republican

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 275

meetings and insisted upon a division of the time be-
tween their own speakers and the Eepublican speakers
at these meetings. A great deal of fraud

The status

and intimidation was practised, and some in Mississippi
violence was exercised, but always in such a
manner as not to provoke the calling of United States
troops to the scene. The immediate occasion of these
desperate movements on the part of the whites was the
treatment accorded the petition made by the taxpayers'
convention of the "State" to the legislature for relief
from the intolerable burdens under which the taxpayers
were suffering. This petition of the 4th of January,
1875, recited that between the years 1869 and 1874 the
rate of " State " taxation had been raised from ten
cents on the hundred dollars of assessed value of lands
to one dollar and forty cents, and that in many cases
the increase in the rate of the county levies had been
even greater, so that the whole product of the soil was
hardly sufficient to pay the taxes. The negro legislature
laughed at these representations, and did not deign to
consider them, much less to do anything to satisfy the
frightful grievances complained of. It was now a
choice between complete destruction and the em-
ployment of any means necessary to escape from it.
There was no use in talking about observing the letter
of the law at such a moment. The law was iniquitous
and it was rapidly destroying all that was left of pros-
perity, civilization, morality and decency. If it would
not yield, it had to be broken. The movement was
successful. It was really a revolution. It resulted in
the election of a Democratic legislature in November
of 1875, the disruption of the Eepublican party in
the " State," the framing of an impeachment against
the Republican Governor, Ames, his resignation and
departure from the "State," and the accession of the

276 RECONSTRUCTION

Democrat, John M. Stone, to the gubernatorial of-
fice.

It was thus that the eventful year 1876 was intro-
duced, and it was an earnest of the relief which was now
to come to the remaining " States " of the South suffer-
ing under the rule of the adventurers and their negro
allies.

While the Republican party had step by step, and al-
most unconsciously, involved itself in the support of
Fiatmone dishonest and oppressive government at the
and the r&- South, it was, on the other hand, fighting
specie pay- the battle for financial honesty in the Nation
at large against the fiat money heresy and
the schemes of repudiation invented and supported by
the national Democracy. Its Congressional majority
had passed the Refunding Acts of July 14th, 1870, and
January 20th, 1871, for refunding the debt of the
United States in coin bonds bearing five, four and one-
half and four per centum interest. These acts authorized
the issue of eighteen hundred millions of dollars in these
new bonds, five hundred millions payable after ten years,
and bearing five per centum interest, three hundred mill-
ions payable after fifteen years and bearing four and
one-half per centum interest, and one thousand millions
payable after thirty years and bearing four per centum in-
terest. By the Act of March 18th, 1869, the Republi-
can Congress had declared that all of the obligations of
the United States should be paid in coin or its equiva-
lent, unless otherwise specifically stipulated in the law
authorizing the obligation. This Act was made applica-
ble to past, as well as future, obligations. It rested on
the principle that debts must be paid in the best money
of the country unless otherwise agreed to in the con-
tract. This is, of course, the sound principle both of
morals and finance, and no act of Congress pronouncing

"carpet-bag" and negro domination 277

it would have been considered necessary, except for the
great fact that the Democratic party, in its campaign of
1868, had espoused the opposite doctrine and had fought
the campaign largely under that issue. The Act, how-
ever, might of course be repealed, and in that case the
question as to whether the principal sum of the greater
part of the national indebtedness should be paid in
coin would be again opened, since the laws authorizing
the incurring of these obligations provided only for
the payment of the interest upon them in coin. It was
in order to forestall the possibility of a repeal of the
Act of March 18th, 1869, as well as in order to make a
large saving in the interest charge, that these Refund-
ing Acts were passed.

After the panic of 1873 had resulted in such a depres-
sion of business and depreciation of values throughout
the country as to create greater discontent with the ex-
isting political management, and this discontent had
manifested itself so distinctly in the elections of 1874,
announcing to the Republican party that after March
5th, 1875, a Democratic majority would prevail in the
House of Representatives, it was manifest to the Repub-
lican leaders, in Congress and out of Congress, that if any-
thing was to be done in regard to the resumption of spe-
cie payment, anything for bringing the paper currency
of the United States up to a coin value, it must be done
speedily, and on the 21st of December, 1874, Mr. Sher-
man reported a bill from the Finance Committee to
the Senate for this purpose, which became a law on the
14th day of January following, and which provided for
the redemption of the fractional currency with silver
coins of the value of ten, twenty-five and fifty cents, so
rapidly as these coins could be minted ; abolished the
charge of one-fifth of one per centum on the coinage of
gold, making the coinage of gold at the mints of the

278 RECONSTRUCTION

United States free ; repealed the law limiting the ag-
gregate amount of the circulating notes of the national
banking associations, and the law for the withdrawal of
national-bank currency from, and its redistribution
among, the several " States " and Territories ; ordered
the Secretary of the Treasury in issuing new circulat-
ing notes to the national banking associations to retire
United States legal tender notes to the amount of eighty
per centum of such issues, until the United States legal
tender notes should be reduced to three hundred mill-
ions of dollars, and after January 1st, 1879, to redeem
these legal tender notes in coin on their presentation at
the office of the Assistant Treasurer of the United States
in the city of New York, in sums of not less than fifty
dollars ; and, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury
to do this, authorized him to use any unappropriated
surplus revenue which might be, from time to time,
in the Treasury, and to sell bonds of the description
mentioned in the Act of July 14th, 1870, in such
amounts as he should find necessary to accomplish the
purpose.

It is true that the Republican majority in Congress
had not taken this high ground concerning the public
credit and sound money without some wavering. The
President himself had become frightened by the panic
of the autumn of 1873, and in his annual message of
December 1st following had made recommendations
that might be regarded as favorable to an inflation of
the existing body of paper money. His party friends
in Congress very soon produced a bill which, among
other things, provided for the increase of the United
States notes and the national bank notes to the extent
of about one hundred millions of dollars, and passed it.
But the President had either thought the question out
more fully, or had been in receipt of some very sound

" carpet-bag" and negro domination 279

advice, after he wrote the message of December 1st,
1873. On the 22d of April, 1874, he sent a special
message to Congress vetoing the bill. This

The i n fl a -

stand of the President recalled the Eepub- tion bin of

t ^ j. ,, . . , 1874 and the

licans m Congress from their economic aber- veto of it by
rations, and set them again upon the course e resi en '
which led to the Act of the 14th of January, 1875.

While at the moment this law for the resumption of
specie payments in the short period of four years, or
rather less, from the time of its enactment seemed a
rather hazardous, not to say desperate, move on the
part of the Republicans, it soon became manifest that
they could have done nothing so calculated to strength-
en the hold of the party upon the solid and conserva-
tive men of the country as just this very thing. Many
of these men who had usually voted with the Repub-
licans disapproved of the Southern policy of the party,
and were on the point of turning against it. With the
Resumption Act the financial policy of the Republican
party, and of the country, was dragged to the front,
and the Southern policy was forced backward, and
made to constitute a less prominent issue in the cam-
paign of 1876. This was not only wise party manage-
ment, but it was also a fortunate thing for the entire
country. The country was not yet in a position to en-
dure a Democratic administration, and, on the other
hand, it was surfeited with reconstruction Republican
administrations. It wanted a sound money Republi-
can administration, which would devote itself to the
development of the economic interests of the whole
people, and would let the " State " governments in the
South have a chance to work out their own salvation.
And this was just what it got in the election of 1876,
and in the administration of President Rutherford B.
Hayes.

r^A-

CHAPTER XIII

THE PKESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES

The Republican National Convention of 1876- The Platform— The
Nominees — The National Democratic Convention of 1876 —
The Platform — The Nominees — The Campaign and the Elec-
tion— The Count and the Twenty-second Joint Rule — Views
in Regard to the Power to Count the Electoral Vote — The Re-
publicans in Advantage in the Count of the Vote — The Elec-
toral Commission Bill — The Passage of the Bill — The Mem-
bers of the Commission — The Fifth Justice — Justice David
Davis — The Counting of the Electoral Vote by Congress — The
Double Returns from South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and
Oregon — The Counsel before the Commission — The Repub-
lican Position— The Democratic Position — The Decisions of
the Commission — Mr. Hayes Declared President — The Truth
in Regard to the Election — Mr. Hayes's Southern Policy — The
Result of His Policy — Reconciliation between the North and
the South.

When the managers of the Republican party met in
National nominating convention at Cincinnati, on the

The Repub- 14th of June, 1876, they rightly divined the
convrationDof policy which alone could lead them to vic-
18T6. £ory jn £jie elections of the following au-

tumn. They constructed their platform in such a way
as to place the financial issue in the foreground, with

The plat- the pledges of the party to uphold the public
form. credit, and to place the currency of the

country on a coin basis. They also declared the pacifica-
tion of the South to be a sacred duty, and pledged the

280

ELECTION OE 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 281

party to a thoroughgoing reform of the civil service.
Connected therewith were, of course, the usual plati-
tudes about the civil and political liberty and equality
of every American citizen and of everybody else.

While there was no name before the convention com-
manding universal popular assent, as had been the
case at the second nomination of Lincoln The nomi.
and the two nominations of Grant, still there nees-
was one which, in so far as its possessor was known, in-
spired strong, if not enthusiastic, confidence. It was
not pronounced in the first balloting so loudly as that
of the brilliant Blaine, or the stolid Morton, or the
arrogant Conkling, but, as the voting continued, more
and more of the ballots contained it, and at last on the
seventh round, it received a majority of the votes. The
choice was a wise one. Mr. Hayes had been a good sol-
dier, a valuable member of the National legislature, and
an excellent Governor of his native " State," in which
office he was serving for a third term at the time of his
nomination for the Presidency. He was a man of sound
sense, unimpeachable character, generous feeling, pleas-
ing manners, and resolute will. There was a tendency
at first on the part of the friends of some of the dis-
appointed aspirants to belittle his qualities, and to
represent him as a weak man, and his conciliatory
methods were often mistaken for weakness by those
who were not his rivals or his enemies, or the friends of
his rivals or his enemies ; but as history sets his char-
acter and his work in their proper perspective they both
stand out more and more strongly, and make his Admin-
istration appear to be one of the most important in Amer-
ican annals. Especially does it honor him for his ear-
nest, faithful and successful battle for sound money and
the maintenance of the public faith, and for his deter-
mination to put an end to the support by Federal

282 RECONSTRUCTION

bayonets of the " carpet-bag," negro " State" govern-
ments of the South.

A fortnight after the nomination by the Republican
convention of Rutherford B. Hayes for President and

The National William A. Wheeler for Vice-President, the
convention^ Democratic leaders met at St. Louis for the
1876- purpose of issuing the campaign creed of

their party and choosing its candidate for tho chief

The plat- magistracy of the Nation. The platform put
form. forward by them was remarkable for its

length, its language of fierce vituperation, and its loud
calls for reform. Its specific propositions were the re-
duction of the duties on foreign imports to a revenue
basis, and the repeal of the Resumption Act of 1875, on
the strange ground that it obstructed the return to specie
payments.

Their candidate had virtually been determined on
before they met. It could be nobody else than the pop-

The nomi- n^ar Governor of New York, Samuel J. Til-
nees. jen^ shrewd in business, rich, the most suc-

cessful political manager New York had produced since
Van Buren, greatly heralded as the very archpriest of
reform, the hope of the young men in politics ; but not
a statesman in the highest sense of the word, nor a
demagogue in the lowest sense of that word — a genuine
American politician of the first order. He was nomi-
nated on the second ballot, and by a unanimous vote.
With him was placed as candidate for the second place
the popular Mr. Hendricks of Indiana. It was a strong
ticket, and it was generally believed that it would win.
Mr. Tilden himself felt sure of the electoral votes of all
the Southern "States" and of New York, Indiana, New
Jersey and Connecticut.

Mr. Tilden quietly managed his own campaign, while
Mr. Hayes left his political interests in the hands of the

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 283

very astute chairman of the National committee of the
Republican party, Senator Chandler of Michigan.
There was not much doubt on the morning
following the election, the morning of the paign and the
8th November, that the Democrats had
triumphed. Almost all of the Republican newspapers
conceded it. But the Republican managers knew that
they could do what they pleased with the electoral votes
of South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, through their
canvassing boards in these "States," with the power in
these boards to throw out the returns from any place
where, in their opinion, there had been any violence,
intimidation, fraud or bribery exercised or attempted ;
and when the managers found that they were pretty sure
of the electoral votes of all of the Northern Common-
wealths, except Connecticut, New York, New Jersey
and Indiana, they simply added to the one hundred and
sixty-six electoral votes of which they were practically
sure the nineteen votes of Louisiana, Florida and South
Carolina, of which they were absolutely sure, if needed,
and sent out from their head-quarters the positive an-
nouncement that Hayes and Wheeler had been elected
by a majority of -one electoral vote.

But the final count of the electoral vote must be in
the presence of the two Houses of Congress assembled
in one place, and the Democrats were in ma- The cocnt
jority in one of the Houses, and the twenty- tynfecondjoint
second joint rule, as it was called, which had rule-
been applied since the count of the electoral vote of
1864 for the ascertainment of the result of the returns
to Congress, ordained that the electoral vote of any
" State " might be thrown out by either House. If this
rule should be considered as still in force, and be ap-
plied in the impending count, the Democratic House of
Representatives could reject the returns of the Repub-

284 EECONSTEUCTION

lican authorities in South Carolina, Florida and Louisi-
ana, and thus secure the election of Mr. Tilden. This
rule, however, was not necessarily binding upon this
Congress, as it had not been re-enacted by the Houses
composing it. That is, either House could lawfully
refuse to acquiesce in its further application. The Re-
publicans now repudiated it, although it was their pred-
ecessors who had created it.

Some of the Republicans now claimed that the Con-
stitution vested the Vice-President, or rather the Presi-
dent of the Senate, with the power to count

Views in re- mi -i

gard to the the electoral votes. The language of the
the electoral Constitution was, and still is, "the Presi-
dent of the Senate shall, in the presence of
the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted." No
President of the Senate had, however, ever ventured to
determine whether a disputed return, in case any such
had been received by him, was to be counted, and Mr.
Ferry, the President of the Senate, gave his Republican
friends to understand that he did not feel like assum-
ing any such responsibility.

Nevertheless, the Republicans were in decided advan-
„ , tage. They had the President of the United

The Repub- b J

Hcans in ad- States to execute by iorce whatever they
count of the might resolve upon, and they had the Presi-
dent of the Senate, whose scruples the Dem-
ocrats had not discovered, and, of course, they had one
House of the Congress, the Senate.

The Democrats felt that they must make an effort to

change the situation. They, therefore, quickly seized

upon a suggestion made by a Republican mem-

torai commis- ber of the Judiciary Committee of the House

of Representatives, Mr. G. W. McCrary, and

voted a measure in the House for the appointment of

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 285

members to a joint committee of the two Houses, which
committee should immediately report a proposition for
counting the electoral votes. This was the 14th of De-
cember, 1876. The Senate agreed to this measure on
the next day. Three Eepublicans and four Democrats
were appointed by the House, and four Eepublicans and
three Democrats by the Senate, and the committee so
constituted reported, on the 18th of January, 1877, the
famous Electoral Commission bill.

