Skip to main content

Full text of "Reconstruction in Texas"

See other formats 


BANCROFT    LIBRARY 


fill/ 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 


BY 

CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL,  A.  M. 

Sometime  University  Fellow  in  Columbia  University 

Imtructor  in  History  t  University  of  Texas 

Fellow  and  Corresponding  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the 

Texas  State  Historical  Atxociation 


SUBMITTED    IN    PARTIAL    Firi.Fll.MF.NT    OF    THK    RF.gUIKl 
FOR    THE    DECREE    OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 
IN   THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCD 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


1910 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 


BY 

CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL,  A.  M. 

Sometime  University  Fellow  in  Columbia  University 

Instructor  in  History,  University  of  Texas 

Fellow  and  Corresponding  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the 

Texas  State  Historical  Association 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


OfTHS 

[UNIVERSITY 

OF 


1910 


COPYRIGHT,  igio 

BY 
CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL 


n 


Co 

Mr   MOTHER 
AUGUSTA  HALLEY  RAMSDELL 


PREFACE. 

IN  narrating  the  process  of  reconstruction  in  any  of 
the  Southern  States,  one  is  naturally  drawn  into  a 
sympathetic  attitude  toward  (the  people  whose  social 
and  political  system  was  being  "  reconstructed."  But, 
though  this  is  essential  to  a  clear  understanding  and  a 
just  portrayal  of  their  problems,  their  motives,  and  their 
acts,  it  is  equally  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  great 
and  pressing  problems  that  confronted  the  national  gov- 
ernment and  the  forces  that  determined  its  policies. 
An  exposition  of  the  national  point  of  view  is,  of  course, 
precluded  here  by  the  character  and  limitations  of  the 
subject,  but  the  author  has  been  careful  to  keep  it  in  a 
corner  of  his  mind,  and  has  often  found  it  a  valuable 
corrective.  It  is  hoped  that  this  monograph  may  pre- 
sent in  fairly  clear  outline  a  period  that  has  left  a  deep 
impress  upon  the  later  history,  the  political  organization 
and  the  public  mind  of  Texas. 

Chapters  III  to  VI,  with  slight  modifications,  are  re- 
printed from  the  Quarterly  of  the  Texas  State  Historical 
Association,  with  the  kind  permission  of  the  editor,  Pro- 
fessor George  P.  Garrison.  The  author  is  especially 
indebted  for  information  and  suggestions  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  W.  W.  Mills,  General  Webster  Flanagan,  Major 
Ira  H.  Evans  and  Judge  A.  W.  Terrell,  of  Austin,  Texas; 
to  Mr.  P.  H.  Windsor,  formerly  Librarian  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Texas ;  Mr.  E.  W.  Winkler,  Librarian  of  the 
Texas  State  Library ;  Mr.  Worthington  C.  Ford,  formerly 
71  7 


g  PREFACE  [g 

of  the  Library  of  Congress;  and  to  Professor  A.  C. 
McLaughlin,  formerly  of  the  Carnegie  Institution.  Pro- 
fessor Wm.  A.  Dunning  of  Columbia  University  has 
generously  given  valuable  time  to  reading  the  manuscript 
and  preparing  it  for  the  printer,  and  has  made  many 
helpful  criticisms  and  suggestions.  Above  all  the  author 
is  indebted  to  his  wife  for  faithful  assistance  and  constant 
encouragement. 

CHARLES  W.  RAMSDELL. 

AUSTIN,  TEXAS,  November  22, 1909. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 
CHAPTER  I 

PAQB 

THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT n 

CHAPTER  II 

TEXAS  DURING  THE  WAR 21 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  BREAK-UP. 

1.  Decline  and  Collapse  of  Confederate  Military  Power 27 

2.  Confusion  about  Cotton 41 

3.  The  Negro  Question  and  Labor  Conditions 44 


PART  I— PRESIDENTIAL  RECONSTRUCTION 
CHAPTER  IV 

THE  STATE  UNDER  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT. 

1 .  Inauguration  of  the  New  Regime 55 

2.  Loyalty  and  Disloyalty  in  the  State 62 

3.  The  Freedmen  and  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 70 

4.  Relations  of  the  Civil  and  the  Military  Authorities 77 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866 85 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT. 

1.  The  State  Elections  of  1866 108 

2.  Inauguration  of  the  New  Government 112 

3.  The  Eleventh  Legislature 114 

4.  Problems  and  Policies  of  Throckmorton's  Administration 126 

9]  0 


I0  CONTENTS  [I0 

PART  II— CONGRESSIONAL  RECONSTRUCTION 
CHAPTER  VII 

PAGB 

THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT. 

I.  The  Reconstruction  Acts 145 

a.  The  Provisional  State  Government  and  the  Military  Com- 
manders    149 

CHAPTER  VIII 

RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE. 

1.  Radical  Politics  and  Factions 171 

2.  Removal  of  Sheridan;  Reversal  of  Military  Policy  by  Hancock.  180 

CHAPTER  IX 

THE  RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869. 

1 .  First  Session 200 

2.  Conditions  during  the  Recess ;  Presidential  Election 230 

3.  Second  Session 242 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869. 

1 .  The  Appeal  to  Congress 261 

2.  The  Formation  of  Tickets  267 

3.  The  Canvass:  Radicals  Supported  by  Grant 273 

4.  The  Election 283 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE  FINAL  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  . .  .288 


EPILOGUE 
CHAPTER  XII 

RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW. 

1 .  Policies  and  Legislation 295 

2.  Growth  of  the  Opposition .• 301 

3.  Election  of  1873  and  the  End 313 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 319 

INDEX  321 


INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT 

FOR  nearly  a  decade  after  the  annexation  of  Texas  to 
the  Union  the  questions  uppermost  in  the  public  mind  of 
the  state  were  the  local  issues  growing  out  of  the  days  of 
the  Revolution  and  the  Republic.  The  heavy  state  debt, 
the  ravaged  frontier,  and  the  boundary  dispute  determined 
the  complexion  of  the  party  platforms  and  measures  and 
furnished  the  staple  subjects  of  political  discussion.  Issues 
of  national  politics  held  second  place  until  after  the  Compro- 
mise of  1850,  which  settled  the  boundary  question,  and  at 
the  same  time  provided  the  means  of  paying  off  the  state 
debt.  The  protection  of  the  frontier  was  to  be  a  problem 
for  twenty-five  years  more. 

Gradually,  the  questions  involved  in  the  great  dispute  over 
slavery  forced  themselves  upon  the  immediate  attention  of 
the  people  of  Texas.  Slavery  had  existed  in  the  state  ever 
since  the  Anglo-Americans  had  first  pushed  their  way  into 
the  wilderness;  and  climatic  conditions,  agricultural  de- 
velopment, and  constant  immigration  from  the  older  south- 
ern states  had  contributed  to  the  spread  of  the  institution. 
It  had  rooted  itself  most  firmly  in  the  populous  eastern  and 
southeastern  counties,  along  the  Sabine,  Trinity,  Brazos, 
and  Colorado  rivers,  where  the  plantation  system  was  in 
almost  exclusive  possession  of  the  country  and  conditions, 
social  and  economic,  were  practically  identical  with  those 
11]  ii 


12  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I2 

existing  in  the  older  slave  states.  In  the  other  regions  there 
were  fewer  slaves  and  correspondingly  more  free  labor. 
The  northern  counties  contained  a  large  number  of  settlers 
from  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Kentucky  who  were  mostly  non- 
slaveholding ;  the  frontier  counties,  running  south  through 
the  middle  of  the  state,  had  only  a  small  proportion  of  slaves, 
and  the  southwest,  with  a  heavy  German  population,  had 
fewer  still.  However,  in  these  districts,  except,  possibly, 
the  last — for  the  Germans  were  still  segregated  and  un- 
familiar with  the  institution — the  absence  of  slaves  argued 
no  hostility  to  the  ownership  of  human  chattels,  but  simple 
inability  to  own  them.  Texas  was  still  a  new  country,  half 
covered  with  savages,  and  most  of  the  people  were  poor 
after  the  manner  of  pioneers.  Standing  between  the  old 
South  and  the  new  West,  partaking  of  the  character  of  both, 
every  year  of  slavery  saw  her  drawn  closer  to  the  former; 
and  it  was  inevitable  that  she  should  soon  find  herself  in 
the  political  current  setting  so  strongly  toward  secession. 