The essential provisions of the bill were, first, the crea-
tion of a Commission composed of five members of the
House of Representatives, five members of the Senate,
and five Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States, the members from the House to be chosen by the
House, the members from the Senate to be chosen by the
Senate, while the Justices of the Supreme Court from
the first, third, eighth and ninth circuits were designated
in the bill, and they were authorized to select a fifth
from among the other members of the Court ; second, the
fixing of the rule that the electoral vote of any " State"
from which only a single return had been received
should be counted unless both Houses should decide
otherwise, and of the other rule that when more than
one return had been received from any ' ' State," the Com-
mission should forthwith decide which return should be
counted, and this return should be counted unless both
Houses should reject the decision, or order otherwise ;
and third, the reservation of any right existing under
the Constitution and laws to question before the courts
of the United States the titles of the persons who should
be declared elected President and Vice-President to
these respective offices. The bill was sub- The passage
jected to a most thorough discussion in both of theBi11-
Houses. It passed the Senate on the 24th of January by
a vote of forty-seven to seventeen. Twenty-one Eepub-

286 KECONSTKUCTION

licans and twenty-six Democrats voted in favor of it,
and sixteen Republicans and one Democrat voted against
it. It passed the House on the 26th by a vote of one
hundred and ninety-one to eighty-six. Thirty-three
Republicans and one hundred and fifty-eight Democrats
voted for it, and sixty-eight Republicans and eighteen
Democrats voted against it. It is certainly fair, there-
fore, to call it a Democratic measure. The President
signed the bill, nevertheless, on the 29th.

The Senate immediately chose Messrs. Edmunds,
Frelinghuysen and Morton, Republicans, and Messrs.
Bayard and Thurman, Democrats, to repre-
bers of the sent it upon the Commission, and the House
ommission. cj10ge Messrs. Garfield and Hoar, Republi-
cans, and Messrs. Abbott, Hunton and Payne, Demo-
crats. The Justices of the Supreme Court designated
by the bill as members of the Commission were Messrs.
Clifford, Strong, Miller and Field. Strong and Miller
were understood to be Republicans, and Clifford and
Field Democrats. Upon these four the duty was im-
posed to select the fifth Justice.

Since without the fifth Justice the Commission would

consist of seven Republicans and seven Democrats, it

™, *•**», was evident that this Justice would be the

The fifth

Justice. umpire in every question of disputed returns

which the two Houses could not themselves settle by
concurrent agreement. The responsibility which this
Justice would have to bear would be one' of the most
onerous and solemn duties ever imposed upon any mor-
tal. It could be no less than the making of a President,
and it might be the determination of the question
whether there should be another civil war. It was not
a responsibility to be courted, but no man upon whom
it might fall could, with honor, refuse to accept it.
It was the general feeling throughout the discus-

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 287

sion of the bill that the man who would be chosen
was Judge David Davis. He had been a Republican
and a close personal friend of Lincoln, but had latterly
inclined toward the Democracy, and, it was thought,
had favored the election of Mr. Tilden. He was re-
garded as the man of least political prejudice among a
set of men of very little political prejudice. The Dem-
ocrats, however, were entirely willing to risk their
cause in his hands, because they believed it was strong
enough on its merits to convince any unprejudiced
mind, and there is little question that the Republicans
were afraid to risk their cause in his hands, because
they knew that they must win on every point or lose
altogether, and they hesitated to take such desperate
chances unless whatever political prejudice might exist
in the mind of the umpire should be on their side.

But to the apparent surprise of everybody and to the
consternation of the Democrats, Justice Davis was chosen
by the Illinois legislature, on the 25th of Jan- jUBtiCe Da-
uary, the day after the bill passed the Sen- vid Davi8-
ate, and the day before it passed the House, United States
Senator, and a few days after the bill passed the House,
he accepted the position, which act involved his resig-
nation at an early day of his judicial office ; and as he
was now to leave the bench and go into the political
branch of the Government, as a Democratic Senator,
elected by the Democrats of the Illinois legislature,
there appeared to him an evident impropriety in his
acting on the Commission as a representative of the un-
political branch of the Government, and especially as
that member upon whom the weightiest responsibility
would fall, and who would, therefore, be expected to
act with greatest political impartiality, and with an eye
single to public justice. Whether Justice Davis sought
this election to the senatorship at this juncture or not,

288 RECONSTRUCTION

in order to escape the great responsibility that was
about to fall upon him, we do not know. He was not a
particularly brave man. He was a big, fat man, a good
liver, and loved his ease. Ordinarily men will not ex-
change the high and life-long office of a Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States for a seat in the
Senate. Unless he had his eye upon the Presidency of
the United States, it would be very hard to explain his
action in exchanging his high judicial position for the
senatorship on any other ground than his desire to
escape the terrible responsibility of deciding whether
Tilden or Hayes should be President. It is even more
difficult to account for the action of the Democrats in
the legislature of Illinois. They certainly did not in-
tend to harm the chances of Mr. Tilden by this act.
The Republicans might have invented such a scheme for
disposing of the Justice, but for Democrats to have been
concerned in any such movement is incredible. It is
probable that it was simply a blunder on their part.
They did not appreciate the incompatibility between the
position of a Democratic Senator-elect and membership
on the Electoral Commission as a judicial representative.
They thought that as the Justice would not take his seat
in the Senate until after the 4th of March he would re-
main a member of the Supreme Court until then, and as
such would be fully qualified for the place on the Com-
mission. The legislature at Springfield had no such
delicate and discriminating sense of official proprie-
ties as obtained in Washington, and throughout the more
fastidious East.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives
learned of the election of Justice Davis to the Senate
on the morning of the day they were to vote on the
passage of the Electoral Commission bill. Even they
did not fully realize that it meant that the Justice

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 289

would not serve on the Commission. Moreover, they
had gone to such lengths with the bill that it was too
late to turn back. So far as is known the Justice did
not inform them or anybody else of his intention to ac-
cept the senatorship, or of his scruples about being a
member of the Commission, until after the bill became
law. When he did do so, the correctness of his position
was so clear that the four Justices named in the Act
immediately selected Justice Joseph P. Bradley as the
fifth judicial member of the Commission. Bradley was
a Republican, as were the other three members of the
court, Waite, Hunt and Swayne. That is, after Jus-
tice Davis was disposed of there remained only Repub-
licans to choose from, and Bradley being regarded as
the least partisan, and the most learned in the law,
was selected. He fully realized the vast responsibility
which had been thus unexpectedly thrust upon him,
but he accepted it bravely and without flinching, and
discharged it with honor and success.

The Houses of Congress, and also the Electoral Com-
mission, met on the 1st day of February to count the
electoral vote. The Democrats still felt sure The count-
of success, since they would win the election, tolL°fvoteelby
if successful upon a single point, while the CongreBS-
Republicans, to be successful, must win upon every point.
On the other hand, the hopes of the Republicans had
been raised by gaining the majority of the Commission.

When the returns were opened by the President of
the Senate two sets of returns were found from each ol
the four " States/' Florida, Louisiana, South The double
Carolina, and Oregon. In the case of Flor- g*a™l ^om
ida the electors voting for Hayes and Wheel- yna-. Florida,

. -, • r- • Louisiana and

er sent with their votes the certification of Oregon.
the " State " Canvassing Board and of the Governor to
their election. The case of South Carolina was the same.

290 RECONSTRUCTION

In the case of Louisiana the electors voting for Hayes
and Wheeler sent with their votes the certification of
Governor Kellogg and of the " State " Canvassing Board
acting with him to their election, and the electors voting
for Tilden and Hendricks sent the certification of John
McEnery, claiming to be Governor, and the Canvassing
Board acting with him, to their election.

The Oregon case was more complicated. The three
Eepnblican electors received the highest number of votes,
as reported by the Secretary of State, who by the laws of
Oregon was the " State " canvassing officer, to the Gov-
ernor. But one of them, Watts, held the office of post-
master in a small place at the time of his election, and
the Constitution of the United States provides that
" no Senator or Eepresentative, or person holding any
office of trust or profit under the United States, shall
be appointed an elector." The Democratic Governor
of Oregon decided in his own mind that Watts was not
eligible, and made out his certification to include, be-
side the two Kepublican electors who were eligible, one
Cronin, the Democrat receiving the highest number of
votes for elector, although the number received by him
was a minority of all the votes cast for the electoral
tickets. This certificate was attested by the Secretary of
State, and was given to Cronin. When the day for the
meeting of the electors came around Cronin presented
himself holding the Governor's certificate, the only cer-
tificate which had been issued to the electors by Gov-
ernor Grover. But in spite of the fact that he had this
technical advantage, the two Republican electors, whose
names were included in the Governor's certificate, re-
fused to act with him, and he refused to let them have
the certificate to attach to their return of the electoral
vote to the President of the Senate of the United
States unless they should so act. Both parties persisted

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 291

in their refusals. Whereupon Cronin selected one J.
N. Y. Miller and one John Parker to fill up the elec-
toral college of Oregon and these three cast two elector-
al votes for Hayes and Wheeler and one for Tilden and
Hendricks, and, after attaching the Governor's certifi-
cation to the record of their vote in due form, sent this
return to the President of the Senate of the United
States, as required by the Constitution. At the same
time the two Republican electors, Odell and Cartwright,
met to cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth.
Watts was also present. He had resigned his office of
postmaster, and now he resigned his position as elector.
The other two accepted his resignation, and immediate-
ly chose him an elector. The three then cast the elec-
toral vote of the Commonwealth for Hayes and Wheeler.
As we have seen, they did not have the certification of
their election by the Governor to attach to their votes, as
required by the law of the United States, but they pro-
cured from the Secretary of State a certified copy of the
canvass of the votes for the electors, which showed the
election of the three Republican candidates, and sent this,
and also a copy of their proceedings in accepting the res-
ignation of Watts, and then electing him an elector, along
with their report of the vote of the electors for President
and Vice-President, to the President of the Senate.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats were repre-
sented by most able counsel before the Electoral Com-
mission. William M. Evarts, Stanley Mat-

J The counsel

thews, E. W. Stoughton, and Samuel Sheila- before the
barger were pitted against a formidable array
both as to ability and numbers on the other side, Judge
J. S. Black, Matthew H. Carpenter, Charles O'Conor,
J. A. Campbell, Lyman Trumbull, Ashbel Green, Mont-
gomery Blair, George Hoadly, William C. Whitney,
R. T. Merrick and A. P. Morse.

292 RECONSTRUCTION

The Republicans took their stand at the outset upon
the principle that Congress could not go behind the re-

The Repub- turns of the "State" Canvassing Board or
hcan position. 0fficerj in counting the electoral vote from
any "State." They contended that in the election of
the President and Vice-President, the Constitution had
separated the procedure into two distinct parts, and had
assigned the first part to the control of the several
" States " exclusively, and the second part to the con-
trol of Congress exclusively ; that up to the completion
of the election of the electors the exclusive control of the
" States" respectively extended, but that all control after
that point had been reached was in Congress, and that
Congress had no power whatever, under the Constitu-
tion, to revise, interfere with, or examine into, that part
assigned by the Constitution to the " States " respect-
ively, and, on the other hand, that Congress was bound
to disregard any act of the "States," or of any of the
officers or agents of the " States," in that part assigned
exclusively by the Constitution to its own control. There
is no question that this was all sound constitutional law
and that the Democrats would have to abandon entirely
their old " States' " rights doctrine and go over to the
most extreme nationalism in order to combat it.

It did not appear to them necessary to do this in order
to win their case. One single electoral vote from any one

The Demo- °f the four " States," from which double re-
cratic position, turns had been received, would elect Tilden
and Hendricks. It did not seem to them that the line
between the powers of the " States" and those of Con-
gress over the election of the President and Vice-Presi-
dent could under the existing facts be drawn anywhere
without giving them at least this one vote. If the re-
turns as certified to by the Governors and the " State "
canvassing officer, officers, or boards, of these four

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 293

" States" should be received and counted they would have
this one vote from Oregon. If, on the other hand, the
popular vote for the electors as it came into the hands of
the ' ' State " canvassing officers or boards was to be re-
ceived and counted, then they would have the electoral
votes of at least Louisiana, Florida, or South Carolina,
and perhaps of all of them. But the Republicans con-
tended that the line between "State" control and Con-
gressional control was to be drawn between the Governor's
certification and the report of the " State " canvassing
officer, officers, or board to the Governor of the result of
the vote for the electors. The certification issued by the
Governor, they held, was ordered by Congressional law
and was under Congressional control, even when the
" State " canvassing officer, officers, or board should join
with the Governor in the certification of the persons
chosen electors. The report of the vote for the electors
by the " State " canvassing officer, officers, or board to
the Governor was thus the final act under " State " con-
trol, was the final act in the election of the electors.
This was unquestionably sound constitutional law. But
it would give all the electoral votes from all four of the
" States," from which double returns had been received,
to Hayes and Wheeler, and would elect them by one vote.
The view of the counsel for the Republican candidates
prevailed with a majority of the Commission. By a ma-
jority of a single vote the Commission gave all
the electoral votes of the four " States " from cisions of the
which double returns had been received to ommi8Slon-
Hayes and Wheeler, and since the decisions of the Com-
mission were final unless negatived by both Houses of
Congress, and the Republican Senate, of course, sus-
tained the decisions of the Commission, there was noth-
ing for the Democrats to do but submit or have recourse
to violence. Threats were freely expressed of having

294 RECONSTRUCTION

Mr. Tilden take the oath of office, and then conducting
him, under the support of a large armed body, to the
White House and installing him there. But it was ob-
served that the Southern Democrats did not participate
in these menacing declarations, and it was soon learned
that Mr. Tilden himself would not lend himself to
any such desperate movement. Moreover, the existing
President had, with his usual promptness and decision,
prepared himself to meet all exigencies, and had let it
be known that he would uphold the decisions to which
Congress and its Commission might come by any power
necessary to accomplish the result.

In the early morning of March 2d, the count was

completed, and Hayes and Wheeler were proclaimed by

the presiding officer of the Senate, Mr. Ferry,

M r Hsvps

declared Pres- elected President and Vice-President of the
United States by a majority of one electoral
vote. The popular vote for the electors was about eight
millions three hundred thousand. Of this vast number
the Tilden electors had received the majority by about
two hundred and fifty thousand, according to the Ee-
publican count, and by about three hundred thousand,
according to the Democratic count. It must be remem-
bered, however, that it is quite possible for the candi-
date of one party to receive a popular majority through-
out the whole country, and the candidate of the other to
receive a majority of the electoral votes, simply because
the popular vote is counted, in electing the electors,
by " States " and not in the aggregate.

The truth in regard to the whole transaction of the
election probably is that the Democrats did in some
places in the South intimidate voters ; that the Repub-
lican " State " canvassing officers, making this a justifi-
cation, or an excuse, did throw out votes that ought to
have been counted ; and that the existing law of elec-

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 295

tions, administered by Eepublicans, was capable of being
so interpreted as to give legal warrant to all that was
done by them. A perfectly fair election in
the " States " of Louisiana, Florida, and regard to the
South Carolina, with the law of suffrage then e ectl0n-
obtaining, would probably have resulted in a popular
majority for the Kepublican candidates for electors.
Accepting the law of suffrage as then existing for the
basis of our reasoning, it will have to be conceded that
the Eepublicans were in the right both morally and
legally, and that the title of Hayes and Wheeler to the
offices of President and Vice-President was entirely
sound and unimpeachable. They were inaugurated on
the 5th day of March, 1877, without any attempt at
resistance or disturbance from any quarter.

During the counting of the electoral vote it was sus-
pected that the friends of Mr. Hayes were giving some
assurances to the Southerners in Congress in
regard to what the policy of his Administra- southern5^
tion would be concerning the " State " gov- lcy'
ernments in the South. The unwillingness of the
Southern Democrats to join with their party associates
of the North in any revolutionary projects was attrib-
uted partly to this. While there is no evidence that
Mr. Hayes ever pledged himself to the Southerners in
regard to anything, still it is probably true that his
views concerning the unwisdom of the employment
of the military power of the United States in up-
holding the negro-Republican " State " governments
in the South were imparted to them by his friends. At
any rate, he announced in his inaugural address that he
considered the re-establishment of local self-government
in these " States " to be one of the prime objects of his
Administration, and he speedily withdrew the support of
the military power of the United States from the three

296 RECONSTRUCTION

negro-Eepublican " State " governments, and left them
to their own resources.

The result was that, although the Eepublican candi-
dates for Governor and for the members of the legis-
The result of lature in these three ' ' States " received about
his policy. the same vote as the Eepublican presidential
electors, and in January of 1877 actually assumed power,
the Democratic candidates ousted them from the offi-
ces, and in sufficient number from the legislative seats,
and established at last Democratic white rule in all the
" States " of the South. In Florida the Eepublican, M.
L. Stearns, gave way to the Democrat, George F. Drew,
in the gubernatorial office ; in South Carolina D. H.
Chamberlain gave way to Wade Hampton, and in Louis-
iana, S. B. Packard gave way to Francis T. Nicholls.

Order and peace were quickly established everywhere,
and the plundered and impoverished South could at last
take hope and feel courage to make a new effort to
recover some degree of prosperity and some measure of
domestic content. For ten years the dark night of
domination by the negro and adventurer had rested upon
the unhappy section, until it had been reduced to the
very abomination of desolation. Broken in health and
fortune, sick at heart, conscious of the terrible degra-
dation which had been imposed upon them, and politi-
cally ostracized, the better part of the white population
of the South had staggered and groped through the
hideous experiences of this period, and such of them as
had not perished during the awful passage had now at
last been relieved of the frightful scourge, and half
dazed, as if just recovering from a terrible nightmare,
found themselves again in the places of power and re-
sponsibility. But they brought with them, as their
dominant passion, undying hatred of the Eepubli-
can party as the author of all their woes, and as their

ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 297

dominant policy, the stern and unbending resolve to
stand together as one man against every movement
which had even the slightest tendency toward a res-
toration of the hated conditions from which they had
escaped. No sane mind can wonder at "the solid
South/' or at the Democratic South. Life, property,
happiness, honor, civilization, everything which makes
existence endurable demanded that the decent white
men of the South should stand shoulder to shoulder in
defending their families, their homes and their com-
munities from any return of the vile plague under
which they had suffered so long and so cruelly ; and
human instinct determined that this should be done in
connection with that party which was hostile to the Re-
publican party. The differences which lead to a fair
fight and the wounds which are received in it are easily
healed, but indignities heaped upon a fallen foe create
a bitterness of heart that lasts so long as life endures.

Slavery was a great wrong, and secession was an error
and a terrible blunder, but Reconstruction was a punish-
ment so far in excess of the crime that it extinguished
every sense of culpability upon the part of those whom it
was sought to convict and convert. More than a quarter
of a century has now passed since the blunder-crime of
Reconstruction played its baleful part in alienating the
two sections of the country. Until four years ago little
progress had been made in reconciling them. It is said
now that the recent war with Spain, in Reconciiia-
which men from the North and men from [henNorthWfnd
the South marched under the same banner the Soath-
to battle and to victory, has buried the hatchet forever
between them. But they had done this many times be-
fore, and yet it did not prevent the attempt to destroy
the Union. It cannot be in this alone that the South
feels increased security against the doctrines and the poli-

298 RECONSTRUCTION

cies and interferences of the Republican party with regard
to the negro question, the great question which has made
and kept the South solidly Democratic. It is something
far more significant and substantial than this. It is
to some the pleasing, though to others startling, fact,
that the Republican party, in its work of imposing the
sovereignty of the United States upon eight millions of
Asiatics, has changed its views in regard to the political
relation of races and has at last virtually accepted the
ideas of the South upon that subject. The white men of
the South need now have no further fear that the Re-
publican party, or Republican Administrations, will ever
again give themselves over to the vain imagination of the
political equality of man. It is this change of mind and
heart on the part of the North in regard to this vital
question of Southern "State" polity which has caused
the now much-talked-of reconciliation.

*

*S

CHAPTER XIV

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
BETWEEN 1867 AND 1877

The Purchase of Alaska— The Contention of the House of Rep-
resentatives in Regard to its Power over Treaties — The Sen-
ate's Position and the Compromise — Irritation of the Ameri-
can People against Great Britain — The Johnson-Clarendon
Treaty — President Grant's Statements in His First Annual
Message and in His Second Annual Address — Sir John Rose's
Mission to the United States — The Joint High Commission —
The Treaty of Washington — The Alabama Claims and the
Geneva Convention — Triumph of the Diplomacy of the United
States — Organization of the Tribunal and Filing of the Cases
— The Controversy between Mr. Fish and Lord Granville —
The Filing of the Counter Cases and the Argument — Obstacles
— Decision of the Tribunal in Regard to National and Indirect
Damages — The Decision of the Tribunal in the Case of the
Florida— The Decision in the Case of the Alabama — The
Decision in the Case of the Shenandoah, and other Vessels —
International Principles Settled by the Geneva Tribunal — The
Northwest Boundary Question — The Fisheries Question — The
Halifax Commission and Award — The Burlingame Treaty
with China — The Attempt to Annex the Dominican Republic
to the United States— The Treaty— The Treaty before the
Senate — Its Rejection — The President's Attempt to Renew
Negotiations — The Committee of Inquiry — The Report of the
Committee — The Abandonment of the Scheme.

The two chief products of American diplomacy in
the decade between 1867 and 1877 were the purchase of
Alaska, and the treaty of Washington with Great Britain.

The purchase of Alaska, the northwest corner of the
North American continent, together with the islands

299

300 RECONSTRUCTION

adjacent thereto, a vast region of some five hundred
thousand square miles in extent, inhabited chiefly by
The purchase a few savage tribes, was effected by a
of Alaska. treaty, negotiated by Mr. Seward and the
Russian diplomatist, Baron Stoeckl, and ratified by
the Senate of the United States on the 30th of March,
1867.

The proposition came from the side of Russia, and it
appeared that Russia was more eager to sell than the

The rea- United States was to buy. The price agreed
I°gn|iD°stathe on was seven millions two hundred thousand
purchase. dollars in gold, and most people in the United
States thought, at the time, that this great sum was
being paid for nothing but a barren area of snow and
ice. The country was declared to be utterly worthless by
some of the best informed men in Congress, and a man
of no less ability and influence than Mr. Shellabarger
opposed the purchase on the ground that it involved
an extension of territory dangerous to the existence of
the Republic.

On the other hand, such men as General Banks and
Mr. Stevens contended that from the point of view of
a business transaction alone it was worth the money ;
and Mr. Higby, of California, told his colleagues that
they were mistaken in regard to the climate of the re-
gion. The consideration, however, which seems to have
had most weight was gratitude toward Russia, whose
government had manifested the most friendly feeling
for the Union in the struggle against the giant rebellion,
and had even threatened interference in behalf of the
Union against interference in behalf of the Confederacy
by any other European state. That acute observer of
political opinion, Mr. Blaine, affirmed that a like offer
from any other European government would most prob-
ably have been declined.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 301

It is, however, almost certain that Mr. Seward had
another very profound reason for making the purchase,
one which he could not very well proclaim
from the housetops, especially as the feeling icai reason for

i . . j ,i i » .-I /.. the purchase.

on his part, and on the part of the Govern-
ment and of the people of the North, was most kindly
toward Kussia. It was this : The United States would
in this way and at a comparatively small cost rid herself
forever of any danger of Eussian colonization on the
North American continent, and of the danger of any
complications between Eussia and Great Britain upon
this continent. This was a most important political
consideration, one which much overbalanced the price
paid for the territory and the cost of its adminis-
tration.

When the bill for making the appropriation to pay
for Alaska came before the House of Eepresentatives,
that body raised the question of the power The conten.
of the House over treaties involving the pay- t ion of the

i-rT'-ini House of Rep-

ment of money by the United States, by as- resentatives in
serting in the preamble of the bill that its po8wer over

. i ,i t t, a 1 treaties in-

consent was necessary to the validity ot such voivingthe
treaties. It did so on the ground that as an money by the
independent legislative body it could refuse UnIted statee-
any appropriation at its own discretion, and that as all
foreign countries were bound to know this from the
wording of the Constitution, no foreign country could
consider a treaty with the United States, involving
financial obligations by the United States, as completed
until the House of Eepresentatives should have voted
the appropriation of the amount stipulated in the agree-
ment.

The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doc-
trine, and rejected the bill with the preamble contain-
ing it as it came from the House of Eepresentatives.

302 RECONSTRUCTION

The bill then went to a conference committee of the two
Houses, and this committee invented a preamble which

The senate's read: "Whereas the President has entered
theSicomp?od into a treaty with the Emperor of Eussia,
miBe> and the Senate thereafter gave its advice and

consent to said treaty, and whereas said stipulations
cannot be carried into full force and effect, except by
legislation to which the consent of both Houses of Con-
gress is necessary ; therefore be it resolved/' etc. Both
Houses adopted the bill in this form and it became law
July 27th, 1868.

The contention of the House was good political science,
but it is still doubtful whether it is the constitutional
law of the United States or not. The more recent con-
stitutions of even the European states, such as those of
Germany and France, make the consent of both houses
of the legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties
involving the appropriation of money, or the assump-
tion of any financial obligation. This is as it should
be ; and the Constitution of the United States ought to
be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle.
We have, in the preceding volume of this series, fol-
lowed the history of the relations of the United States

irritation of with Great Britain down to the close of the
pMpteaeahiS rebellion, and have referred to the general
Great Britain. irritation on the part of the loyal people of
the United States against the British government for its
attitude in regard to the acts of its subjects in furnishing
warships and munitions to the Confederates. There
were many who favored turning the great military power
with which the United States emerged from the Civil
War against Great Britain, and forcing a settlement of
those difficulties by the trial of arms ; but Seward re-
mained in the direction of the foreign affairs of the
Union, and he had had enough of war. Moreover, he

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 303

foresaw a change of government in Great Britain, and
with it he hoped for a change of sentiment on the part
of the new government on the international question.
This event happened in consequence of the parliamen-
tary election of 1867. The Minister of For- _.

J Change of

eign Affairs in Mr. Gladstone's cabinet was Ministry and
first Lord Stanley, and then the Earl of Clar- majority in
endon, both of them very different in charac-
ter from Lord John Russell. From the outset each of
them manifested a sincere desire to reach an amicable
settlement of all differences with the United States.
The trouble at this juncture seems to have been the
extravagance of the claims of the United States. Mr.
Adams, whose patience had become much worn, talked
about private damages, national damages and an apology.
The British Ministers thought this too preposterous to
be seriously meant.

Before, however, the discussion had fairly begun Mr.
Adams returned to the United States, and Mr. Reverdy
Johnson was sent out to the British Court. „, . .

The John-
Mr. Johnson yielded much of the ground son-ciarendon

assumed by Mr. Adams in reference to claims

for national injury, and in January of 1869 concluded

an agreement with the Earl of Clarendon for submitting

to arbitration the claims for direct damage to property

rights.

The Senate of the United States promptly rejected

the treaty with much feeling, because it did not contain

proper provision, in its view, for the reparation of

wrongs to the Nation. The feeling among the people

of both countries ran so high that the Governments

deemed it wise to cease, for a time, negotiations upon

the subject. The new President, Grant, in his Message

of December 6th, 1869, described the situation in the

following language :

304 KECONSTEUCTION

" Toward the close of the last Administration a con-
vention was signed in London for the settlement of all
D ., . outstanding claims between Great Britain and

President &

Grants state- the United States, which failed to receive

ment in his . •. _

first Annual the advice and consent of the Senate to its
ratification. The time and the circumstances
attending the negotiation of that treaty were unfavorable
to its acceptance by the people of the United States, and
its provisions were wholly inadequate for the settlement
of the grave wrongs that had been sustained by this
Government, as well as by its citizens. The injuries
resulting to the United States by reason of the course
adopted by Great Britain during our late Civil War in
the increased rates of insurance, in the diminution of ex-
ports and imports and other obstructions to domestic
industry and production, in its effect upon the foreign
commerce of the country, in the decrease and transfer to
Great Britain of our commercial marine, in the prolonga-
tion of the war and the increased cost, both in treasure
and lives, of its suppression, could not be adjusted and
satisfied as ordinary commercial claims which continually
arise among commercial nations; and yet the convention
treated them as such ordinary claims, from which they
differ more widely in the gravity of their character than
in the magnitude of their amount, great even as is that
difference. Not a word was found in the treaty, and
not an inference could be drawn from it, to remove the
sense of the unfriendliness of the course of Great Britain
in our struggle for existence, which had so deeply and
universally impressed itself upon the people of this
country. Believing that a convention thus miscon-
ceived in its scope and inadequate in its provisions would
not have produced the hearty, cordial settlement of
pending questions, which alone is consistent with the
relations which I desire to have firmly established be-

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 305

tween the United States and Great Britain, I regarded
the action of the Senate in rejecting the treaty to have
been wisely taken in the interests of peace and as a neces-
sary step in the direction of a perfect and cordial friend-
ship between the two countries. A sensitive people, con-
scions of their power, are more at ease under a great
wrong wholly unatoned than under the restraint of a
settlement which satisfies neither their ideas of justice nor
their grave sense of the grievance they have sustained.
The rejection of the treaty was followed by a state of
public feeling on both sides which I thought not favor-
able to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiations.
I accordingly so instructed the Minister of the United
States to Great Britain, and found that my views in this
regard were shared by Her Majesty's Ministers. I hope
that the time may soon arrive when the two Govern-
ments can approach the solution of this momentous
question with an appreciation of what is due to the
rights, dignity and honor of each, and with the deter-
mination not only to remove the causes of complaint in
the^ past, but to lay the foundation of a broad principle
of public law which will prevent future differences and
tend to firm and continued peace and friendship."

For another year things drifted, and the views of the
two Governments seemed to be getting wider apart, when
President Grant wrote in his Message of December 5th,
1870:

" I regret to say that no conclusion has been reached
for the adjustment of the claims against Great Britain
growing out of the course adopted by that The _.
Government during the Rebellion. The Cab- dent's, state-

-r » • ment in his

met of London, so far as its views have been second annual
expressed, does not appear to be willing to "
concede that Her Majesty's Government was guilty of any
negligence, or did or permitted any act during the War

306 RECONSTRUCTION

by which the United States has just cause of complaint.
Our firm and unalterable convictions are directly the re-
verse. I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize
the appointment of a commission to take proof of the
amount and the ownership of these several claims, on
notice to the representative of Her Majesty at Washing-
ton, and that authority be given for the settlement of
these claims by the United States, so that the Govern-
ment shall have the ownership of the private claims, as
well as the responsible control of all the demands against
Great Britain. It cannot be necessary to add that
whenever Her Majesty's Government shall entertain a
desire for a full and friendly adjustment of these claims
the United States will enter upon their consideration
with an earnest desire for a conclusion consistent with
the honor and dignity of both nations."

This was what is now called "a twist of the lion's
tail." It was something of a twist, although it was ac-
companied with the offer of the olive branch, instead of
the sword. It was effective, even more effective for the
conciliatory tone of the final paragraph. Moreover, with
the German armies encamped around Paris and through-
out France, the affairs of Continental Europe were too
unsettled and precarious for Great Britain to run the
risk of any serious complications with the United States.

Accepting the President's message as an invitation to
renew negotiations, the British Government, at the be-
sir John ginning of the next year (1871), sent Sir
to°theBIUnfted John Eose to Washington to sound the Pres-
states. ident in regard to the matter. The President

greeted his advances with great cordiality, and on the
26th of the month (January), Sir Edward Thorn-
ton, the British Minister to the United States, for-
mally proposed to the Hon. Hamilton Fish, the Sec-
retary of State, the appointment of a Joint High

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 307

Commission, to consist of five persons representing
each Government, to sit at Washington, for the purpose
of settling the questions between the two Governments
relative to Great Britain's North American possessions.
Mr. Fish immediately expressed the willingness of his
Government to enter upon the negotiation, provided the
differences growing out of the events of the Civil War
should be included among the subjects to be considered.
The British Government accepted Mr. Fish's proviso,
and the respective Governments proceeded to appoint
the members of the Commission. President

The Joint

Grant designated Hamilton l*ish, Ebenezer Highcommis-
R. Hoar, Justice Samuel Nelson, Robert C.
Schenck and George H. Williams. Her Majesty selected
Earl de Grey and Ripon, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Staf-
ford Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton and Professor
Montague Bernard. These eminent gentlemen pro-
ceeded immediately upon their momentous undertaking,
and on the 8th of May (1871) concluded the treaty be-
tween the two Governments, known as the Treaty of
Washington, which was duly ratified, and on the 4th of
July proclaimed to the world.