It  was  the  fight  over  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  that  first 
drew  Texas  into  the  arena  of  national  politics.  Sam 
Houston,  then  United  States  Senator,  opposed  the  bill  and 
lost  much  of  his  popularity  thereby ;  for  most  of  the  voters 
and  political  leaders  were  state-rights  Democrats.  Never- 
theless, he  was  backed  by  a  strong  following  of  independent 
Democrats,  old  line  Whigs,  Know-Nothings,  and  others 
who  deprecated  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  as  danger- 
ous to  the  peace  and  permanence  of  the  Union.  The  feel- 
ing aroused  in  the  contest  over  Douglas's  bill  was  inten- 
sified by  the  quarrels  over  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  par- 
ticularly by  the  outbreak  of  the  border  war  in  Kansas.  In 
1857,  after  an  exciting  canvass,  Houston  was  defeated  for 
the  governorship  by  H.  R.  Runnels,  the  Democratic  nominee 
and  an  extreme  state-rights  man.  However,  Texas  had 
not  yet  given  permanent  adhesion  to  extreme  measures 


!3]  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  I3 

and  the  strong  conservative  element  became  alarmed  at  the 
disquieting  utterances  of  some  of  the  radical  Democrats, 
who  were  now  advocating  the  purchase  of  Cuba,  the  pro- 
motion of  filibustering  in  Central  America,  and  the  re- 
opening of  the  African  slave  trade.  These  propositions 
were  never  popular  in  Texas  and  the  Democratic  organiza- 
tion never  championed  them ;  but  because  of  a  few  inconsid- 
erate and  hot-headed  leaders,  the  party  fell  under  suspicion, 
and  in  1859  conservatism  was  able  to  administer  a  severe 
rebuke  by  reversing  the  decision  of  two  years  before.  Run- 
nels and  Lubbock,  again  the  Democratic  nominees  for  the 
chief  state  offices,  were  defeated  by  Houston  and  Clark,  and 
T.  N.  Waul,  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress  from  the 
western  district,  was  beaten  by  A.  J.  Hamilton,  who  ran 
on  the  Houston  or  Independent  ticket.  In  the  eastern  dis- 
trict, John  H.  Reagan,  Democrat,  was  successful. 

In  October,  John  Brown  made  his  raid  on  Harper's 
Ferry.  The  effect  in  Texas  was  to  neutralize  the  results 
of  the  recent  conservative  victory,  and  to  place  the  fire- 
eating  section  of  the  Democracy  in  the  ascendancy.  When 
the  legislature  met  in  November  it  elected  to  a  vacancy  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  Louis  T.  Wigfall,  the  most  rabid 
state-rights  man  in  Texas  and  one  particularly  obnoxious 
to  Houston.  The  course  of  the  debates  in  Congress  and 
the  speeches  of  Republican  leaders  were  followed  with  the 
liveliest  apprehensions,  and  talk  of  secession  as  the  only 
way  to  safety  from  abolitionist  aggression  became  common. 
In  the  national  Democratic  convention  at  Charleston  in 
April,  1860,  the  Texas  delegates  bolted  along  with  those 
from  the  other  southern  states,  and  at  Baltimore  helped 
nominate  the  ticket  headed  by  Breckenridge  and  Lane.  The 
situation  was  far  beyond  the  control  of  Governor  Houston, 
but  he  made  tremendous  efforts  to  still  the  rising  storm. 
Under  his  leadership  the  Unionists  gathered  to  the  support 


I4  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I4 

of  Bell  and  Everett,  in  the  vain  hope  that  evasion  of  the 
great  issue  would  bring  peace.  When  the  state-rights  ex- 
tremists declared  that  the  election  of  the  "  Black  Republi- 
can "  candidate,  Lincoln,  would  be  a  declaration  of  war 
upon  the  South  and  would  necessitate  secession,  he  de- 
nounced them  as  traitors,  and  insisted  that  secession  was  an 
unconstitutional  and  revolutionary  measure  and  could  be 
justified  only  after  the  federal  government  should  begin  ag- 
gressions upon  the  slave  states.  Until  that  time  should 
come,  he  pleaded  for  caution  and  for  confidence  in  the  gov- 
ernment. 

When  the  result  of  the  election  was  positively  known, 
the  secessionist  leaders  determined  to  act.  In  nearly  all 
parts  of  the  state  mass-meetings  were  held  and  resolutions 
passed,  requesting  the  governor  to  assemble  the  legislature 
at  once  in  extra  session  in  order  that  it  might  provide  for 
a  convention  to  act  for  the  state  in  the  emergency.  In  most 
cases  it  was  clearly  intended  by  the  agitators  that  the  con- 
vention should  frame  and  pass  an  ordinance  of  secession; 
but  there  were  some  who  wished  it  to  go  no  further  at  first 
than  to  appoint  delegates  to  consult  with  the  other  slave 
states  and  seek  from  the  free  states  a  renewal  of  the  con- 
stitutional guarantees  of  property  in  slaves.1  The  plan  for 
a  state  convention  was  checked  for  a  time  by  the  refusal  of 
Governor  Houston  to  convoke  the  legislature;  and  despite 
a  flood  of  letters,  editorials,  and  resolutions  conveying  en- 
treaties and  threats,  he  held  firm.  But  the  men  with  whom 
he  had  to  deal  were  as  determined  as  he,  and  if  they  could 
not  secure  the  convention  in  a  regular  way  they  would 
have  it  in  another.  On  December  3,  1860,  a  group  of 
secession  leaders  at  Austin  drew  up  an  address  "to  the 
people  of  Texas  "  suggesting  that  the  voters  of  each  repre- 

1Lubbock,  Six  Decades  in  Texas,  p.  299. 


I5]  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  ^ 

sentative  district  hold  an  election  on  January  8th,  under 
the  order  of  the  chief  justice  of  the  district  or  of  one  or 
more  of  the  county  commissioners  or  at  the  call  of  a  com- 
mittee of  responsible  citizens,  vote  for  twice  as  many  dele- 
gates as  the  district  had  representatives  in  the  legislature, 
and  make  returns  of  the  election  to  the  persons  ordering  it. 
The  delegates  were  to  meet  in  Austin  on  January  28,  i86i.x 
Extra-legal  and  revolutionary  as  the  plan  was,  it  won  the 
endorsement  of  the  secessionists  everywhere,  and  by  its  very 
audacity  at  once  gave  them  a  great  advantage  over  the 
Unionists,  whose  defensive  and  negative  opposition  only 
assured  the  election  of  secessionist  delegates. 

Outflanked,  Houston  now  called  the  legislature  to  meet 
one  week  before  the  convention.  Soon  afterward  came  the 
news  that  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi  were  already  out  of  the  Union.  Not  all  of  the 
counties  held  elections  for  the  convention — for  some  dis- 
tricts were  too  strongly  Unionist  and  others  lacked  organi- 
zation— but  of  the  delegates  elected  nearly  all  were  seces- 
sionists. To  the  objection  that  it  was  an  assemblage  with- 
out authority  under  the  law,  the  followers  of  Houston  now 
added  another — that  it  represented  only  a  minority  of  the 
people.  When  the  legislature  met  the  governor  sent  in  a 
message  in  which  he  still  insisted  that  the  rights  of  the 
people  could  best  be  maintained  in  the  Union,  advised 
against  hasty  action,  and  intimated  that  the  approaching 
convention  was  an  illegal  body.  The  legislature,  however, 
displayed  little  sympathy  with  his  views,  and  passed  a  reso- 
lution recognizing  the  full  authority  of  the  convention  to 

1  Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  II,  87  et  seq.  The  address  was 
drawn  up  by  O.  M.  Roberts,  George  M.  Flournoy,  W.  P.  Rogers  and 
John  S.  Ford.  Roberts  was  then  associate  justice  of  the  supreme 
court  and  Flournoy  was  attorney-general. 