The first eleven articles of this agreement relate to
the claims for damages arising from the incidents of the
Civil War, known as the Alabama Claims. The Treaty of
This was the subject of transcendent impor- Washington-
tance in the Treaty ; this was the subject which was,
by these articles, referred to the Court of Arbitration to
sit at Geneva.

They contain, in the first place, an expression of re-
gret for the escape of the Confederate vessels from
British ports and for the depredations committed by
them.

They provide, secondly, for a tribunal of arbitration,
composed of five members, one of whom should be

308 RECONSTRUCTION

named by the President of the United States, one by
Her Britannic Majesty, one by the King of Italy, one
by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by
the Emperor of Brazil ; and, in case either of these last
three mentioned should fail to name an arbitrator, they
provide that one should be named by the King of
Sweden and Norway ; and finally, that one agent should
be named by each of the high contracting parties to
represent it generally in all matters connected with the
arbitration.

They provide, in the third place, that " the Arbitra-
tors shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest
ai convenient day after they shall have been
bama claims named, and shall proceed impartially and
neva conven- carefully to examine and decide all questions
that shall be laid before them on the part of
the Governments of the United States and Her Britan-
nic Majesty respectively," and that " all questions con-
sidered by the Tribunal, including the final award,
shall be decided by a majority of all the arbitrators."

They provide, in the fourth place, that each of the
two high contracting parties should deliver his written
or printed case, together with all the evidence in sup-
port of it, to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of
the other party, as soon as possible after the organization
of the Tribunal, and within a period not exceeding six
months from the 17th of June, 1871 ; that within four
months after the delivery on both sides of the case, each
party might put in a counter case, with additional evi-
dence, in reply to the case of the other party ; that the
arbitrators might extend the time, under certain cir-
cumstances, for delivering the counter case ; that
' ' within two months after the expiration of the time
limited for the delivery of the counter case on both
sides," the agent of each party should deliver to each of

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 309

the arbitrators " and to the agent of the other party a
written or printed argument showing the points and
referring to the evidence upon which his Government
relies " ; and that the arbitrators might require further
argument by counsel, giving to each party an equal
chance to be heard.

They provide, in the fifth place, that the Tribunal
should consider the case of each vessel separately ; that
it might, however, award a gross sum, or that in case it
did not award a sum in gross, the high contracting par-
ties should appoint two members of a board of assess-
ors, and request the Italian Minister at Washington to
appoint a third, which board should determine the
amounts due in the cases in which the arbitrators had
pronounced responsibility.

They provide, in the sixth place, that in deciding the
matters submitted the arbitrators should be governed by
the following rules :

" A neutral government is bound, first, to use dili-
gence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping,
within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reason-
able ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry
on war against a Power with which it is at peace ; and
also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from
its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry
on war as above, such vessel having been specially
adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction,
to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either
belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base
of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose
of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or
arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly, to exercise
due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all
persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
of the foregoing obligations and duties."

310 KECONSTKUCTION

They provide, in the seventh place, that the high
contracting parties would " agree to observe these rules
as between themselves in the future, and to bring them
to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to in-
vite them to accede to them."

And they provide, finally, that the result of the pro-
ceedings of the Tribunal and the Board of Assessors, in
case such board should be appointed, should be ac-
cepted as a final settlement of all the claims known as
the Alabama Claims, and should be a bar to any fur-
ther proceedings in regard to them.

It will be seen that the Government of the United
States had in this Treaty substantially won all of the
Triumph of points for which it had contended. The
ofethePuSted Queen's Government had apologized. It had
states. agreed that the general principles of interna-

tional law in regard to the duties of neutrals toward
belligerents should take precedence over municipal
statutes, and should not be limited by municipal stat-
utes. And it had agreed that the Tribunal of Arbitra-
tion should decide all questions laid before it by the
Governments of the United States and of Her Britannic
Majesty respectively.

It is true that Her Majesty's Government qualified its
acceptance of the rules to be applied in determining its
responsibility by inserting an explanation in the Treaty
of the following tenor: "Her Britannic Majesty has
commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipoten-
tiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot
assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles
of international law which were in force at the time
when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but that
Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire
of strengthening the friendly relations between the two
countries and of making satisfactory provision for the

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 311

future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between
the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitra-
tors should assume that Her Majesty's Government had
undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these
rules."

And it is also true that, while, according to the letter
of the Treaty, the United States Government was left
unfettered as to the character of the claims which it
might lay before the Arbitrators, Her Majesty's Govern-
ment had been led to expect more moderation in this
respect than the popular sentiment in the United States
seemed to indicate.

The two Governments and the high personages in-
vited by them proceeded in due time to appoint the
Arbitrators. The President of the United
States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; tors, agents
Her Majesty named Chief Justice Alexander
Cockburn ; the Italian King designated Count Frederic
Sclopis ; the President of the Swiss Confederation desig-
nated Mr. Jacob Staempfli, and the Emperor of Brazil
named the Baron d'ltajuba.

The President of the United States also appointed Mr.
J. C. Bancroft Davis as the agent of the United States
before the Tribunal, and Mr. Caleb Cushing, Mr. Will-
iam M. Evarts and Mr. Morrison R. Waite as counsel.

Her Majesty's Government also appointed Lord Ten-
terden as the agent of Great Britain before the Tribu-
nal, and Sir Roundell Palmer as chief counsel.

On the 15th of December, 1871, the Arbitrators or-
ganized the Tribunal at Geneva with Count Frederic
Sclopis in the chair as presiding officer, organization
and with Mr. Alexander Favrot as secretary, na/and^ing
The printed case of each of the high contract- of the cases-
ing parties was filed immediately by the agent of each,
and the Tribunal ordered the counter cases to be filed

312 RECONSTRUCTION

on or before the 15th day of the following April. The
Tribunal then adjourned to June 15th following, unless
sooner called together by the secretary.

The contents of the case of the United States became
immediately known to the British Ministers, but not for
some weeks to the British people. The Ministers were
not apparently disturbed in mind about it, although they
discovered at once that it contained claims for national
damages and indirect damages as well as for direct dam-
ages to individuals ; but as soon as the newspapers got
hold of this fact, they raised a tremendous hue and cry,
and accused those who had prepared the case of taking an
unfair advantage of the wording of the treaty. The Min-
ister of the United States in London, General Schenck,
informed Mr. Fish by cable of the agitation in London
over the subject and of the demand of the newspapers
that the claim for national and indirect damages should
be withdrawn. Mr. Fish replied firmly that "there
must be no withdrawal of any part of the claim pre-
sented." At this moment the session of Parliament
opened and the Queen's speech contained a criticism of
the extravagance of the claims of the United States in
the case submitted to the Tribunal. The matter was
Th contro warmly debated in Parliament, and on Feb-
versy between ruarv 3d the British Foreign Minister, Lord

Mr. Fish and J ,. , .

Lord Gran- Granville, opened a diplomatic discussion
with Mr. Fish upon the subject. Mr. Fish,
however, held his ground with great courage and ability,
insisting that the claims of every character should be
disposed of by the Tribunal in order to remove them
from the domain of further controversy and in order to
establish perfect harmony in the relations of the two
countries.

Before this discussion terminated the day arrived for
the filing of the counter cases. They were both prompt-

INTERNATIONAL EELATIONS 313

ly filed with a reservation of all rights by each of the
high contracting parties. The diplomatic discussion
culminated in an attempt to make a supplemental treaty,
which should provide that the Government of the United
States should withdraw its claims for national losses and
indirect losses, on the condition that no such losses
should be claimed by either Government in the future.
But the day arrived for the filing of the ar- Thefliingof
guments before anything was effected. The cases "andUie
agent of the United States filed his argument argument.
on the day fixed, the loth of June, but the British agent
only filed a statement setting forth the differences be-
tween the two Governments in the interpretation of the
Treaty in respect to claims for national and indirect
damages, and the late negotiations and discussions be-
tween the two Governments concerning these differ-
ences. The British agent also expressed the hope that,
if time were given, these negotiations would prove fruit-
ful, and asked the Arbitrators to adjourn for eight
months.

It looked as if the work of the commissioners, who had
framed the Treaty, and of the Arbitrators, who had now
given six months of their time to its execu-
tion, would go for naught, and that the Gov-
ernments and the people of the two countries would be
thrown back into the relations existing during the years
1869 and 1870, with intensified feelings of hostility.
The Arbitrators realized the seriousness of the situation
and did not yield to the request of the British agent.
They adjourned to the 19th of the month, Decision of
that is for four days only, in order to delib- \£ eregardUtlto
erate upon the proposition. When thev re- pationai and

r r r j indirect dam-

assembled on the 19th the President of the ages-
Tribunal announced that the Arbitrators had decided
to inform the two high contracting parties, at that

314 RECONSTRUCTION

juncture, that the Arbitrators did not consider the
claims for national and indirect damages to be a good
foundation in international law "for an award of com-
pensation or computation of damages between nations ; "
but were unanimously of the opinion that such claims
should " be wholly excluded from the consideration of
the Tribunal in making its award, even if there were no
disagreement between the two Governments as to the
competency of the Tribunal to decide them/' The
President said further, that the Arbitrators made this
announcement in order that the Government of the
United States might consider if it would adopt some
course in reference to these claims, which would relieve
the Tribunal from deciding upon the request of the
British agent for an adjournment.

The President of the United States was duly in-
formed of this announcement by the Tribunal, and,
upon the advice of the learned counsel for the United
States, he instructed the agent of the United States to
make the following reply to the Tribunal :

" The declaration made by the Tribunal, individu-
ally and collectively, respecting the claims presented by
the United States for the award of the Tribunal for,
first, the losses in the transfer of the American com-
mercial marine to the British flag, second, the enhanced
payment of insurance, and, third, the prolongation of
the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of
the war and the suppression of the Eebellion, is ac-
cepted by the President of the United States as deter-
minative of their judgment upon the important ques-
tion of public law involved."

This reply was read to the Tribunal on the 25th of
June, and on the 27th the British agent, under instruc-
tions from his Government, withdrew his request for an
adjournment and filed his argument.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 315

It was supposed by the Americans that the whole case
on both sides was now in, and that, unless the Arbitrators
should require further argument or statement in refer-
ence to specific points, the Tribunal would now proceed
to make its decisions. But the British counsel and the
British agent immediately petitioned the Tribunal to be
allowed to prepare and present another argument, and
to have six weeks' time in which to do it, and even the
member of the Tribunal appointed by the British Gov-
ernment exerted himself to secure this delay and this
new opportunity for the British agent and his counsel.
The Tribunal felt, however, that it was in possession of
the evidence and the argument necessary for determin-
ing the question before it, and refused the request.

The Tribunal now adjourned to the 15th of July, in
order to give its members time and opportunity to study
the cases. On the 15th, the arbitrators reassembled and
invited the agent and counsel of each of the high con-
tracting parties to sit with them in their conferences.
To all others, however, the doors were closed. They
spent some two days discussing the order of the procedure
which they should follow, and finally adopted the order
proposed by Mr. Staempfli, and also indicated in the
Treaty itself, which was to take up the case of each
vessel separately, and allow each Arbitrator to express a
provisional opinion upon it, which opinion, however,
should not be conclusive even on the Arbitrator himself
who gave it.

On the 17th of the month (July), the Tribunal pro-
ceeded to take up the case of the Florida and to hear the
opinions of the Arbitrators upon it. Four of The decision
the five Arbitrators were of the opinion that Sii^tne'case
the British Government had failed to exercise o£theFiorida.
due diligence in the discharge of its neutral duties tow-
ard the United States in this case. Sir Alexander Cock-

316 RECONSTRUCTION

burn alone disagreed with this view. The four also held
that the tenders of the Florida should follow the lot of
their principal. The reading of the opinion in the case
of the Florida was finished on the 22d, and the Tribunal
adjourned to the 25th.

Upon the reassembly of the arbitrators, Baron dTta-
juba called on the British counsel for a statement or an
argument on the questions of due diligence, and of the
effect of commissions held by Confederate war vessels
which had entered British ports, and of the legitimacy
of coal supplies to Confederate vessels in British ports.
Of course the counsel of the United States would be
permitted to reply.

The Tribunal approved the proposition, and then

proceeded to the case of the Alabama. The Arbitrators

__ . . . agreed unanimously in their views of this

The decision ° . J

in the case of case, holding the Government of Great Brit-
tle Alabama. . °

am guilty of a lack of due diligence. The

case of the tender to the Alabama was viewed in the

same light.

The Tribunal then took up the case of the Slienan-
doah. The Arbitrators were unanimously of the opinion
. in this case that the British Government had
in the case of not failed in due diligence anterior to the
do ah, and time when the vessel entered the port of
o er vesee s. ^ elbourne. On the other hand, three of the
Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, Mr. Adams and Mr. Staem-
pfli, held that the British Government was responsible
for all the acts of this vessel committed after leaving
Melbourne.

In regard to all the other vessels mentioned in the
case of the United States, excepting only the Retribu-
tion, the Arbitrators were unanimous in the opinion that
the British Government had not failed in due diligence
in the discharge of its duties as a neutral, and in regard

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 317

to the Retribution three of the five Arbitrators held the
like opinion. After hearing the additional arguments
called for, the Tribunal closed the doors on the 26th of
August, and, without the presence even of agents or
counsel, deliberated upon the momentous questions sub-
mitted to it. On the 9th of September the decision was
adopted. The Tribunal then adjourned to the 14th,
upon which day the decision was to be proclaimed to the
world.

The public session of the Tribunal on the 14th was a
solemn and an imposing affair with nothing to mar the
satisfaction of those who participated in it, except the
discourtesy of Sir Alexander Cockburn, who not only
kept the assembly waiting for his appearance long past
the appointed hour, but departed with unseemly haste
at the close of the valedictory pronounced by the presi-
dent, Count Sclopis.

The award followed the line of the opinions already
recited. It convicted the British Government of a lack
of due diligence in the discharge of its neutral duties in
the cases of the Alabama and the Florida and their re-
spective tenders, and also in the case of the Shenandoah
from the time she left the port of Melbourne, but exon-
erated it in all other cases.

The award also repeated the decision announced by
Count Sclopis, on the 19th of June, excluding the
claims for national and indirect damages, and then fixed
the amount due to the United States from Great Britain
in the gross sum of "fifteen millions five hundred
thousand dollars in gold, as the indemnity to be paid by
Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction
of all the claims referred to the consideration of the
Tribunal." Sir Alexander Cockburn refused to sign the
award, and filed a statement of his reasons for his dis-
sent. The other four members of the Tribunal signed

318 KECONSTKUCTION

it, and as the majority rule had been provided for in
the Treaty, both of the high contracting parties were
duly bound, and so regarded themselves.

As to principles decided by the entire procedure of the
commissioners and of their Governments in the forma-
intemation- ^on °^ ^ne Treaty, and of the Arbitrators in
al principles making the award, we may say, first, that all
Geneva Tribu- questions of damages resulting from the lack
of due diligence on the part of a neutral
in the fulfilment of the duties of neutrality were re-
garded as proper subjects for arbitration, and that the
determination of the question whether the claims pre-
sented, or any of them, are a good foundation for an
award of compensation was also regarded as a proper
question for arbitration ; second, that due diligence to
be exercised by neutral governments is diligence " in
exact proportion to the risks to which either of the
belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfil the
obligations of neutrality on their part " ; third, that the
fact that a commission was only subsequently given by
a belligerent to a vessel constructed, equipped or armed
for the belligerent in the port of the neutral does not
heal the violation of the duties of neutrality by the
neutral in not using due diligence to prevent such con-
struction, equipment or armament in its ports ; fourth,
that the privilege of ex-territoriality accorded to vessels
of war can never be appealed to for the protection of
acts done in violation of neutrality ; fifth, that no neutral
can excuse itself from the due discharge of the duties of
neutrality on account of imperfections in its own laws
and government ; and sixth, that the cost to the bellig-
erent of pursuing vessels, which have been enabled to
operate against the belligerent on account of the dere-
liction of the neutral, and all indirect loss resulting
therefrom, do not constitute a " good foundation for an

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 319

award of compensation or computation of damages be-
tween nations."

Two other questions of great importance were placed
in course of solution by the Treaty of Washington. One
was the contention between the two high
contracting parties concerning the boundary west boundary
line between the United States and British ques
Columbia from the point where the forty-ninth parallel
of north latitude intersects the middle of the channel
which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island
to the Pacific Ocean. The contention on the part of
Great Britain was that this line should run, according
to the stipulations of the Treaty of June 15th, 1846,
through the Rosario Straits, and on the part of the
United States that it should run through the Canal de
Haro. The high contracting parties agreed, in the
thirty-fourth article of the Treaty of Washington, to
submit this question to the arbitration and award of His
Majesty the German Emperor, whose decision thereon
should be final and without appeal. The German Em-
peror, William I., accepted this duty; and on the 21st
of October, 1872, announced his award, upholding the
contention of the United States.

The other question was that which related to the
common rights of fishing to be enjoyed by the citizens
and subjects of the two high contracting The Fisher.
parties along the Atlantic coast. The eigh- ies 9nestion-
teenth article of the Treaty provided that the inhabi-
tants of the United States should have for the term of
twelve years, in common with the subjects of Her Bri-
tannic Majesty, the right to take sea fish " of every kind,
except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in
the bays, harbors, and creeks, of the Provinces of Que-
bec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the colony
of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands

320 RECONSTRUCTION

thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any dis-
tance from the shore, with permission to land upon the
said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the
Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets
and curing their fish." By article nineteenth the same
right was accorded to British subjects, in common with
the citizens of the United States, along "the eastern
sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the
thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and on the shores
of the several islands adjacent thereunto, and in the bays,
harbors and creeks of the said sea-coasts and shores of
the United States and of the said islands." Finally, by
article twenty-first free trade between Canada and Prince
Edward's Island and the United States in the produce
of their respective sea-fisheries was established.

The contention on the part of Great Britain in regard
to this subject was that the rights and privileges ac-
corded to the citizens of the United States by these
articles were more valuable than those conceded to the
subjects of Great Britain by the United States, and that
a sum of money should be paid to Great Britain by the
United States in offset thereof. The United States
denied the British assumption, and the two high con-
tracting parties agreed, in the twenty-third article of
The Halifax ^ne Treaty, to leave this matter to the arbi-
commission tration and award of three commissioners,
one to be appointed by the President of the
United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and a third
by the President and the Queen conjointly, provided
they could agree upon a person within three months
from the date when the Treaty should take effect and,
if not, then by the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at
the Court of St. James.

The President named, as the representative of the
United States, the Hon. Ensign H. Kellogg. The Queen

INTEK^ATIONAL EELATIONS 321

appointed, as her representative, Sir Alexander T. Gait.
And the two high contracting parties not being able to
agree upon the third member of the commission, the
Austro - Hungarian Ambassador to the Queen named
Maurice Delfosse, the Belgian Minister Plenipotentiary
to the United States. Delfosse had been proposed by
the British Government to the Government of the United
States as the third commissioner, and the President had
objected to him as being the representative of a country
whose interests were too nearly allied with those of Great
Britain. It was naturally understood by the President
that this had disposed of Delfosse, and the Government
at Washington was taken by surprise when the Austro-
Hungarian Ambassador at London, Count Beust, made
it manifest that he should name Mr. Delfosse. Mr.
Fish, the Secretary of State, with true diplomatic in-
stinct, immediately accommodated himself, however, to
the situation, and congratulated Delfosse upon his ap-
pointment. Count Beust announced the choice of Del-
fosse on the 2d of March, 1877, nearly six years after
the Washington Treaty was negotiated and signed,
during which period the fisheries of Newfoundland were
brought under the same agreements as those of Canada,
Prince Edward's Island, and the United States above the
thirty-ninth parallel. The Commission finally met at
Halifax in the latter half of the year 1877 and on Novem-
ber 23d, 1877, made its award, sustaining by a vote of
two to one the contention of Great Britain, and adjudg-
ing that the United States Government should pay the
Government of Great Britain the sum of five millions
five hundred thousand dollars in gold.

The representative of the United States, Mr. Kel-
logg, dissented from the decision ; and it was felt in the
United States that the Government had been over-
reached in the matter. Considerable delay in the pay-

322 EECONSTEUCTION

ment of the amount thus resulted, and some contro-
versy over it with Great Britain occurred. But finally,
on November 21st, 1878, the draft for the amount was
delivered to the British Government by Mr. Welsh,
the Minister of the United States at the Court of St.
James.

Two other events of an international character hap-
pened within the decade between 1867 and 1877 to
which brief reference should be made, viz., the Chi-
nese Treaty of 1868, and the strong and persistent
attempt of President Grant to bring Santo Domingo
under the sovereignty of the United States.

In 1861 Anson Burlingame, a citizen of the United
States and a resident of Massachusetts, was sent as
Minister of the United States to China. He
game Treaty was a diplomatist of much skill, and he suc-
m na' ceeded in making such a deep impression
upon the Emperor of China that the latter, on his resig-
nation as Minister of the United States to China in 1867,
made him Envoy Extraordinary from China to the
United States and the European states for the purpose
of securing treaties of amity and commerce between
China and the states of the civilized world. He came
immediately to the United States and negotiated with
Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State of the United
States, the Treaty of July 28th, 1868, whereby freedom
of emigration and immigration between China and the
United States was established, upon the principle of
the " inherent and inalienable right of man to change
his home and allegiance " expressly subscribed to by
the United States and China in the Treaty ; the resi-
dence of Chinese consuls in the ports of the United
States, with the same privileges and immunities as
the British and Eussian consuls enjoyed in said ports,
was agreed to ; and freedom of religion for citizens of

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 323

the United States in China, and Chinese converts to
the Christian religion in China, and for Chinese sub-
jects in the United States, was mutually pledged. This
Treaty was heralded at the time as being an im-
mense advance in bringing China into close sympathy
with modern civilization. But very soon the "labor
element," as it assumes to call itself, in the United
States, began to find fault with the liberal provisions
upon the subject of emigration and immigration, and
has succeeded in forcing the Government of the United
States back from its ideal position to the old ground of
national exclusiveness. The example set by the United
States has been accepted by the Chinese Government as
a justification of its old methods, and as an excuse for
dropping back into them in great measure.

At the moment of General Grant's accession to the
presidency there was civil commotion in the Dominican
Kepublic. Buenaventura Baez was the legal The attempt
President of the Eepublic, but he had lost DomTnlc^n
the support of a very large proportion of theP united
the population, who were following a leader state8-
named Cabral. Cabral and his party were so strong that
Baez feared the overthrow of his government, and sought
to avert it by proposing annexation to the United States.

In July of 1869, President Grant sent General Orville
E. Babcock to Santo Domingo with written instructions
from the Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, to inquire into the
political situation there and into the value and resources
of the country. Babcock, terming himself aide-de-camp
to the President of the United States, succeeded some-
how or other in so impressing his importance and
authority upon the willing Baez and his
confederates as to move them to sign a treaty
for the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the
United States. It appears that he pledged the Presi-

324 RECONSTRUCTION

dent of the United States to use privately all his influ-
ence with the members of Congress for the ratification
of the Treaty.

On the 10th of January, 1870, President Grant sent
this proposed Treaty to the Senate for ratification. He
The Treat mus^ nave thought that there would be no dif-
before the ficulty in securing for it the approval of that
body, for his message was only three lines
in length and contained no argument. It was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it soon be-
came manifest that a serious opposition to ratification
was developing itself. The President now procured
from the Dominican representative at Washington an
agreement to an extension of the time for ratification, and
in communicating this to the Senate on May 31st he
went into an argument in support of the proposed treaty.
He said, among other things, that the acquisition of this
country would cut off one hundred millions of dollars'
worth of the imports of the United States and largely
increase its exports, and would thus enable the United
States to extinguish its large debt abroad ; that it would
give the United States military Command of the en-
trance to the Caribbean Sea and " the Isthmus transit
of commerce " ; and that it was necessary in order to
maintain the Monroe Doctrine. He declared that the
inhabitants of Santo Domingo yearned "for the protec-
tion of our free institutions and laws, and our progress
and civilization/' And he affirmed that he had infor-
mation that a European Power was standing ready to
offer two millions of dollars for the possession of Samana
Bay alone. It would be difficult to find another mes-
sage of a President of the United States which con-
tained an equal amount of such extravagant nonsense.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs thoroughly sifted
the subject, and recommended that the proposed Treaty

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 325

be not ratified, and the Senate, despite the influence of
the Administration, sustained the Committee. This
action of the Senate occurred on the 30th of Its rejec-
June. The President was surprised, mor- tion-
tified and indignant. He was especially angry with the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator
Sumner, and was from that moment determined to
oust Sumner from that position.

In his next annual message, that of December 5th,
1870, he took up the matter again, went over all of his
old arguments expressed in even more extrav- The Presi-
agant language than before, and added the to"renewenne-
prophecy that if the United States did not g°tiationB-
take Santo Domingo, European nations would acquire
the Bay of Samana and create there a great commercial
city to which the United States would become tributary
without receiving corresponding benefits, and that then
the folly of the rejection of so great a prize by the
United States would be recognized. He then asked
Congress to authorize him to appoint a commission to
negotiate a treaty with the authorities of Santo Domingo
for its annexation to the United States, and suggested
that the treaty so negotiated might be ratified by a joint
resolution of the two Houses of Congress, instead of by
the Senate alone.

These recommendations and suggestions and the lan-
guage in which they were expressed were felt to be most
exasperating by those Senators and Represent-
atives who opposed the President's scheme, mittee of in-
and the President's supporters saw quickly Qmry'
that Congress would not sanction any such measure as
he proposed. In place of it, Senator Morton, of Indiana,
offered in the Senate a resolution to empower the Pres-
ident to appoint a commission, composed of three per-
sons, to go to Santo Domingo and inquire into the politi-

326 RECONSTRUCTION

cal situation and the resources of the country. This
resolution finally passed under strong opposition, and
the House of Representatives concurred in it with the
proviso, which the Senate accepted, that the resolution
should not be construed as committing Congress in any
manner or degree to the policy of annexing Santo Do-
mingo to the United States.

The President appointed as commissioners Benjamin

The report F- Wade' Andrew D. White and Samuel G.

of the com- Howe. These gentlemen proceeded to Santo

missioners. ° r

Domingo, made their inquiries, and furnished
the President with a report sustaining his views and
recommendations.

On the 5th of April, 1871, the President submitted
this report to Congress, accompanied by a message which
contained a justification of his own conduct in the whole
matter, and an attack upon those who opposed his policy
of annexation, especially upon Senator Sumner. It
was a very undignified, not to say puerile, document, and

ought never to have been written, much less

The a ban- ° '

donment of sent. It revealed, however, the fact that
the President understood at last that he
must abandon his pet scheme. He did it, however,
with a very bad grace, and in his last annual message
he repeated for the third time his old arguments in
favor of his miserable project, "not," he said, " as a
recommendation for a renewal of the subject of annexa-
tion/' but in vindication of his conduct in regard to it.
It is needless to add that none of his fearful predictions
about European occupation of Santo Domingo, in case
the United States should fail to seize it, and the destruc-
tion of the Monroe Doctrine, have come to pass. On the
other hand, the Monroe Doctrine has attained an al-
most monstrous growth which at times appears as likely
to threaten as to preserve the peace of the two Amer-

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 327

icas, and the poor little Dominican Republic, which
was incapable of self-government, still exists and seems
to be bettering its condition by its own efforts, while
the great European city in the Bay of Samana, to which
the United States was to become tributary, has not even
the substance of a mirage in the waters upon which the
vast marines of the world were to ride in approaching
its docks, and landings. Such has been the fulfilment
of the prophecy upon which was based the supposed
necessity of expansion beyond the seas !

INDEX

Abbott, Josiah G., on electoral
commission, 286

Adams, Charles Francis, joins liber-
al republicans, 264 ; candidate for
presidential nomination, 265 ; re-
turns from England, 3(13 ; at Ge-
neva arbitration, 311, 316

Adams, John Q. , nominated for vice-
presidency, 267

Alabama, in Lincoln's proclamation,
11 ; electoral vote of 1864 re-
jected, 22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ;
convention and election in, 38 ;
vote on thirteenth amendment, 55 ;
in the reconstruction bill, 112 ; reg-
istration in, 146; election in, 149;
disfranchisements in, 150; voting
on constitution, 151, 153, 197;
act on admission of members from,
198 ; reconstruction declared com-
plete, 202 ; ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204 ; republicans
get control in, 268, 269 ; change in
character of government, 273

Alabama, the, case of, 316, 317

Alabama claims, 307, 308, 316, 317

Alaska, purchase of. 297-302

Alexandria, Va. , Pierpont govern-
ment at, 13, 224

Alta Vela, matter of claim to, 177,
178

Ames, Adelbert, resigns as governor
of Mississippi, 275

Anderson, T. C, in Louisiana poli-
tics, 269

Arkansas, in Lincoln's proclamation,
11; Lincoln's acts toward, 12;
presidential reconstruction in. 15;
congressmen refused seats, 15; in
Lincoln's message, 19; electoral
vote of 1864 rejected, 22; attitude"
of Johnson to, 38 ; vote on thir-
teenth amendment, 55; in the
reconstruction bill, 112; registra-
tion in, 147 ; election in, 149 ; dis-
franchisements in, 150 ; ratifies

constitution, 155, 197 ; ratifies
fourteenth amendment, 197; act
of June, 1868, as to, 198, 199, 201 ;
reconstruction declared complete,
202 ; ratines fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204 ; change in char-
acter of government, 273

Ashburn, George W., in convention
of 1866, 100

Ashley, James M., action on thir-
teenth amendment, 29

Austin, Tex., convention at, 229

Babcock, Okville E., mission to
Santo Domingo, 323

Baez, Buenaventura, in Dominican
politics, 323

Baird, Absalom, New Orleans riot,
94-97

Baltimore, Md. , republican conven-
tion at, 20 ; democratic conven-
tion at, 266

Banks, Nathaniel P., appoints elec-
tion in Louisiana, 14 ; views on
purchase of Alaska, 300

Bayard, Thomas P., on electoral
commission, 286

Bell, John, desertion of the Union
cause, 221

Benton, Thomas H. , in convention
of 1S66, 100

Bernard, Mountague, on Joint High
Commission, 307

Beust, Count, names Delfosse for
Halifax commission, 321

Bingham, John A., on joint commit-
tee on reconstruction, 57 ; on im-
peachment committee, 174 ; im-
peachment manager, 175 ; approves
letter on Alta Vela claims, 177;
offers amendment as to Georgia,
242

Black, Jeremiah S. , counsel for
Johnson, 176 ; his withdrawal, 177,
178; counsel before electoral com-
mission, 291

329

330

INDEX

Blaine, James G., proposes amend-
ment to reconstruction bill, 115,
116 ; approves letter on Alta Vela
claims, 177 ; in convention of 1 87*5,
281 ; views on purchase of Alaska,
300

Blair, Francis P., nominated for
vice-presidency, 211 ; conduct in
the campaign, 211, 212

Blair, Montgomery, in convention of
1866, 99 ; counsel before electoral
commission, 291

Blow, Henry T. , on joint committee
on reconstruction, 57

Borie, Adolph E. , becomes secretary
of the navy, 231 ; resigns, 232

Botts, John Minor, in convention of
1866, 100

Boutwell, George S. , on joint com-
mittee on reconstruction, 57 ; on
impeachment committee, 174; im-
peachment manager, 175 ; becomes
secretary of the treasury, 232