1 6  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

act  for  the  people,  except  that  its  action  upon  the  question 
of  secession  should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.1 

The  convention  met  on  January  28th,  as  arranged.  As- 
sociate Justice  O.  M.  Roberts,  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
call,  was  elected  president;  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
wait  upon  the  governor,  and  another  to  draft  an  ordinance 
of  secession.  The  first  found  Governor  Houston  willing 
to  concede  the  authority  to  secure  "  an  expression  of  the 
popular  will  ",  because  of  the  action  of  the  legislature,  but 
reserved  as  to  other  powers.  The  second  committee  re- 
ported an  ordinance  setting  forth  the  reasons  for  secession, 
namely,  that  the  Federal  government  had  failed  to  give 
protection  to  the  persons  and  property  of  citizens  of  Texas 
upon  the  frontier,  that  the  northern  states  had  violated  the 
compact  between  the  states  and  the  guarantees  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  that  the  power  of  the  Federal  government 
was  now  sought  as  a  weapon  to  strike  down  the  interests 
and  prosperity  of  the  people  of  Texas  and  of  her  sister  slave- 
holding  states.  It  was,  therefore,  declared  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  annexation  of  1845  was  repealed  and  annulled; 
that  all  the  powers  which  had  been  delegated  by  Texas  to 
the  Federal  government  were  revoked  and  resumed;  that 
Texas  was  of  right  absolved  from  all  restraints  and  obliga- 
tions incurred  by  the  Federal  compact,  and  was  a  separate 
sovereign  state;  and  that  all  her  people  were  absolved 
from  allegiance  to  the  United  States.  The  ordinance  was 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection 
on  February  23d,  and,  if  carried  by  a  majority  of  the  votes 
cast,  should  take  effect  March  2,  1861.  A  resolution  was 
offered  to  strike  out  the  clause  submitting  the  ordinance  to 
a  popular  vote,  but  it  was  voted  down.  On  February  ist, 
in  the  presence  of  crowded  galleries  and  hall  and  a  number 

1  Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  II,  296-99. 


!7]  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  ^ 

of  invited  guests,  including  the  governor,  the  vote  was 
taken  and  the  ordinance  passed  overwhelmingly,  166  to  7. 
Among  those  voting  "  no  "  was  J.  W.  Throckmorton,  of 
Collin,  afterwards  reconstruction  governor. 

The  convention  did  not  stop  here,  but  took  it  upon  itself 
to  transact  a  vast  amount  of  business  not  even  hinted  at  in 
the  call  under  which  its  delegates  were  elected.  Commis- 
sioners from  the  other  seceded  states  were  present  urging 
participation  in  the  general  government  being  organized 
at  Montgomery,  Alabama ;  and  the  convention,  anticipating 
the  popular  adoption  of  the  secession  ordinance,  elected 
seven  delegates  to  Montgomery.1  At  the  same  time  the 
senators  and  representatives  at  Washington  were  informed 
of  the  action  of  the  convention.  A  "  committee  of  public 
safety  "  of  nineteen  members  was  appointed  and  endowed 
with  extensive  powers  for  the  defense  of  the  state.  Among 
other  things  it  was  authorized  to  remain  in  session  during 
recess,  to  appoint  officers  and  commissioners  to  carry  out 
its  plans,  and  to  keep  its  operations  secret.  On  February 
5th  the  convention  adjourned  until  March  2d. 

One  of  the  first  projects  of  the  committee  of  public  safety 
was  to  secure  the  munitions  of  war  in  the  possession  of  the 
United  States  troops  in  western  Texas.  These  troops, 
about  2,500  in  number,  were  commanded  by  Major-General 
D.  E.  Twiggs,  with  headquarters  at  San  Antonio.  He  was 
a  Georgian  and  his  sympathies  were  with  the  South;  and 
it  may  be  said  in  partial  extenuation  of  his  later  action,  that 
since  the  middle  of  December  he  had  been  incessantly  ap- 
pealing to  Washington  to  know  what  he  should  do  in  case 
Texas  seceded,  and  had  received  no  instruction  in  reply.2 

xThe  delegates  were  Senators  Louis  T.  Wigfall  and  John  Hemphill, 
with  John  H.  Reagan,  John  Gregg,  W.  S.  Oldham,  Wm.  B.  Ochiltree 
and  T.  N.  Waul. 

1  Official  Records,  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Ser.  I,  vol.  i,  pp.  579-586. 


18  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

The  committee  waited  upon  Governor  Houston  and  secured 
his  approval  of  their  designs,  and  then  opened  negotiations 
with  Twiggs  on  February  Qth  for  a  surrender  of  the  federal 
stores  on  March  2d.  The  negotiations  had  not  been  con- 
cluded when  on  the  I5th  it  was  learned  that  General  Twiggs 
had  been  relieved  by  Colonel  Waite,  who  was  not  expected 
to  be  so  compliant.  Waite  had  not  yet  arrived,  however, 
and  during  that  night  a  large  body  of  state  troops  under  the 
command  of  Ben  McCulloch  were  rushed  into  San  An- 
tonio and  placed  at  points  of  vantage.  Nothing  but  sur- 
render of  the  stores  would  avoid  a  conflict  now,  and  terms 
were  agreed  upon  two  days  later.  The  troops  were  allowed 
to  retain  their  arms,  the  light  batteries  and  sufficient  sup- 
plies and  equipment  for  transportation  to  the  coast,  where 
they  were  to  embark  for  the  North.  Waite  arrived  next 
day,  too  late  for  anything  but  acquiescence  in  the  terms. 
Twiggs  was  dismissed  from  the  United  States  Army  for 
"  treachery  to  the  flag  of  his  country,"  and  was  eulogized 
by  resolution  of  the  Texas  legislature  as  a  "  pure  patriot."  x 
His  surrender  was  undoubtedly  "  a  military  necessity  "  at 
the  time  it  occurred,  but  he  might  have  forestalled  it  had  he 
chosen  to  act  in  time,  concentrate  his  forces  and  retreat,  if 
necessary,  to  New  Mexico. 

In  the  meantime  other  state  troops  under  Colonel  Henry 
McCulloch  had  received  the  surrender  of  the  small  federal 
posts  north  of  San  Antonio;  and  Colonel  John  S.  Ford, 
with  a  third  party,  had  done  the  same  for  the  lower  Rio 
Grande  valley  and  the  adjacent  coast  region. 

While  these  events  were  taking  place,  the  campaign  for 
the  ratification  of  the  secession  ordinance  was  closing.  The 
authors  of  the  measure  were  determined  that  it  should  not 
be  defeated ;  the  Unionists,  unorganized,  were  making  a  last 

1  Official  Records,  Ser.  I,  vol.  i,  p.  597 ;  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V, 
p.  396. 


I9]  THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENT  I9 

desperate  stand.  It  was  a  time  of  wild  excitement;  intimi- 
dation and  violence  too  often  replaced  argument.  Charges 
of  unfair  tactics  and  of  fraud  came  up  from  all  parts  of  the 
state  against  the  secessionists,  who  controlled  for  the  most 
part  the  machinery  of  election.  There  are  scores  of  per- 
sons living  to-day  who  insist  that  the  majority  of  the  people 
were  opposed  to  secession,  but  that  enough  were  kept  from 
the  polls  by  intimidation  to  determine  the  result.  That  is 
hardly  probable;  but  what  the  result  would  have  been,  if 
the  election  could  have  been  carried  through  in  a  quiet 
spirit,  cannot  be  said  with  absolute  certainty.  However, 
when  the  convention  came  together  again  on  March  2d, 
the  returns  showed  44,317  for  the  ordinance  to  13,020 
against  it. 

Governor  Houston  regarded  the  work  of  the  convention 
as  finished ;  the  people,  he  argued,  should  be  allowed  to  call 
another  convention  if  other  important  work  was  to  be  done. 
But  the  members  had  no  intention  of  giving  way,  and  re- 
garded the  vote  for  secession  as  a  sufficient  endorsement 
of  their  actions  to  warrant  them  in  doing  more.  Accord- 
ingly the  convention,  when  reassembled,  formally  approved 
the  provisional  constitution  of  the  Confederacy,  gave  official 
character  to  the  delegates  representing  the  interests  of  Texas 
at  Montgomery,  and  urged  them  to  secure  the  admission  of 
Texas  to  the  new  Union.  Houston  had  acquiesced  in  se- 
cession, but  to  this  later  action  he  was  bitterly  opposed, 
regarding  it  as  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  people  and  an 
arrant  usurpation  of  power.  He  refused  to  recognize  the 
convention  any  longer.  It  replied  by  a  declaration  that  it 
not  only  had  power  to  pass  and  submit  the  ordinance  of 
secession,  but  also  possessed  and  would  exercise  the  right 
to  do  whatever  might  be  incidental  to  the  same,  and 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  people  and  the  defense 
of  the  state.1  In  pursuance  of  the  supreme  powers  thus 
1  Comprehensive  Hist.,  II,  120-121. 


20  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2Q 

asserted,  the  convention  next  proceeded  so  to  modify  the 
state  constitution  that  it  should  conform  to  the  constitution 
of  the  Confederacy — for  the  Texas  delegates  had  now  been 
admitted  to  the  provisional  Congress.  Among  other  things 
the  convention  prescribed  an  oath  of  office  professing  al- 
legiance to  the  Confederacy,  and  ordered  that  all  state  offi- 
cers must  take  this  oath  or  vacate  their  offices.  When 
notified,  all  responded  except  Governor  Houston  and  his 
secretary  of  state,  E.  W.  Cave,  the  former  replying  orally 
that  he  did  not  recognize  the  existence  of  the  convention. 
It  was  known  that  the  removal  of  the  governor  was  immi- 
nent, and  an  indignation  meeting  of  the  numerous  Unionists 
in  the  vicinity  of  Austin  was  held  at  which  Houston  and 
A.  J.  Hamilton,  who  had  just  returned  from  Congress, 
made  speeches  denouncing  the  course  of  the  convention. 
On  the  same  day,  March  i6th,  the  office  of  governor  was 
declared  vacant  and  the  lieutenant-governor,  Edward  Clark, 
was  instructed  to  take  up  its  duties.  Upon  retiring,  the 
venerable  governor  issued,  as  an  address  to  the  people,  a 
spirited  but  dignified  protest  against  the  "  usurpations  "  of 
the  convention.  He  made  no  further  resistance  and  soon 
retired  from  public  life,  to  die  two  years  later.1  An  effort 
of  the  Unionists  in  the  legislature  to  repudiate  the  depo- 
sition of  the  governor  was  defeated,  and  the  members 
themselves  were  required  to  take  the  oath.  On  March  23d 
the  Constitution  of  the  Confederacy  was  formally  ratified 
and  its  authority  extended  over  Texas.  Three  days  later 
the  convention  adjourned  sine  die,  leaving  the  reorganized 
state  government  to  resume  its  wonted  authority. 

1  It  was  suspected  at  this  time  that  Houston  and  the  Unionists  were 
planning  to  collect  a  force  to  sustain  him  as  governor  and  hold  Texas 
neutral.  An  agent  was  sent  to  Austin  by  Lincoln  to  confer  with 
Houston,  but  the  latter  refused  to  countenance  the  plan  or  to  receive 
assistance  from  the  United  States.— Official  Records,  Ser.  I,  vol.  i, 
550-55L 


CHAPTER  II 

TEXAS  DURING  THE  WAR 

TEXAS  was  formally  admitted  to  the  Confederacy  by  an 
act  of  Congress  approved  March  i,  1861.  On  the  previous 
day,  Jefferson  Davis,  in  accordance  with  another  act,  had 
assumed  control  over  all  military  operations  in  the  various 
states  having  reference  to  other  states  or  foreign  powers; 
but  not  until  Houston  was  removed  was  this  authority  fully 
recognized  in  Texas.  When  the  attack  on  Fort  Sumter  and 
Lincoln's  call  for  volunteers  dissipated  the  hope  that  war 
could  be  avoided,  Texas  was  called  upon  for  3000  troops 
and  then  for  5000  more.  In  addition  to  those  raised 
through  the  agency  of  the  state,  a  number  of  battalions  and 
regiments  were  raised  by  individuals  and  mustered  directly 
into  the  Confederate  service.  During  the  following  winter 
the  legislature  provided  for  a  mounted  regiment  of  rangers 
for  frontier  service,  and,  to  expedite  and  regulate  enlistment 
in  the  Confederate  army,  divided  the  state  into  thirty-three 
"  brigade  districts  "  in  each  of  which  all  able-bodied  men 
between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  fifty  years,  with  necessary 
exceptions,  were  to  be  enrolled  in  companies  subject  to  the 
call  of  the  Confederate  government.  The  Confederate 
"  conscript  law  "  of  April  16,  1862,  brought  into  active  ser- 
vice immediately  all  men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and 
thirty-five,  for  three  years  or  for  the  war.  This  age  limit 
was  extended  again  and  again  until  the  country  was  almost 
drained  of  its  men.  It  is  estimated  that  Texas  furnished 
21]  21 


22  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [22 

between  50,000  and  65,000  men  for  military  service,1  of 
whom  about  one-fourth  were  east  of  the  Mississippi.  The 
rest  were  scattered  about  in  the  Trans-Mississippi  Depart- 
ment, in  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  on  the  frontiers  and  coast 
of  Texas,  in  garrisons  or  on  special  detail  in  the  interior. 

When  once  the  war  was  fairly  on,  most  of  those  who  had 
opposed  the  measures  which  brought  it  about,  yielded  and 
gave  their  support  to  the  state  and  the  'new  government. 
In  every  Texas  regiment,  from  Virginia  to  the  Rio  Grande, 
were  to  be  found  recent  Unionists  who  gave  to  the  Con- 
federacy an  allegiance  as  sincere  and  as  strenuous  as  did 
the  original  secessionists.  There  were  others  who  never 
parted  with  their  Unionist  belief  but  went  into  the  army 
from  necessity;  for  often  it  was  safer  to  stand  in  line  of 
battle  than  to  remain  at  home  as  a  known  opponent  of  the 
Southern  cause.  Some  escaped  active  service  by  securing 
appointment  upon  special  details  near  home,  some  by  elec- 
tion or  appointment  to  political  office.  All  of  these  things, 
however,  required  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Confederacy, 
and  there  were  many  whose  strength  of  conviction  would 
not  permit  this.  To  avoid  it  some  left  the  state  immediately 
and  made  their  way  North  ;  others  lingered  with  their  fami- 
lies, hiding  at  times  in  the  woods  and  hills  to  escape  con- 
script officers,  provost-marshals,  vigilance  committees,  and 
mobs,  until  compelled  or  enabled  to  slip  out  of  the  country 
and  get  into  the  Union  lines  for  safety.  This  was  held  to 
be  desertion  to  the  enemy,  and  capture  meant  ignominious 
death.  Many  were  murdered  by  mobs  for  the  expression 
of  unpopular  opinions,  and  many  more  because  of  private 
grudges  screened  by  charges  of  treasonable  designs.  The 


lower  figures  are  probably  more  nearly  correct.  The  bewild- 
ering merging  of  battalions  into  regiments  and  the  reduction  of  the 
latter  to  battalions  again  make  any  estimate  uncertain. 


23]  TEXAS  DURING  THE  WAR  23 

story  is  a  painful  one,  but  it  could  hardly  have  been  other- 
wise. When  a  desperate  war  is  being  waged,  when  the  en- 
emy is  thundering  at  the  gates,  perfect  tolerance  can  hardly 
be  expected  for  expressions  of  sympathy  with  the  invader. 
The  North  never  suffered  as  did  the  fire-encircled  South, 
but  the  experiences  of  the  northern  "  copperhead  "  were 
often  as  harsh  as  those  of  the  southern  loyalist.  In  Texas 
this  inevitable  tendency  to  lawlessness  was  accelerated  by 
the  presence  of  so  many  turbulent  characters  in  her  frontier 
population.1 

In  general,  Texas  was  fairly  prosperous  during  the  war 
— especially  during  the  first  two  or  three  years.  She  lay 
well  outside  the  circle  of  conflict;  no  hostile  armies  laid 
waste  her  towns  and  fields  nor  withdrew  her  slaves  from  the 
plantations.  Good  crops  were  raised  every  year,  although 
nearly  all  the  able-bodied  men  were  away  in  the  army. 
Slaves  were  in  fact  more  plentiful  than  ever  before,  for 
great  numbers  of  them  had  been  run  in  from  Louisiana, 
Arkansas,  and  states  even  further  east,  for  safe-keeping. 
Texas  was,  therefore,  in  a  position  to  perform  a  unique 
service  to  the  rest  of  the  Confederacy  in  furnishing  supplies 
not  only  from  her  own  fields  and  ranches  but  also,  by  way 
of  Mexico,  from  Europe.  The  early  blockade  of  all  or 
nearly  all  southern  ports  and  the  uncertain  dependence  upon 
blockade  runners  rendered  the  Mexican  trade  of  particular 
importance.  It  was,  however,  beset  with  many  difficulties. 
A  distance  of  nearly  four  hundred  miles,  through  a  region 
part  desert,  without  railroads,  infested  with  brigands,  had 
to  be  traversed  by  wagon  trains  heavily  guarded.  Nor 
was  this  all.  Hard  cash  was  necessary  for  purchasing  the 
goods  needed,  as  the  commercial  world  looked  askance  at 

1  For  an  account  of  the  work  of  vigilance  committees  in  the  region 
about  San  Antonio,  see  Williams,  With  the  Border   Ruffians. 