Bradley, Joseph P., on electoral
commission, 289

Brodhead, James O., letter from P.
P. Blair, 211

Brown, B. Gratz, joins liberal repub-
licans, 264 ; nominated for vice-
presidency, 265, 296

Browning, Orville H., enters cabinet,
90; in convention of 1866, 99

Brownlow, William G. , elected gov-
ernor of Tennessee, 25 ; in conven-
tion of 1866, 100

Bullock, Rufus B. , share in recon-
struction of Georgia, 237-239, 241,
244

Burlingame, Anson, treaty with
China, 322

Butler, Benjamin P., impeachment
manager, 175 ; signs letter on Alta
Vela claim, 177 ; attack on John-
son, 181 ; proposes bill as to Geor-
gia, 240 ; withdraws his amend-
ment, 242

Cabral, in Dominican politics, 323
Cameron, Simon, in convention of

1866, 100
Campbell, James, in convention of

1866, 99
Campbell, John A., counsel before

electoral commission, 291
Canada, the fisheries question, 320-

322

Canby, Edward R. S., supersedes
Sickles, 143

Carpenter, Matthew H., counsel be-
fore electoral commission, 291

Carpenter, testimony as to Ku-Klux,
259

Cartter, David K.. action in case
against Thomas, 171, 172, 174

Cartwright, J. C. , Oregon elector of
1876, 291

Chamberlain, Daniel H., as govern-
or of South Carolina, 2^4 ; retires
from the office, 296

Chandler, Zachariah, in convention
of 1866, 100 ; manages campaign
for Hayes, 283

Chase, Salmon P. , presides at im-
peachment of Johnson, 116; rul-
ings, 181 ; puts final question, 191 ;
candidate for presidential nomina-
tion, 210

Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (5 Pe-
ters 1), 144

Chicago, 111., democratic conven-
tion at, 207 ; republican conven-
tion of 1868, 207

China, the Burlingame treaty, 322

Cincinnati, O., liberal republican
convention at, 265 ; republican
convention of 1876, 280

Civil Rights, state legislation on, 45-
52, 62 ; bill on, in Congress, 68-70 ;
the bill criticised, 71 ; bill passed
over veto, 73

Clarendon, Earl of, treaty negotiated
with Johnson, 303

Clements, White vs., 237

Cleveland, O., radical republican
convention at, 20 ; soldier conven-
tion at, 101

Clifford, Nathan, on electoral com-
mission, 286

Cochrane, John, nominated for vice-
presidency, 20 ; withdraws, 21

Cockburn, Alexander, at Geneva ar-
bitration, 311,315,317

Coke, Richard, elected governor of
Texas, 249, 273

Colfax, Schuyler, elected Speaker,
42 ; appoints committee on im-
peachment, 174 ; nominated for
vice-presidency, 207 ; character of
acceptance, 208

Columbia, S. C, made head-quar-
ters of second military district,
135

INDEX

331

Committee of the House on Elec-
tions, Georgia case referred to, 223

Committee of the House on Impeach-
ment, appointed, 174 ; proceed-
ings, 175 et seq.

Committee of the House on Recon-
struction, reports bill, 112; bill
passed, 117 ; Covode resolution re-
ferred to, 171; reports impeach-
ment resolution, 173 ; reports bill
as to Georgia, 240

Committee of the House on the Ju-
diciary, action as to thirteenth
amendment, 28 ; Blaine moves
reference to, 116

Committee of the House on the Re-
bellious States, 15

Committee of the Senate on Elec-
tions, Georgia case referred to, 223

Committee of the Senate on Finance,
bill reported from, 277

Committee of the Senate on Foreign
Relations, Sumner loses chair-
manship of, 264 ; opposes Domini-
can treaty, 324, 325

Committee of the Senate on the Ju-
diciary, action as to thiiteenth
amendment, 26-28 ; proposes
Freedmen's Bureau bill, 64 ; re-
ports a civil rights bill, 68 ; action
on bill repealing Tenure-of-Office
Act, 233

Committee of the Senate on the Re-
bellious States, 15

Congress of the United States, power
vested in, 3 ; action on State per-
durance, 5; power over territories,
6 ; relation of its acts to Recon-
struction, 12 ; legislation on Re-
construction, 1 5 ; action as to elec-
toral vote of 1864, 21, 22 ; twenty-
second joint rule, 24, 25 ; attitude
to Tennessee, 26 ; meeting of De-
cember, 1865, 40 ; Johnson's views
of powers of, 41 ; demand of south-
erners for seats, 56 ; joint com-
mittee on reconstruction, 57, 58 ;
passes Freedmen's Bureau bill,
66 ; passes civil rights bill, 70, 73 ;
the fourteenth amendment, 74-79;
proposal of committee on recon-
struction, 80 ; reports to, on recon-
struction, 84-86 ; passage of Freed-
men's Bureau bill, 87-90 ; relation
to campaign of 1866, 98 ; attacked
by Johnson, 102 ; effect of election

of 1866, 104; effect of Johnson's
message on, 105 ; passes bill for
negro suffrage in District of Colum-
bia, 107, 108 ; bill vetoed. 107, 108;
bill passed over veto, 109 ; vetoes
sent to, 126 ; encroachment on
President's power, 128 ; passes
supplemental reconstruction bill,
129 ; opening of fortieth Con-
gress, 132 ; passes bill interpreting
Reconstruction Acts, 140 ; passes
bill over veto, 142 ; as to powers of,
147 ; attitude of southern whites to
acts of, 149 ; additional bill as to
reconstructed States, 152, 153;
comment on the act, 154; message
to, of December, 1867, 158 160 ; ad-
mission of Southern members, 198,
202 ; action on proclamation of
fourteenth amendment, 204 ; fric-
tion with Johnson, 214 ; annual
message to, 214; action on fif-
teenth amendment, 217 ; question
as to southern members, 223, 225 ;
admits members from Virginia,
228 ; passes modification of Ten-
ure-of-Office Act, 234 ; readmission
of Georgia, 235-244 ; attitude to
the South, 248 ; bill to enforce the
amendments, 253-255 ; control of
elections to, 256 ; statute on the
Ku-Klux, 257, 258 ; legislation on
finance, 276-279 ; electoral count
of 1877, 283, 284 ; bill for electoral
commission, 284, 285; action as to
Santo Domingo, 326. See House
of Representatives ; Senate ;
Statutes of the United States

Conkling, Roscoe, on joint com-
mittee on reconstruction, 57; in
convention of 1876, 281

Connecticut ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204

Constitution of the United States,
government provided by the, 2-4 ;
relation of State government to, 5,
6 ; powers of Congress over elec-
tions, 22 ; eligibility to vice-presi-
dency, 23, 24 ; adoption of the
thirteenth amendment, 26-30, 55 ;
the fourteenth amendment, 73-80,
82, 83 ; fourteenth amendment in
the campaign of 1866, 98 ; four-
teenth amendment rejected in
South, 106, 109; fourteenth
amendment with reference to re-

332

INDEX

vival of State functions, 110; tests
of, applied to reconstruction bill,
113 ; in reconstruction bill, 120,
121 ; interpreted by the Supreme
Court, 144 ; fourteenth amend-
ment ratified in Arkansas, 19? ;
ratification of fourteenth amend-
ment completed, 202-205 ; action
on fifteenth amendment, 21 7 ; fif-
teenth amendment ratified by
Georgia, 240 ; provision for en-
forcement of amendments, 253-255

Covode, John, resolutions on John-
son, 171

Cowan, Edgar, action on the Stevens
resolution, 57 ; in convention of
1866, 99

Cox, Jacob D. , in Pittsburg conven-
tion, 102 ; becomes secretary of
the interior, 231

Creswell, John A J., in convention
of 1866, 100; becomes postmaster-
general, 231

Cronin, E. A., Oregon elector in
1876, 290, 291

Curtin, A. 6., in convention of 1866,
100

Curtis, Benjamin R. , counsel for
Johnson, 176; argument, 182, 183

Cushing, Caleb, at Geneva arbitra-
tion, 311

Custer, George A., in Cleveland
convention, 101

Davis, David, joins liberal repub-
licans, 264; candidate for presi-
dential nomination, 265 ; elected
Senator, 287 ; relation to electoral
commission, 288

Davis, Henry Winter, bill on recon-
struction, 15-18; protest against
Lincoln's proclamation, 19

Davis, J. C. Bancroft, at Geneva
arbitration, 311

Delaware, in election of 1866, 104 ;
votes for Seymour, 212

Delfosse, Maurice, on Halifax com-
mission, 321

Dennison, William, resignation, 90,
142

District of Columbia, bill for negro
suffrage in, 107; bill vetoed, 108;
bill passed over veto, 109 ; bill on
colored schools in, 216

Dix, John A., in convention of 1866,
99

Dixon, James, action on the Stevens
resolution, 57 ; vote on impeach-
ment, 191

Doolittle, James R. , action on the
Stevens resolution, 57 ; in conven-
tion of 1866, 99 ; view of the Stan-
ton case, 189; vote on impeach-
ment, 191

Drew, George F. , becomes governor
of Florida, 296

Durant, Thomas J., in convention
of 1866, 100

Durell, E. H., in Louisiana politics,
270, 271

Edmunds, George F., on electoral
commission, 286

Electoral Commission, creation, 284,
285; membership, 286-289; pro-
ceedings, 290-293

Emory, W. H. , relations with John-
son, 175, 179, 181

English, James E., in convention
of 1866, 99

Evarts, William M., counsel for
Johnson, 176 ; counsel before
electoral commission, 291 ; at
Geneva arbitration, 311

Ewing, Thomas, in Cleveland con-
vention, 101 ; nominated as sec-
retary of war, 173

Farragut, David D., accompanies
Johnson to the West, 102

Favrot, Alexander, at Geneva arbi-
tration, 311

Federal government, system of,
1, 2

Ferry, Thomas W. , announces result
of 1876 election, 294

Fessenden, William P., on joint
committee on reconstruction, 57 ;
theory of reconstruction, 60; opin-
ion on impeachment, 184 ; view
of the Stanton case, 189 ; vote on
impeachment, 191

Field, Stephen J., on electoral com-
mission, 286

Fish, Hamilton, becomes secretary
of state, 232 ; negotiations with
Great Britain, 306, 307; contro-
versy with Granville, 312 ; con-
gratulates Delfosse, 321

Fisheries Question, the, 320-322

Flanders, Benjamin F. , elected to
House of Representatives, 14

INDEX

333

Florida, in Lincoln's proclamation,
11 ; electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ; conven-
tion in, 38 ; adopts thirteenth
amendment, 39 ; in the reconstruc-
tion bill, 112 ; registration in, 147 ;
election in, 149 ; ratines consti-
tution, 155, 197 ; act on admission
of members from, 198 ; reconstruc-
tion declared complete, 202 ; rat-
ifies fourteenth amendment, 203,
204 ; contest as to election returns
of 1876, 283, 289 ; change of ad-
ministration, 296

Florida, the, case of, 315-317

Fowler, Joseph S. , vote on impeach-
ment, 191

Freedmen's Bureau, created, 44, 45 ;
Grant's opinion of its officers, 63 ;
bill of 1866, 64-67 ; bill passed over
veto, 87-90. See Statutes of the
United States

Frelinghuysen, Frederick T. , on
electoral commission, 286

Fremont, John C, nominated for
presidency, 20 ; withdraws, 21

Galt, Alexander T., on Halifax
commission, 321

Garfield, James A., approves letter
on Alta Vela claims, 177 ; on elec-
toral commission, 286

Garland, Augustus H., elected gov-
ernor of Arkansas, 273

Geneva Arbitration, 307, 308, 311-
318

Georgia, in Lincoln's proclamation,
11 ; electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ; conven-
tion and election in, 38 ; vote on
thirteenth amendment, 55 ; in the
reconstruction bill, 112; case of
Georgia vs. Stanton, 146, 195 ;
registration in, 147 ; election in,
148 ; election in, 149 ; ratifies con-
stitution, 155, 197; controversy in,
155 ; act on admission of members
from, 198, 199; reconstruction de-
clared complete, 202 ; ratification
of fourteenth amendment, 205 ;
votes for Seymour, 212 ; question
in Congress as to representation
of, 224 ; question of representation
of, 235-237 ; military government
in, 238, 239 ; fifteenth-amendment
ratified, 240 ; admission delayed,

241, 242; finally restored to fed-
eral relations, 243, 244 ; escape
from negro rule, 247, 248 ; election
of 1872 in, 267

Gerry, Elbridge, in convention of,
1866, 100

Gillem, A. C, arrest of McCardle,
196

Granger, Gordon, in Cleveland con-
vention, 101

Grant, Ulysses S. , report on condi-
tions at the South, 63 ; accom-
panies Johnson to the VVest, 102;
acting Secretary of War, 143, 158;
injunction against sought, 146; ap-
pointed acting secretary of war,
163; his action thereon, 164, 165;
relations with Johnson, 166-168;
nominated for presidency, 207 ;
character of acceptance, 208 ; at-
titude to reconstruction, 223 ;
proclamation as to Virginia, 227 ;
orders as to Mississippi and Texas,

229, 230 ; policy characterized,

230, 231 ; attitude to Tennre-of-
Office Act, 231-234; first annual
message, 234 ; suggestion as to
Georgia, 235 ; message of March,
1871,257; proclamation of March,
1871, 258; proclamation of May,
1871, 259, 260; proclamations of
April and November, 1S71, 260,
261 ; relations with Sumner, 264 ;
nominated for second term, 267 ;
elected, 267 ; veto of inflation bill,
279; messages on relations with
Great Britain, 303-300 ; policy as
to Santo Domingo, 323-326

Granville, Lord, controversy with
Fish, 312

Great Britain, change in ministry,
303 ; Grant's messages on relations
with, 304-306 ; the Geneva arbi-
• tration, 307-318 ; the British Co-
lumbia boundary, 319 ; the fisheries
question, 320-322

Greeley, Horace, in convention of
1866, 100 ; joins liberal republi-
cans, 264 ; nominated for presi-
dency, 265, 266 ; defeated, 267

Green, Ashbel, counsel before elec-
toral commission, 291

Grey and Ripon, Earl de, on Joint
High Commission, 307

Grider, Henry, on joint committee
on reconstruction, 57

334

INDEX

Grimes, James W., on joint commit-
tee on reconstruction, 57 ; view of
the Stanton case, 189 ; vote on im-
peachment, 191

Groesbeck, William S. , counsel for
Johnson, 177

Habeas Corpus, writ of, privileges
suspended in District of Colum-
bia, 39

Hahn, Michael, elected to House of
Representatives, 14 ; elected Gov-
ernor of Louisiana, 14

Halifax, N. S., fisheries commission
at, 320, 321

Hamlin, Hannibal, count of electoral
votes, 24

Hampton, Wade, in convention of
1868, 211 ; becomes governor of
South Carolina, 296

Hancock, Winfield Scott, supersedes
Sheridan, 143 ; in convention of
1868, 210

Harlan, James, resignation, 90, 142

Harris, Ira, on joint committee on
reconstruction, 57

Hawley, Joseph R., in republican
convention of 1866, 207

Hayes, Rutherford B., significance
of his election, 279 ; nominated for
presidency, 281, 282 ; the cam-
paign, 283 et seq.; election for-
mally declared, 294 ; policy toward
the South, 295, 296

Henderson, John B. , introduces
amendment abolishing slavery, 26,
27 ; vote on impeachment, 191

Hendricks, Thomas A., candidate
for presidential nomination, 210;
nominated for vice-presidency,
282

Herron, Francis J., in Louisiana
politics, 269, 270

Higby, William, views on purchase
of Alaska, 300

Hill, Benjamin H. , enters Senate
from Georgia, 244

Hoadly, George, joins liberal repub-
licans, 264; counsel before elec-
toral commission, 291

Hoar, Ebenezer R., becomes attor-
ney-general, 231 ; on Joint High
Commission, 307

Hoar, George P., on electoral com-
mission, 286

Hood, John B. , near Nashville, 23

House of Representatives of the
United States, admits members
from Louisiana, 14 ; refuses seats
to members from Arkansas, 15 ;
action on thirteenth amendment,
28-30 ; elects Colfax Speaker, 42 ;
the Stevens resolution, 42-44;
speech by Stevens, 58 ; passes
Preedmen's Bureau bill, 66 ; passes
civil rights bill, 73 ; representation
in, 74; election of 1866, 98;
effect of election of 1866, 104;
attempt to impeach Johnson,
109 ; bill on reconstruction before
the, 112-118; resolution en confis-
cation act, 1 22 ; tenure-of -office
bill in, 125 ; bill on reconstructed
States, 153 ; action on dismissal of
Stanton, 171 ; proceedings of im-
peachment against Johnson, 173
et seq.; passes bill repealing Ten-
ure-of-Office Act, 232, 233 ; demo-
crats secure control of, 253, 273 ;
jurisdiction over treaties, 30i, 302.
See Congress of the United States ;
Statutes of the United States

Houston, George S. , elected governor
of Alabama, 273

Howard, Jacob M., on joint com-
mittee on reconstruction. 57; ill-
ness delays vote on impeachment,
190

Howe, Samuel G. , commissioner to
Santo Domingo, 326

Hunt, Ward, 289

Hunton, Eppa, on electoral commis-
sion, 286

Illinois, ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204; Davis elected
Senator from, 287

Indiana, election of 1886 in, 103 ;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
203, 204 ; election of 1872 in, 267 _

Iowa, election of 1866 in, 103 ; rati-
fies fourteenth amendment, 203,
204

d'ltajuba, Baron, at Geneva arbitra-
tion, 311, 316

Jenkins, Charles J. institutes suit
against Stanton, 145 ; removed by
Meade, 155

Johnson. Andrew, elected vice-pres-
ident, 21 ; calls Tennessee conven-
tion, 23; proclamation of Feb.