24  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [24 

Confederate  notes  and  bonds.  In  lieu  of  gold  and  silver, 
recourse  was  had  to  domestic  articles — cotton,  wool,  and 
hides.  Cotton,  especially,  was  in  demand  abroad  and  found 
ready  sale.  The  problem  now  was  for  the  government  to 
get  the  cotton  and  secure  its  transportation  to  some  point  of 
exchange. 

The  state  first  undertook  the  task,  and  in  April,  1862, 
a  military  board  was  created  to  purchase  arms  and  ammu- 
nition for  the  state.  After  disposing  of  a  quantity  of  United 
States  indemnity  bonds,  obtained  in  1850,  the  board  began 
purchasing  cotton  with  eight-per-cent  state  bonds,  and  dur- 
ing the  first  year  transported  some  five  thousand  bales  to 
the  Rio  Grande.  For  several  reasons,  however,  the  board 
was  never  able  to  accomplish  all  that  it  had  designed. 
Planters  were  loath  to  exchange  their  cotton  for  doubtful 
state  bonds  so  long  as  there  was  a  chance  to  get  gold  for  it, 
and  often  refused  to  deliver  cotton  actually  contracted  for. 
Failure  to  get  the  cotton  promptly  to  the  Rio  Grande  dam- 
aged the  board's  credit  with  the  importers  of  foreign  wares. 
The  peculation  of  officials  engaged  in  the  work  created 
confusion;  and  rivalry  with  the  cotton  bureau  that  was 
established  by  the  Confederate  authorities  in  1863,  weak- 
ened the  efforts  of  both  the  state  and  the  general  govern- 
ment. It  is  needless  to  go  into  the  story  of  mismanagement, 
misfortune  and  peculation  that  characterized  so  much  of 
this  business;  for  a  great  deal  of  real  benefit  was  derived 
from  it  notwithstanding.  Important  also  is  the  fact  that  a 
great  deal  of  private  cotton  found  its  way  into  Mexico  and 
across  the  Gulf  to  Cuba  and  Europe,  and  that  a  slender  but 
steady  stream  of  hard  cash  flowed  back  into  Texas;  and 
although  the  greater  part  of  the  money  went  into  the 
pockets  of  favored  speculators,  "  exempts  ",  "  details  "  and 
officers,  the  state  at  large  profited  somewhat.  Texas  came 
out  of  the  war  with  plenty  of  food  for  her  people  and  more 
hard  money  than  all  the  rest  of  the  South  together. 


25]  TEXAS  DURING  THE  WAR  2$ 

The  military  operations  in  the  state  are  worthy  of  but 
slight  notice.  They  were  never  extensive  and  were  confined 
to  the  border,  and  they  therefore  left  no  such  reconstruc- 
tion problems  in  their  train  as  existed  in  the  other  states. 
In  the  summer  of  1861  an  expedition  under  General  H.  H. 
Sibley  for  the  capture  and  occupation  of  New  Mexico 
reached  Santa  Fe,  but  was  driven  back  the  following  spring. 
In  August,  1862,  a  band  of  some  seventy  German  Unionist 
refugees  were  overtaken  on  the  Nueces  River  by  a  superior 
force  of  "  partisan  rangers  "  and  almost  annihilated.  Some 
prisoners  were  taken  and  afterwards  killed — a  dastardly 
outrage  which  the  Germans  of  western  Texas  never  for- 
gave. A  few  minor  engagements  along  the  coast  resulted 
in  the  better  fortification  of  the  ports.  In  October,  1862, 
a  Federal  squadron  forced  the  evacuation  of  Galveston, 
which  was  occupied  by  United  States  troops  just  before 
Christmas.  On  New  Year's  eve  the  Confederate  General 
Magruder,  who  had  just  assumed  command  of  the  District 
of  Texas,  moved  troops  over  to  the  island  and  in  the  early 
morning  light  attacked  the  forces  stationed  there,  while 
improvised  gun-boats  fortified  with  cotton  bales  assailed  the 
fleet  in  the  harbor.  The  attack  resulted  in  a  complete  vic- 
tory; the  city  was  taken  and  the  Federal  ships  captured, 
driven  off,  or  destroyed.  Galveston  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  Confederates  during  the  rest  of  the  war  and  was 
valuable  as  a  port  of  entry,  though  United  States  war- 
ships patrolled  the  Gulf.  In  September,  1863,  an  attempt 
was  made  by  General  Banks  to  invade  Texas  by  way  of 
Sabine  Pass,  Beaumont,  and  Houston;  but  the  invading 
force  with  its  convoy  of  gun-boats  came  to  grief  in  its 
attack  on  the  small  fort  at  the  Pass  and  got  no  further. 
The  next  attempt  was  by  way  of  the  Rio  Grande.  Browns- 
ville was  taken  in  November,  1863,  and  forces  were  pushed 
along  the  coast  and  up  the  river  to  cut  off  communication 


26  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [26 

with  Mexico;  for  there  was  some  fear  of  French  interven- 
tion from  that  quarter.  The  next  spring  all  these  garri- 
sons except  those  at  Matagorda  and  Brownsville  were  with- 
drawn and  Banks  made  a  third  attempt  by  way  of  the  Red 
River  and  Shreveport.  He  was  defeated  at  Mansfield  be- 
fore reaching  the  Texas  line.  In  March,  1864,  Colonel  E. 
J.  Davis,  a  Unionist  refugee  from  Texas,  with  a  force  of 
some  two  hundred  Texan  Unionists,  was  defeated  in  an 
expedition  against  Laredo.  In  return,  a  force  of  Texans 
under  Colonel  John  S.  Ford  advanced  against  and  recap- 
tured Brownsville,  July  30,  1864.  Near  here,  at  Palmito 
Ranch,  occurred  the  last  battle  of  the  war,  May  13,  1865, 
in  which  Ford  defeated  a  body  of  eight  hundred  Federals. 
From  their  prisoners  the  victors  learned  that  their  govern- 
ment had  fallen  and  that  the  war  was  over. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  BREAK-UP. 

i.  Decline  and  Collapse  of  Confederate  Military  Power. 

WHEN  General  Lee  surrendered,  in  early  April,  1865, 
that  part  of  the  Confederacy  east  of  the  Mississippi  was 
already  overwhelmed  and  exhausted.  In  the  Trans-Miss- 
issippi Department,  however,  a  large  area,  comprising  west- 
ern Louisiana,  parts  of  Arkansas  and  the  whole  of  Texas, 
was  still  untouched  by  invasion.  The  Federal  forces  having 
been  kept  at  bay  here  throughout  the  war,  it  seemed  prob- 
able that  a  severe  struggle  would  be  necessary  for  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  Confederates  in  this  region;  yet,  within  six 
weeks  from  the  surrender  at  Appomattox  the  Trans-Miss- 
issippi Department  presented  a  scene  of  universal  disorder 
and  confusion  nothing  short  of  anarchy — and  that,  too, 
without  the  advance  of  a  single  Federal  soldier.  In  reality 
the  defences  of  this  department,  and  particularly  of  Texas, 
formed  simply  a  thin  shell  incapable  of  sustaining  any 
heavy  or  prolonged  attack. 