INDEX

335

25, 1865, 25 ; becomes president, 30 ;
plan and acts as to reconstruc-
tion, 31-41 ; proclamation of May
29, 1865,33, 34; i I entity of his
plan with Lincoln's, 36 ; proclaims
fe leral law in force in Virginia,
3T ; proclamations as to civil gov-
ernment, 39; message of Dec,

1865, 40; relation to congressional
views of reconstruction, 61 ; sends
Grant and Schurz through the
South, 63 ; veto of Preedmen's Bu-
reau bill, 66, 67 ; speech of Feb. 22,

1866, 67 ; veto of civil rights bill,
70, 71 ; effect of it, 72 ; veto over-
ridden, 73 ; as to fourteenth amend-
ment, 80; message as to Tennessee,
83 ; veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill
overridden, 88-90 ; relations with
Stanton, 90, 91 ; changes in cab-
inet, 90; relation to New Orleans
riot, 95, 96 ; endorsed by conven-
tion of 1866, 99 ; criticized by con-
ventions of 1866, 101, 162; takes
part in campaign of 1866, 102 ;
proclamation declaring war ended,
103; message of Dec, 1866, 104,
105 ; vetoes bill as to negro suf-
frage in District of Columbia, 107,
108 ; bill passed over his veto, 109;
first attempt at impeachment, 109 ;
vetoes resolution on confiscation
act, 122 ; influence of Seward on,
124; vetoes reconstruction bill and
tenure-of -office bill, 126 ; encroach-
ment on his power, 128 ; veto of
supplemental reconstruction bill,
132, 133; orders under the stat-
utes, 135, 136, 138 ; vetoes bill in-
terpreting reconstruction acts, 140,
141 ; distrust of Stanton, 140 ; veto
overridden, 142 ; suspends Stanton,
142,113; Mississippi vs. Johnson,
145, 195 ; supersedes Pope with
Meade, 152; the attempt to im-
peach, 157-194; message on sus-
pension of Stanton, 160-163 ; rela-
tions with Grant, 164-168; super-
sedes Stanton with Thomas, 169,
170 ; Covode resolution, 171 ; ac-
tion of House on impeachment,
173 et seq.; vetoes overridden, 197,
199, 202 ; proclaims reconstruction
completed, 202 ; conduct in cam-
paign of 1868, 213 ; last annual
message, 214 ; proclamation of

Dec, 1868, 215; veto of colored
school bill, 216; retirement, 218,
219; relations with republicans,
219-221 ; policy compared with
Grant's, 230

Johnson, James, appointed governor
of Georgia, 37

Johnson, Reverdy, on joint commit-
tee on reconstruction, 57 ; report
on reconstruction, 86 ; in conven-
tion of 1 866, 99 ; offers bill on re-
construction, 117; negotiates treaty
with Clarendon, 303

Joint Committee on Reconstruction,
57, 58 ; recommendation on repre-
sentation, 74 ; proposes bill, 80 ;
its bill rejected, 82 ; final report
of, 84-8(5

Joint High Commission, 307

Julian, George W. , on impeachment
committee, 174 ; joins liberal re-
publicans, 264

Kansas ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204

Kellogg, Ensign H. , on Halifax com-
mission, 320, 321

Kellogg, William P., in Louisiana
politics, 270-272 ; certificate in 1876
election, 290

Kendall vs. United States (12 Peters
524), 144

Kentucky, reconstruction in, 7, 13 ;
in Lincoln's message, 20; in elec-
tion of 1866, 104; votes for Sey-
mour, 212 ; election of 1872 in,
267

Kenzie, Lewis M., in convention of
1866, 100 .

Kernan, Francis, in convention of
1868, 209

Koontz. William H. , approves letter
on Alta Vela claims, 177

Ku-Klux. the, 250-252, 255 ; act of
April, 1871, 257, 258; trials, 261

Lawrence, William B., in conven-
tion of 1866, 99

Lewis, D. P., elected governor of
Alabama, 26S

Liberal Republicans, convention of
1872, 264, 265 ; in campaign of 1872,
266

Lincoln, Abraham, views and acts as
to reconstruction, 8-30 ; his pro-
posed oath of allegiance, 10 ; atti-

336

INDEX

tude to the Pierpont government,
13 ; course toward Louisiana, 14,
15; proclamation of July 8, 1864,

18, 19; message of Dec. 6, 1864,

19, 20 ; renominated, 20 ; re-elect-
ed, 21 ; message of Feb. 8, 1865,
22 ; views of powers of Congress,
24 ; attitude to Brownlow's admin-
istration, 26 ; nature of acts as to
abolition, 26; signs resolution on
thirteenth amendment, 29 ; assas-
sinated, 30 ; his cabinet retained
by Johnson, 32 ; identity of plan
of reconstruction with Johnson's,
36

Lindsay, Robert B., course as gov-
ernor of Alabama, 268

Logan, John A., on impeachment
committee, 174 ; impeachment
manager, 175 ; approves letter on
Alta Vela claim, 177

Louisiana, in Lincoln's proclama-
tion, 11 ; Lincoln's acts toward,
12 ; presidential reconstiuction in,
14, 15; in Lincoln's message, 19;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected. 21,
22 ; attitude of Johnscn to, 38 ;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
55 ; contest for control of state
government, 93-98 ; in the recon-
struction bill, 112 ; registration in,
147; election in, 149; disfranchise-
ments in, 150; ratifies constitu-
tion, 155, 197 ; act on admission
of members from, 198 ; reconstruc-
tion declared complete, 202 ; rati-
fies fourteenth amendment, 203,
204; votes for Seymour, 212; cor-
ruption in, 263 ; contest for polit-
ical control in, 269-272 ; contested
electoral vote of 1876. 283, 289,
290 ; change of administration,
296

Louisville, Ky. , democratic conven-
tion at, 267

Loyal League, the, 250, 252

Luther vs. Borden, (7 Howard 1), 144

Lynch, John, in Louisiana politics,
269-272

Macdonald, John, on Joint High

Commission, 307
McCardle, William H , case of, 195,

196
McClellan, George B. , nominated for

presidency, 20 ; electoral votes, 21

McClernand, John A., in Cleveland
convention, 101

McCrary, George W., suggests elec-
toral commission, 284

McEnery, John, in Louisiana poli-
tics, 270-272; certificate in 1876
election, 290

Maine, election of 1866 in, 103 ; rat-
ifies fourteenth amendment, 203,
204 ; election of 1872 in, 267

Marvin, William, appoii.ted gov-
ernor of Florida, 37

Maryland, in Lincoln's message, 20 ;
in election of 1866, 104; votes for
Seymour, 212 ; election of 1872 in,
267

Massachusetts ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204

Matthews, Stanley, in convention of
1866, 100 ; joins liberal republi-
cans, 264 ; counsel before electoral
commission, 291

Meade, George G., supersedes Pope,
152 ; report on Alabama election,
153; removes Jenkins, 155; proc-
lamation of June, 1868, 238, 239

Merrick, Richard T. , counsel before
electoral commission, 291

Michigan ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204

Miller, J. N. Y., Oregon elector of
1876, 291

Miller, Samuel F. , on electoral com-
mission, 286

Miller enters Senate from Georgia,
244

Minnesota ratifies fourteenthamend-
ment, 203, 204

Mississippi, in Lincoln's proclama-
tion, 11 ; electoral vote of 1864 re-
jected, 22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ;
convention in, 38 ; rejects thir-
teenth amendment, 39 ; law on
vagrancy, etc. , 46-52,62; opinion
of this legislation, 53 ; in the re-
construction bill, 112; Mississippi
vs. Johnson, 145 ; registration in,
147; election in, 149; disfran-
chisements in, 151 ; constitution
rejected in, 156 ; arrest of Mc-
Cardle in, 196; martial law in,
202 ; no share in election of 1868,
212 ; ratification of constitution,
229 ; restored to federal relations,
229 ; negro rule in. 249 ; political
conditions in 1875, 274, 275

INDEX

337

Mississippi vs. Johnson (4 Wallace
475), 145, 193, 195

Missouri, Reconstruction in, 7, 13 ;
in Lincoln's message, 20 ; ratifies
fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 ;
liberal republicans in, 265 ; elec-
tion of 1872 in, 267

Monroe, John T. , as mayor of New
Orleans, 94

Montgomery, Ala., made head-quar-
ters of third military district,
135

Moor head, James K. , approves letter
on Alta Vela claims, 177

Morgan, Edwin D. , vote on Freed-
men's Bureau bill, 67

Morrill, Justin S. , on joint commit-
tee on reconstruction, 57

Morse, Alexander P., counsel before
electoral commission, 291

Morton, Oliver P., in convention of
1866, 100 ; in convention of 1876,
281 ; on electoral commission, 286 ;
resolution on Santo Domingo,
325

Moses, F. J. , connection with South
Carolina corruption, 262

Moses, F. J., Jr., judge-elect of
South Carolina, 274

Nashville, Tenn., convention at,
236

National Nominating Conventions,
radical republican of 1864, 20;
democratic of 1864, 20 ; republi-
can of 1864,20; of 1866,99-102;
republican of 1868, 207 ; democrat-
ic of 1868, 208 ; liberal republi-
can of 1872, 264, 265 ; democratic
of 1872, 266 ; republican of 1868,
267 ; republican of 1876, 280, 281 ;
democratic of 1876, 282

Nebraska ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204

Nelson, Samuel, on Joint High Com-
mission, 307

Nelson, Thomas A. R., counsel for
Johnson, 176

Nevada ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204

New Hampshire ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204

New Jersey, ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204 ; withdrawal
of ratification, 203, 205, 206 ; votes
for Seymour, 212

22

New Orleans, La., convention at, 14 ;
riot at, 92-98 ; head-quarters of
fifth military district, 135

New York, ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204 ; votes for Seymour,
212

New York, N. Y., democratic con-
vention of 1868 at, 208

New York Tribune prints protest of
Wade and Davis, 19

Niblack, William E., motion in
House, 43

Nicholls, Francis T. , becomes gov-
ernor of Louisiana, 296

North Carolina, in Lincoln's procla-
mation, 11 ; electoral vote of 1864
rejected, 22 ; reconstruction in, 35 ;
convention in, 38 ; vote on thir-
teenth amendment, 55 ; in the
reconstruction bill, 112; registra-
tion in, 147 ; election in, 149 ; rati-
fies constitution, 155, 197; act on
admission of members from, 198;
reconstruction declared complete,
202 ; ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204 ; recovery from
negro rule, 249

Northcote, Stafford, on Joint High
Commission, 307

Northwest Ordinance, 27

Norton, Daniel S. , action on the
Stevens resolution, 57 ; vote on
impeachment, 191

O'Conor, Charles, nominated for
presidency, 267 ; counsel before
electoral commission, 291

Odell, W. H., Oregon elector of 1876,
291

Ohio, election of 1866 in, 103 ; vote
on negro suffrage in, 148 ; ratifies
fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 ;
withdrawal of ratification, 203,
205, 206 ; election of 1872 in, 267

Ord, Edward O. O, in fourth mili-
tary district, 135

Oregon, ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204 ; votes for Seymour,
212 ; contested electoral returns of
1876, 289-291

Packard, S. B. , takes possession of
Louisiana capitol, 271 ; retires
from office of governor, 296

Palmer, Roundell, at Geneva arbi-
tration, 311

338

INDEX

Parker, John, Oregon elector of 1876,
291

Parsons, Lewis E., appointed gov-
ernor of Alabama, 37

Paschal, George W., in convention
of 1886, 100

Patterson, David T., vote on im-
peachment, 191

Payne, Henry B., on electoral com-
mission, 286

Pendleton, George H., nominated
for vice-presidency, 21 ; candidate
for presidential nomination, 208

Pennsylvania, election of 1866 in,
103 ; ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204 ; election of 1872
in, 267

Perry, Benjamin F. , appointed gov-
ernor of South Carolina, 37

Philadelphia, Penn., conventions of
1866 at, 99, 100; republican con-
vention of 1872 at, 267

Phillips, Wendell, characterized by
Johnson, 67

Pierpont, Francis H. , attitude of
Lincoln to. 13 ; supported by John-
son, 37, 224

Pinchback, P. B. S., in Louisiana
politics, 269, 272

Pittsburg, Penn., soldier convention
at, 101

Poland, Luke P. connection with
Thomas case, 174

Pope, John, in third military dis-
trict, 136 ; injunction sought
against, 146 ; election orders, 151 ;
recalled, 152

Preston, William, in convention of
1868, 210

Pulaski, Tenn., place of origin of
Ku-Klux, 250

Randall, Alexander W. , appoint-
ed postmaster-general, 90 ; accom-
panies Johnson to the West, 102

Rawlins, John A., becomes secretary
of war, 232

Raymond, Henry J., views on re-
construction, 59 ; vote on four-
teenth amendment, 87 ; in conven-
tion of 1866, 99

Reconstruction, theory of, 1-7 ; Lin-
coln's views and acts as to, 8-30 ;
Seward's view of, 12 ; in Louisi-
ana, 14 ; the Wade-Davis bill,
15-18 ; relation of party conven-

tions to, 20 ; in Tennessee, 23, 25 ;
Johnson's plan as to, 31-41 ; in
North Carolina, 35 ; in the several
States, 37, 38 ; views of House on,
43 ; attitude of republicans, 44 ;
joint committee on, 57 ; views of
Stevens, 58 ; views of Raymond
and Shellabarger, 59 ; theory of
Sumner, 60 ; reports of congres-
sional committee, 84-86 ; as an
issue in the campaign of 1866, 98 ;
Johnson's defence of his policy as
to, 102 ; bill in the House, 112-
114; the Blaine amendment, 115,
116; the Sherman bill, 117; the
bill as finally passed, 118-122 ; ve-
toed by Johnson, 126 ; republican
motives in, 127 ; supplemental bill
on, 129-131 ; vetoed, 132; acts on,
criticised, 133, 134; application of
acts on, 135-137 ; congressional
interpretation of acts on, 1 38 ; bill
interpreting the statutes on, 140 ;
application of statutes on, 146 el
seq. ; process of, declared com-
pleted, 202 ; attitude of Grant
toward. 223 ; end of legislation on,
244 ; reconstruction characterized,
297. See Statutes
Republican party, schism threat-
ened in, 20; attitude to recon-
struction, 44 ; attitude to southern
legislation, 52, 54 ; feeling toward
southern congressmen, 56 ; atti-
tude to views of Stevens, Raymond
and Shellabarger, 59 ; attitude to
presidential reconstruction, 60, 61 ;
position on civil rights, 62 ; atti-
tude to Freedmen'8 Bureau bill,
89 ; attitude to Stanton, 90, 91 ;
in campaign of 1866, 99,- 101 ;
convention of 1866, 104 ; in elec-
tion of 1 866, 104 ; views on recon-
struction, 110, 111 ; motives in Re-
construction, 127; interpretation
of Johnson's message, 160 ; action
in vote on impeachment, 191 ;
effect of McCardle case on, 197 ;
convention of 1868, 207 ; criticism
of views of, 217 ; relations with
Johnson, 219-221 ; control of
Grant, 257 ; revolt in the party,
264, 265 ; convention of 1872, 267 ;
get control of Alabama legislature,
268, 269 ; lose control in Congress,
273; financial policy, 276; con-

INDEX

339

vention of 1876, 280, 281 ; cam-
paign of 1876, 283 et seq.; views
as to powers of Congress, 292

Retribution, the, case of, 316

Rhode Island ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204

Richmond, Va., made head-quarters
of first military district, 135 ;
convention at, 226, 227

Robeson, George M. , becomes sec-
retary of the navy, 232

Rogers, Andrew J., on joint com-
mittee on reconstruction, 57

Rose, John, mission of, 306

Ross, Edmund G., vote on impeach-
ment, 191

Rousseau, Lovell H., in Cleveland
convention, 101

Russia, purchase of Alaska from,
300-302

Safford, M. J., in convention of
1866, 100

St. Louis, Mo., Johnson's speech at,
102

Samana Bay, 324, 327

Santo Domingo, Sumner's position
as to, 264 ; attempt to annex to
United States, 323-327

Schaffner law, the, 249

Schell, Augustus, in convention of
1868, 209

Schenck, Robert C. , in convention
of 1866, 100 ; on Joint High Com-
mission, 307 ; at London, 312

Schofield, John M. , assigned to first
military district, 135, 226 ; nomi-
nated as secretary of war, 190 ;
confirmed, 192 ; retained by Grant,
231 ; resigns, 232

Schriver, General, in Stanton -
Thomas incident, 169, 170, 172,
173

Schurz, Carl, report on conditions at
the South, 63 ; in convention of
1866, 100 ; joins liberal republi-
cans, 264

Sclopis, Frederic, at Geneva arbitra-
tion, 311, 316, 317

Scott, R. K. , views of Ku-Klux, etc. ,
259

Senate of the United States, refuses
seats to members from Arkansas,
15 ; adopts thirteenth amendment,
26-28 ; the Stevens resolution, 43,
44, 57 ; passes Freedmen's Bureau

bill, 66 ; passes civil rights bill,
70, 73 ; effect of election of 1866,
104 ; passes reconstruction bill,
118; tenure-of -office bill in, 122,
125 ; passes resolution on confisca-
tion act, 122 ; bill on reconstructed
States, 153 ; action on suspension
of Stanton, 162, 163 ; action on
dismissal of Stanton, 170; acts as
court of impeachment, 176 et seq. ;
vote on impeachment, 190, 191 ;
confirms Schofield, 192; resolution
on the amnesty proclamation, 215,
216 ; confirms Grant's nominees,
232 ; admits members from Geor-
gia, 244 ; currency bill in, 277 ;
ratifies treaty with Russia, 300 ;
rejects Johnson-Clarendon treaty,
303 ; rejects Dominican treaty,
324, 325. See Congress of the
United States ; Statutes of the
United States

Seward, William H. , views on re-
construction, 12 ; sends thirteenth
amendment to states, 29 ; retained
by Johnson, 32 ; calculation as
to thirteenth amendment, 52, 55,
56 ; announces adoption of thir-
teenth amendment, 55 ; action on
fourteenth amendment, 80 ; accom-
panies Johnson to the west, 102 ;
influence on Johnson, 124 ; pro-
claims ratification of fourteenth
amendment, 202 ; procedure as to
the proclamation, 203-205 ; nego-
tiates purchase of Alaska, 300-301 ;
negotiates treaty with China, 322 ;
instructions to Babcock, 323

Seymour, Horatio, nominated for
presidency, 210; defeated, 212

Shaffer, J. W., secures letter on
Alta Vela claims, 177

Sharkey, William L., appointed gov-
ernor of Mississippi, 37 ; institutes
suit against Johnson, 145

Shellabarger, Samuel, theory of re-
construction, 59-61 ; counsel be-
fore electoral commission, 291 ;
opinion of purchase of Alaska, 300

Shenandoah, the, case of, 316, 317

Shepley, George F. , military govern-
or of Louisiana, 14

Sheridan, Philip H., New Orleans
riot, 94, 97 ; in fifth military dis-
trict, 135 ; superseded by Hancock,
143

340

INDEX

Sherman, John, offers bill on recon-
struction, 117 ; father-in-law of
Ewing, 173 ; reports currency bill,
277

Sickles, Daniel E. , in second military
district, 135 ; superseded by Can-
by, 143

Sinclair, John G. , in convention of
1866, 99

Skinner, J. B. L., postmaster-gen-
eral ad interim, 186, 188

Slavery, adoption of the thirteenth
amendment, 26-30

South Carolina, in Lincoln's proc-
lamation, 11 ; electoral vote of 1864
rejected, 22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ;
convention and election in, 38 ;
law on vagrancy, 46; vote on thir-
teenth amendment, 55 ; in the re-
construction bill, 112 ; registration
in, 147 ; election in, 149 ; character
of convention in, 150 ; ratifies con-
stitution, 155, 197 ; act on admis-
sion of members from, 198 ; recon-
struction declared complete, 202 j
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
203, 204 ; request of governor for
troops, 258 ; proclamations of pres-
ident as to, 260, 261 ; corruption
in, 262 ; conditions in 1874, 274 ;
contested electoral returns of 1876,
283, 289 ; change of administra-
tion, 296

Spaulding, J. R. , joins liberal repub-
licans, 264

Speed, James, resignation, 90, 142 ;
in convention of 1866, 100, 101

Staempfli, Jacob, at Geneva arbitra-
tion, 311, 315, 316

Stanbery, Henry, appointed attor-
ney-general, 90 ; in case of Missis-
sippi vs. Johnson, 145 ; in case of
Georgia vs. Stanton, 146 ; arrest of
Thomas, 172; counsel for Johnson,
176

Stanley, Lord, secretary for foreign
affairs, 303

Stanton, Edwin M. , attitude to John-
son, 90, 91 ; as to the New Orleans
riot, 95, 96 ; dissents from instruc-
tions on reconstruction, 136 ; dis-
trusted by Johnson, 140 ; suspend-
ed, 142, 143, 158 ; case of Georgia
vs. Stanton, 146, 195 ; message on
suspension of, 160-162 ; action of
Senate as to, 162, 163 ; superseded

by Thomas, 169-172 ; removal dis-
cussed before Senate, 178, 179 ;
power to remove, 185 ; his viola-
tions of law, 189 ; abdication, 192
Statutes of the United States, of
Aug. 7, 1789, 184 ; of May 8, 1792,
186, 187 ; of Feb. 13, 1795, 179, 186,
187 ; of July 31, 1861, 175 ; of Feb.
20, 1863, 187, 188 ; of Mar. 3, 1865,
44, 64, 65, 89 ; of April 9, 1866, 68-
73; of July 16, 1866, 87-90; of
Feb. 5, 1873, 197 ; of Mar. 2, 1867
(on reconstruction), 112-121, 126,
136, 159, 160, 175, 179, 193, 197,
215, 235, 239, 243, 245, 247, 250-253 ;
of Mar. 2, 1867 (on tenure-of-of-
fice), 122-126, 160-163, 165, 166,
174, 178, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189,
214, 231-234; of Mar. 11, 1867,
155; of Mar. 23, 1867, 129-133,
136, 159, 160, 193, 197, 235, 245,
247, 250-253; of June 22, 1868,
198; of June 25, 1868, 202, 241,
249; of June 28, 1868, 198 ; of July
26, 1868, 302; of Mar. 18, 1869,
276, 277; of April 10, 1869, 229;
of Dec. 22, 1869, 239 ; of May 31,

1870, 255, 256; of July 14, 1870,
276, 278 ; of July 15, 1870, 244 ; of
Jan. 20, 1871, 276; of Feb. 28,

1871, 256 ; of April 20, 1871, 257,
260, 261 ; of May 22, 1872, 268 ; of
Jan. 14, 1875, 279, 283

Stearns, M. L. , retires as governor
of Florida, 296

Stephens, Alexander H., seeks seat
in Congress, 56

Stevens, Thaddeus, proposes substi-
tute thirteenth amendment, 28 ;
resolution on representation, 42-
44, 57 ; view of Mississippi legis-
lation, 53 ; on committee on recon-
struction, 57 ; views of reconstruc-
tion, 58 ; characterized by Johnson,
67 ; view as to effect of secession,
81 ; introduces bill on reconstruc-
tion, 112; refuses to accept the
Blaine amendment, 115, 116; on
impeachment committee, 174 ; im-
peachment manager, 175 ; approves
letter on Alta Vela claims, 177;
views on purchase of Alaska,
300

Stewart, Alexander T., nominated
for secretary of treasury, 231 ;
declines, 232

INDEX

341

Stockton, John P. , in convention of
1866, 99

Stoeckl, Baron, negotiates treaty for
sale of Alaska, 300

Stone, John M., elected governor of
Mississippi, 276

Stoughton, B. W., counsel before
electoral commission, 291

Strong, William, on electoral com-
mission, 286

Sumner, Charles, theory of recon-
struction, 60, 61 ; characterized by
Johnson, 67 ; joins liberal repub-
licans, 264 ; relations with Grant,
264, 325

Supreme Court of the United States,
relation of dicta to reconstruc-
tion, 12; decisions, 144-146, 179,
195, 196.

Swayne, Noah H., 289

Tennessee, in Lincoln's proclama-
tion, 11 ; in Lincoln's message,
20 ; electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
21, 22 ; Reconstruction in, 23, 25 ;
civil government established in,
25 ; ratines thirteenth amendment,
30 ; attitude of Johnson to, 38 ;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
55 ; ratifies fourteenth amendment,
82, 83 ; ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204; election of 1872
in, 267

Tenterden, Lord, at Geneva arbitra-
tion, 311

Tenure-of-Office Bill, the, intro-
duced, 122, 123; contents, 124,
125 ; vetoed, 125 ; case of Stanton,
162 et seq. See Statutes

Terry, Alfred H. , modifies Virginia
vagrant act, 225, 226 ; resumes
military control in Georgia, 239

Texas, in Lincoln's proclamation,
11 ; electoral vote of 1864 rejected.
22 ; war declared ended in, 103
in the reconstruction bill, 112
registration in, 147; election in,
149 ; martial law in, 202 ; no share
in election of 1868, 212; restored
to federal relations, 229, 230 ; es-
cape from negro rule, 247-249 ;
election of 1872 in, 267 ; change in
character of government, 273

Thomas, George H. , in third mili-
tary district, 135 ; transferred, 136

Thomas, Lorenzo, appointed to su-

persede Stanton, 169-173 ; his posi-
tion discussed before Senate, 179,
181 ; law as to appointment of, 186

Thornton, Edward, negotiations at
Washington, 306, 307

Thurman, Allen G. , on electoral
commission, 286

Tilden, Samuel J., in convention of
1866, 99; in convention of 1868,
209; nominated for presidency,
282 ; the campaign, 283 et seq.

Townsend, E. D. , orders from Stan-
ton, 170 ; in temporary charge of
war department, 192

Trumbull, Lyman, reports thir-
teenth amendment, 26 ; in conven-
tion of 1866, 100 ; opinion on im-
peachment, 184; view of the
Stanton case, 189; vote on im-
peachment, 191 ; proposal as to
Tenure-of-Office Act, 233 ; joins
liberal republicans, 264 ; candidate
for presidential nomination, 265 ;
counsel before electoral commis-
sion, 291

Twenty-second joint rule of Con-
gress, 24, 25

Union Leagues, formation of, 250,
252

Vallandigham, Clement L., in
convention of 1866, 99

Van Winkle, Peter G., view of the
Stanton case, 189 ; vote on im-
peachment, 191

Vermont, election of 1866 in, 103;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
203, 204 ; election of 1872 in, 267

Vicksburg, Miss., made head-quar-
ters of fourth military district, 135

Virginia, reconstruction in, 7 ; omis-
sion from Lincoln's proclamation,
13 ; electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
22 ; reconstruction in, 37 ; vote on
thirteenth amendment, 55 ; in the
reconstruction bill, 112, 122; reg-
istration in, 147 ; election in, 149 ;
disfranchisements in, 151 ; martial
law in, 202 ; no share in election
of 1868, 212 ; question in Congress
as to representation, 224 ; parti-
tion of, 224 ; the vagrant act, 225,
226 ; a military district, 226, 227 ;
restored to federal relations, 228 ;
escape from negro rule, 247, 248

342

INDEX

Wade, Benjamin F. , bill on recon-
struction, 15-18 ; protest against
Lincoln's proclamation, 19 ; opin-
ion of Johnson, 32 ; commissioner
to Santo Domingo, 326

Waite, Morrison R., 289 ; at Geneva
arbitration, 311

Walker, Robert J., in case of Mis-
sissippi vs. Johnson, 145

War Department, Freedmen's Bu-
reau organized in, 44

Ward, Hamilton, on impeachment
committee, 174

Warmoth, Henry C, connection
with Louisiana corruption, 268 ;
contest for control in Louisiana,
269-272

Washburne, Elihu B. , on joint com-
mittee on reconstruction, 57 ; be-
comes secretary of state, 231 ; re-
signs, 232

Washington, treaty of, 299, 307-310,
319

Watts, John W., Oregon elector in
1876, 290, 291

Welles, Gideon, accompanies John-
son to the west, 102

Wells, David A., joins liberal repub-
licans, 264

Wells, J. Madison, in contest for
control of Louisiana, 93

Welsh pays Halifax award, 322

West Virginia ratifies fourteenth
amendment, 203, 204

Wharton, John, in Louisiana politics,
269, 270

Wheeler, William A. , nominated for

vice-presidency, 282 ; election for-
mally declared, 294

Wheeling, W. Va., government at,
224

Whipper, W. J. , judge-elect of South
Carolina, 274

Whiskey ring, 272

White, Andrew D. , commissioner to
Santo Domingo, 326

White, Horace, joins liberal repub-
licans, 264

White vs. Clements, 237

Whitney, William C. , counsel before
electoral commission, 291

William I., Emperor, award as to
northwest boundary, 319

Williams, George H., offers bill on
reconstruction, 117 ; introduces
tenure-of-office bill, 122 ; impeach-
ment manager, 175; motions,
191; on Joint High Commission,
307

Wilson, Henry, theory of reconstruc-
tion, 60 ; on impeachment com-
mittee, 174 ; impeachment man-
ager, 175; elected vice-president,
267

Windom, William, introduces thir-
teenth amendment in House, 28

Winthrop, Robert C, in convention
of 1866, 99

Wisconsin ratifies fourteenth amend-
ment, 203, 204

Wood, Fernando, in convention of
1866, 99

Wool, John E., in Cleveland con-
vention, 101

7/. woe. 0%H. 0S$?>)