The  country  had  long  been  showing  unmistakable  signs 
of  exhaustion.  The  cotton  trade,  upon  which  so  much  de- 
pended, had  gradually  succumbed  under  the  weight  which 
official  mismanagement  and  corruption  superadded  to  its 
inherent  difficulties.  Repeated  issues  of  Confederate  paper 
money  had  driven  out  all  other  currency  and  the  paper  itself 
steadily  depreciated.  By  March,  1865,  even  this  was  cut 
off,  as  there  was  no  ready  or  safe  communication  with  the 
27]  *7 


28  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2S 

Confederate  seat  of  government.  Taxes  were  extremely 
heavy;  the  tithe  of  the  cotton  taken  by  the  Confederacy 
was  increased  to  a  fifth,  then  to  a  half;  everything  was 
levied  upon.  Military  authorities  impressed  beef,  corn  and 
other  supplies  for  the  army,  and  having  no  money  where- 
with to  pay,  gave  worthless  certificates  of  indebtedness 
which  the  government  would  not  even  receive  in  payment 
of  taxes.1  Driven  on  by  its  dire  necessities,  the  government 
adopted  desperate  and  oppressive  regulations  that  de- 
stroyed even  its  own  credit  and  threatened  the  extinction 
of  what  little  trade  had  survived  in  the  state.  During  the 
spring  of  1865  other  troubles  came.  A  threatened  attack 
by  the  Federals  on  Brownsville,  the  chief  cotton  depot,  had 
diverted  the  export  trade  to  the  less  exposed  but  also  less 
profitable  and  less  satisfactory  points  on  the  upper  Rio 
Grande.  At  the  same  time  there  was  a  serious  drop  in  the 
price  of  cotton,  a  foreshadowing  doubtless  of  the  fall  of  the 
Confederacy.  All  trade  was  coming  to  a  standstill.  Al- 
though the  crops  had  been  good  in  1864,  they  could  not  be 
marketed.  There  was  plenty  to  eat,  but  there  was  very 
little  else  to  be  had. 

The  military  outlook  reflected  the  gloom  of  economic  con- 
ditions. There  were  probably  about  fifty  thousand  men  in 
the  Trans-Mississippi  Department  when  Lee  surrendered. 
A  large  part  of  these  were  in  Louisiana  near  the  department 
headquarters  at  Shreveport.  Several  thousand  were  in  Ar- 
kansas. Possibly  fifteen  thousand  men  were  under  arms  in 
Texas.  Of  these  last  some  three  thousand  were  at  Gal- 
veston,  with  others  near  by  at  Houston.  Small  forces  were 
stationed  at  Brownsville,  San  Antonio,  Hempstead,  Sabine 
Pass,  Marshall,  and  other  points.  All  of  these  soldiers 

1  Gen.  E.  Kirby  Smith  to  Gray,  Seddon  and  Wigfall,  Official  Records, 
War  of  Rebellion,  Ser.  I,  vol.  xlviii,  pt.  i,  1381-84. 


29]  THE  BREAK-UP  2g 

had  for  months  been  serving  practically  without  pay,  for 
they  were  paid  in  paper.  They  were  poorly  clad,  and  often 
had  to  furnish  their  own  clothing  and  equipment.  There 
was  much  discontent  in  the  army  because  of  alleged  mis- 
management and  peculation  in  the  commissary  and  supply 
departments.  Swarms  of  deserters  made  their  way  to 
Matamoras  in  Mexico,  or  took  refuge  with  a  body  of  Fed- 
erals on  the  island  of  Santiago  de  Brazos.  The  conscript 
laws  had  become  more  and  more  severe,  and  young  boys 
and  old  men  were  forced  into  the  ranks.  The  discontent 
increased.  Certain  regiments  were  wholly  unmanageable.1 

The  people  were  plainly  growing  weary  of  the  burdens 
of  a  hopeless  war.  Sherman's  march  through  Georgia, 
despite  the  ingenious  explanations  of  the  press,  had  shown 
the  utter  impossibility  of  ultimate  success.  Even  General 
E.  Kirby  Smith,  commander  of  the  department,  sought 
timely  provision  for  the  future  as  early  as  February  ist, 
when  he  offered  his  military  services  to  Maximilian  in  case 
of  the  overthrow  of  the  Confederacy.2  Nevertheless,  when 
the  news  of  Lee's  surrender  reached  Texas  in  the  latter  part 
of  April,  it  produced  consternation.  It  was  discredited 
and  denied  at  first  as  a  "  Yankee  rumor  " ;  then,  when  too 
fully  confirmed,  hope  was  held  out  still  that  most  of  the 
army  had  escaped  and  were  with  Johnston.  Anxiously  tid- 
ings were  awaited  from  this  general.  There  was  a  wide- 
spread belief  that  he  was  about  to  cross  the  Mississippi  and 
join  with  Kirby  Smith;  then  came  the  crushing  news  of  his 
surrender  to  Sherman.  The  next  attack  of  the  Federals 
would  be  upon  Texas.  All  was  gloom  and  anxiety. 

A  desperate  effort  was  made  to  preserve  a  bold  front. 
Governor  Murrah  and  Generals  Smith  and  Magruder  made 

1  Magruder  to  Boggs,  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  1271. 
*  Ibid.,  pt.  ii,  1359. 


3o  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [30 

speeches  and  issued  stirring  addresses  urging  the  soldiers 
to  fight  to  the  last.  Patriotic  editors  demonstrated  con- 
clusively that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  Federals  to  in- 
vade Texas  and  maintain  themselves  in  its  vast  stretches 
•without  a  year's  preparation ;  and  that  meanwhile  help  would 
be  secured  from  abroad,  or  at  least  better  terms  would  be 
offered  than  had  been  granted  to  Lee  and  Johnston.  Every- 
where public  meetings  were  held  and  citizens  pledged  them- 
selves never  to  submit  to  Northern  tyranny  or  to  abandon 
the  cause  of  the  South.  Meetings  of  a  similar  nature  were 
held  in  the  army  in  the  effort  to  revive  the  waning  devotion 
of  the  discontented  and  the  disheartened.  Most  of  these 
army  meetings  were  meagerly  attended;  many  of  the  men 
held  aloof,  while  others  attended  only  in  order  to  pass  re- 
solutions expressing  contempt  for  the  war  meetings  of  "  ex- 
empts and  details,"  and  bitter  hatred  of  the  cotton  specu- 
lators, upon  whom  was  placed  the  blame  for  the  failure  of 
the  war.1  But  meetings  and  speeches  and  valiant  "  last 
ditch  "  resolutions  were  all  in  vain.  The  majority  of  the 
soldiers  were  convinced  that  the  war  was  over,  and  the  ac- 
cumulated discontent  of  the  past  month  expressed  itself  in 
desertion.  Magruder  declared  as  early  as  April  2Qth  that 
the  men  at  Galveston  were  deserting  by  tens  and  twenties 
every  night.2 

In  the  meantime  by  order  of  Grant,  General  Pope  had 
despatched  Colonel  Sprague  to  Shreveport  to  demand  of 
Kirby  Smith  the  surrender  of  the  Trans-Mississippi  Depart- 
ment upon  the  same  terms  that  were  granted  to  Lee.  Smith 
immediately,  May  Qth,  rejected  these,  hoping  to  obtain  more 
liberal  terms.  With  a  view  to  determining  upon  methods 

*The  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph  (Houston),  April  26,  and  throughout 
May,  1865;  The  Patriot  (La  Grange),  May  6  and  20,  1865. 
*  Magruder  to  Boggs,  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  1291. 


THE  BREAK-UP  3! 

and  means  of  resistance  or  suitable  conditions  of  surrender, 
he  had  just  before  this  summoned  to  meet  him  in  conference 
at  Marshall,  Governors  Allen  of  Louisiana,  Murrah  of 
Texas,  Reynolds  of  Missouri,  and  Flanigan  of  Arkansas. 
All  attended  save  Murrah,  who  was  ill,  but  who  sent  Colonel 
Guy  M.  Bryan  of  his  staff  to  represent  him.  It  was  deter- 
mined to  endeavor  to  secure  more  favorable  terms,  and 
meanwhile  to  concentrate  the  forces  of  the  department  at 
Houston  to  resist  an  expected  attack  upon  Galveston.  On 
May  1 3th,  the  members  of  the  conference  drew  up  a  set  of 
terms  which  they  ventured  to  demand,  hoping  to  preserve 
the  political  integrity  of  their  states.  In  substance  these  de- 
mands were :  that  officers  and  soldiers  were  to  be  allowed  to 
return  directly  to  their  homes;  immunity  was  to  be  guar- 
anteed against  prosecution  for  offences  committed  against 
the  United  States  during  the  war;  officers,  soldiers  and 
citizens  were  to  be  able  to  retain  their  arms  and  to  leave  the 
country  if  they  so  desired;  the  existing  state  governmnts 
were  to  be  recognized  until  conventions  could  be  called  "  to 
settle  all  questions  between  the  states  " ; 1  and  after  a  certain 
date  each  state  should  be  allowed  full  military  authority 
within  its  own  borders  for  the  preservation  of  order.  This 
conference  at  Marshall  is  notable  more  for  what  it  hoped 
for  than  for  what  it  accomplished.  General  Pope  had 
already  expressly  disclaimed  any  authority  to  settle  political 
questions.2  Nevertheless,  Sprague,  who  had  been  detained 
for  this  purpose,  now  returned  to  Pope,  bearing  these  de- 

1  An    expression    which    betrays    the    strong    state-rights    feeling 
of  the  conferees.     Any  suggestion  of  the  authority  of  the  national 
government  over  the  states  was  carefully  avoided.    The  chief  "ques- 
tion" involved  was,  of  course,  the  continuance  of  slavery. 

2  The  members  of  the  conference  sought  to  send  Governor  Allen  to 
Washington  to  urge  the  acceptance  of  the  proposed  terms,  but  he  was 
not  permitted  to  go. 


32  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [32 

mands  and  a  letter  from  Smith  urging  reasons  for  their  ac- 
ceptance, which  were  chiefly  the  expense  of  prolonging  the 
war  and  the  possibility  of  "  foreign  complications."  1  The 
Confederate  authorities  had  already  spent  much  vain  effort 
in  endeavoring  to  entangle  Maximilian  and  the  French  in 
Mexico  in  an  imbroglio  with  the  United  States.  On  May 
2d  Smith  had  made  a  last  attempt  to  arouse  the  anxiety  of 
the  Mexican  emperor  at  the  prospect  of  having  the  dis- 
tinctly hostile  power  of  the  United  States  re-established  on 
the  Rio  Grande.2  But  such  hopes  were  futile,  if  indeed 
Smith  expected  any  realization  of  them. 

Hardly  was  the  Marshall  conference  concluded  and  the 
counter-demand  for  terms  despatched  to  Pope,  when  Ma- 
gruder  sent  word  from  Houston  that,  on  the  night  of  the 
I4th  of  May,  four  hundred  of  the  troops  at  Galveston  had 
attempted  to  desert  the  post  with  arms  in  their  hands,  but 
had  been  persuaded  by  Colonel  Ashbel  Smith,  aided  by 
a  couple  of  regiments,  to  remain  a  while  longer.  The 
troops  were  all  becoming  unmanageable,  Magruder  further 
reported;  they  had  lost  their  fighting  spirit  and  could  not 
be  depended  upon.  They  insisted  upon  dividing  the  public 
property  before  leaving,  and  he  thought  it  best  to  comply 
with  this  demand  and  to  try  to  send  them  away  to  their 
homes  as  quietly  as  possible.8  Almost  immediately  came 
similar  reports  from  Brownsville.  The  commander  at  that 
place  announced  that  at  least  one-half  of  his  troops  had  de- 
serted because  they  thought  it  was  of  no  use  to  fight  longer, 
and  that  war  meetings  and  speeches  had  no  effect  upon 
them.  The  troops  that  remained  could  not  be  depended 

1  For  the  Marshall  conference,  see  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  i, 
186-194. 

2  Smith  to  Rose,  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  1292. 

d.f  1308. 


33]  THE  BREAK-UP  33 

upon.1  Similar  accounts  came  from  other  points.  In  many 
places  the  soldiers  had  taken  possession  of  the  government 
stores,  sacked  them,  carried  off  what  they  could,  and  gone 
home. 

The  situation  was  fast  becoming  desperate  indeed.  With- 
out waiting  for  a  response  from  Pope,  Smith  immediately 
despatched  General  Buckner  as  commissioner  to  General 
Canby,  commanding  the  United  States  forces  at  New  Or- 
leans, to  take  up  again  the  question  of  terms  of  surrender. 
He  then  ordered  the  evacuation  of  Galveston  and,  prepar- 
ing to  concentrate  the  Texas  troops  at  Houston,  removed 
his  headquarters  thither.  Before  he  arrived,  about  May 
29th,  his  army  had  disappeared.  The  long  dreaded 
break-up  had  come. 

The  order  for  the  evacuation  of  Galveston  had  been  re- 
ceived on  Sunday,  May  2ist,  and  the  movement  began  the 
next  day.  The  troops  perceived  that  the  end  had  come  and 
at  once  became  unmanageable.  Ranks  were  broken  and 
almost  the  whole  force  swarmed  up  to  Houston.  Here  a 
few  men  of  De  Bray's  brigade  maintained  sufficient  disci- 
pline to  patrol  the  streets  and  preserve  order.  The  city 
authorities  were  greatly  alarmed,  for  wild  rumors  had  flown 
about  that  the  troops  had  threatened  to  sack  and  burn  the 
town,  and  arrangements  were  hurriedly  made  by  the  mayor 
and  citizens  to  feed  them  until  they  could  be  passed  on 
through.  Saloons  were  ordered  closed,  and  the  disobedient 
suffered  confiscation  and  destruction  of  all  liquors.  For 
some  reason  the  military  patrol  was  suddenly  withdrawn 
early  in  the  morning  of  Tuesday,  the  23rd.  By  8  o'clock  a 
crowd  of  some  two  thousand  persons  had  collected  before 
the  doors  of  the  ordnance  building.  It  was  broken  into 

1  Smith  to  Rose,  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  1313. 


34  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [34 

and  speedily  sacked.  The  mob  then  proceeded  to  the  cloth- 
ing bureau.  Everything  portable  was  taken.  "  Blankets, 
made-up  clothing,  bolts  of  domestic,  buttons,  flannels,  shoes, 
mosquito  bars,  gray  cloth,  sides  of  leather,  mule  whips, 
hammers,  head  stalls,  etc.,  all  went  into  the  division  and 
were  accepted  as  the  new  issue."  Soldiers,  citizens,  women, 
negroes  and  children  participated.  Some  of  the  soldiers  held 
aloof.  The  crowd  was  surprisingly  quiet,  and  by  12  o'clock 
all  was  over.  The  city  authorities  seemed  paralyzed  with 
fear.  Later  in  the  day  other  troops  arrived  from  Galveston 
and,  rinding  the  booty  gone,  angrily  threatened  to  pillage 
the  town;  but  some  of  the  citizens  produced  part  of  the 
stores  and  they  were  redistributed  among  the  late  comers. 
Hastily  the  mayor  made  provision  for  feeding  them.  Again 
a  patrol,  partly  of  soldiers,  partly  of  citizens,  was  placed  over 
the  city,  and  within  a  few  days  quiet  was  thoroughly  re- 
stored.1 

As  the  disbanded  soldiery  swept  on  homeward  up  through 
the  state  similar  scenes,  on  a  lesser  scale,  occurred  in  many 
places.  There  had  been  no  personal  violence  at  Houston, 
nor  was  there  elsewhere  for  a  time.  The  soldiers  simply 
took  possession  of  Confederate  and  generally  of  state  prop- 
erty wherever  they  could  find  it,  alleging  that  as  it  had 
originally  been  collected  for  their  use  and  as  they  had  pro- 
tected it,  they  were  the  nearest  heirs  of  the  defunct  Con- 
federacy and  entitled  to  this  much  of  the  estate.  Added  to 
this  was  the  irritating  conviction  that  while  they  had  suf- 
fered hardships  in  the  army  they  had  not  been  adequately 
supported  by  the  mass  of  those  who  had  been  allowed  to 
remain  at  home,  and  that  the  resources  of  the  country  had 
been  speculated  upon  and  wasted  by  the  incompetent  or  un- 

1  The  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  May  24  and  31,  1865. 


35]  THE  BREAK-UP  35 

principled  men  into  whose  hands  they  had  fallen.1  Nor  did 
public  opinion  often  condemn  the  soldiers.  It  was  greatly 
felt  that  they  had  a  better  right  to  the  Confederate  prop- 
erty than  any  one  else.2  Private  property  was  generally 
respected,  but  that  of  the  state  frequently  suffered.  At  La 
Grange  the  soldiers  of  Fayette  county  held  a  meeting  on 
May  27th  and  appointed  a  committee  to  gather  up  all  gov- 
ernment property  in  the  county  and  distribute  it,  looking 
especially  to  the  interest  of  indigent  soldiers  or  their  fami- 
lies. At  Huntsville  they  levied  upon  penitentiary  cloth, 
and  for  a  time  a  fixed  amount  was  given  to  each  applicant. 
The  towns  through  which  they  passed,  usually  in  squads, 
furnished  them  food :  "  they  are  masters  of  the  situation," 
explained  the  Huntsville  Item  significantly.  As  they  pene- 
trated farther  into  the  interior  of  the  state  they  became  more 
reckless.  At  La  Grange  and  San  Antonio  stores  were 
openly  pillaged.  Governor  Murrah,  in  an  effort  to  save  the 
state  property,  issued  a  proclamation  on  May  25th  to  all 
sheriffs  and  other  officers,  enjoining  them  to  gather  up  and 
preserve  for  future  and  more  equitable  distribution  all  prop- 
erty of  the  state,  and  all  that  of  the  Confederacy  in  which 
the  state  had  an  interest.  It  was  impossible  for  this  order 
to  be  very  generally  carried  out.  The  widespread  feeling 
of  insecurity  and  the  tendency  to  disorder  were  not  lessened 
by  the  presence  of  bodies  of  armed  men  marching  towards 
Mexico.  General  Joe  Shelby,  with  a  force  estimated  var- 
iously at  from  three  thousand  to  twelve  thousand  men,  was 
on  his  way  to  join  Maximilian,3  and  he  levied  upon  the 
country  as  he  passed  along.  Numbers  of  smaller  groups, 
composed  largely  of  late  officials  who  had  elected  political 

1  The  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  June  16,  1865. 
*The  Patriot  (La  Grange),  June  2,  1865. 
3  San  Antonio  News,  May  30,  1865. 


36  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [36 

exile,  were  bound  for  the  same  destination.  Governor 
Murrah,  on  May  27th,  issued  a  call  for  a  special  session  of 
the  legislature  in  July,  and  at  the  same  time  he  proclaimed 
an  election  for  a  general  convention.  The  program  was 
"  to  adopt  the  speediest  mode  of  harmonizing  the  state 
government  with  the  new  condition  of  affairs,  to  repeal  the 
ordinance  of  secession,  and  to  enact  other  legislation  neces- 
sary to  render  Texas  a  faithful  member  of  the  Union." 
Neither  the  legislature  nor  the  convention  ever  met.  It 
was  soon  apparent  that  civil  officials  would  not  be  recog- 
nized by  the  Federal  government.  Helpless  in  the  midst 
of  the  general  disorder,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  they 
gradually  ceased  to  attempt  to  perform  their  functions.  In 
the  absence  of  responsible  authorities  lawlessness  increased. 
Jayhawkers,  guerillas  and  highwaymen  appeared.  An  at- 
tempt was  made  to  capture  and  rob  the  penitentiary  at 
Huntsville.  The  state  treasury  at  Austin,  left  without 
adequate  protection,  was  looted.  Bands  of  robbers  and 
Jayhawkers  infested  all  the  roads  between  San  Antonio  and 
the  Rio  Grande.  One  stage  was  said  to  have  been  held  up 
on  an  average  once  every  five  miles  on  the  road  from  the 
Rio  Grande  to  San  Antonio.  Affairs  were  not  much  better 
in  other  sections.  Here  and  there  the  towns  began  to  or- 
ganize local  police  or  "  home  guards  "  and  to  clear  the 
country  round  about.  The  newspapers  besought  the  people 
to  restore  order,  as  it  was  the  only  way  by  which  to  obviate 
the  establishment  of  a  military  government.1 

Amid  this  general  confusion  Kirby  Smith  arrived  in 
Houston  about  May  2Qth.  On  the  3Oth  he  issued  an  address 
to  the  soldiers  in  which  he  declared  that  it  had  been  his  in- 
tention to  concentrate  the  army  at  Houston,  await  negotia- 

1  Texas  Republican  (Marshall),  June,  1865;  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph, 
June  16,  1865. 


THE  BREAK-UP  ^ 

tions  and  carry  on  the  struggle  until  favorable  terms  could 
be  secured.  He  was  now  left  a  commander  without  an 
army;  and,  by  destroying  their  organization,  he  declared, 
the  men  had  thrown  away  their  only  chance  of  securing 
honorable  terms.1  On  the  same  day  he  addressed  a  letter 
to  Colonel  Sprague  of  General  Pope's  staff,  saying  that  the 
Trans-Mississippi  Department  was  now  open  to  occupation 
by  United  States  troops,  since  the  Confederate  soldiers  had 
disbanded.  At  the  same  time  he  declared  his  intention  of 
leaving  the  country.2  In  the  meantime  his  commissioner  to 
New  Orleans,  General  Buckner,  had  been  discussing  terms 
of  surrender  with  General  Canby.  Buckner  failed  to  secure 
the  settlement  of  any  political  question,  since  Canby  was 
not  authorized  to  treat  of  those  matters.  However,  a  con- 
vention was  finally  agreed  upon,  May  26th,  providing,  in 
substance  that  the  Confederate  troops,  officers  and  men, 
were  to  be  paroled  and  to  return  home,  transportation  being 
furnished  them  where  possible.  All  Confederate  property 
was  to  be  turned  over  to  the  proper  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.8 

Before  General  Smith  arrived  at  Houston,  General  Ma- 
gruder  and  Governor  Murrah  made  an  independent  effort 
to  secure  favorable  terms  of  peace  for  Texas.  On  May  24th, 
the  next  day  after  the  sack  of  the  military  stores  at  Houston, 
they  appointed  Colonel  Ashbel  Smith  and  W.  P.  Ballinger 
as  special  commissioners  to  proceed  to  New  Orleans  and 
negotiate  with  General  Canby  or  other  proper  authority  of 
the  United  States  for  "  the  cessation  of  hostilities  between 
the  United  States  and  Texas." 

The  commissioners  arrived  at  New  Orleans  on  May  29th 

1  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  June  2,  1865. 

2  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  i,  193. 
8  Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  600. 


38  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [38 

and  at  once  solicited  a  conference.  They  had  seen  in  the 
newspapers  a  copy  of  the  convention  between  Canby  and 
Buckner,  but  hoped  "  to  facilitate  the  prompt  and  satis- 
factory restoration  of  relations  between  Texas  and  the 
United  States  government."  Canby  granted  the  confer- 
ence, but  distinctly  stated  that  he  had  no  authority  to  en- 
tertain officially  any  questions  of  civil  or  political  character. 
The  Texas  commissioners  frankly  stated  at  the  outset  the 
actual  conditions  in  Texas — the  mutiny  and  the  break-up 
of  the  army,  the  seizure  and  distribution  of  Confederate 
property,  the  helplessness  of  the  Confederate  officials.  The 
people,  they  said,  were  heartily  tired  of  the  war  and  ready 
in  good  faith  to  return  to  their  allegiance  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States ;  but  they  were  greatly  concerned 
with  respect  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  national 
government.  The  commissioners  suggested  that,  inasmuch 
as  the  machinery  of  the  civil  government  of  the  state  was 
still  intact  and  the  regular  election  of  state  officers  under 
the  constitution  in  force  in  1860  was  to  fall  due  the  next 
August,  that  citizens  of  proven  loyalty  to  the  Union  be 
allowed  to  proceed  with  this  election.  It  would  be  a  good 
policy  to  recognize  the  existing  state  government  as  a  gov- 
ernment de  facto  in  preference  to  establishing  a  military 
government.  They  also  pointed  out  the  great  evils  to  be 
feared  from  the  dislocation  of  the  labor  of  the  state.  There 
was  more  cotton  in  Texas  than  elsewhere,  the  crop  was 
far  along  toward  maturity,  and  its  production  involved  the 
interest  of  all,  white  and  black.  It  was  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, therefore,  that  the  negroes  should  be  kept  on  the 
farms,  and  it  was  suggested  that  they  be  paid  wages  under 
proper  regulations  until  the  whole  subject  of  labor  could  be 
properly  adjusted.1 

1  Official  Records,  vol.  cit,  pt.  ii,  648,  675. 


39]  THE  BREAK-UP  39 

This  conference  was  necessarily  fruitless;  for  not  only 
was  Canby  without  authority  to  treat  upon  the  subjects 
broached  by  the  Texans,  but  the  United  States  authorities 
were  not  likely  to  yield  on  a  matter  of  such  wide  importance 
as  even  the  partial  recognition  of  the  "  rebel  "  state  govern- 
ment. As  the  final  effort  of  the  state  authorities  to  save 
something  from  the  wreck,  it  is  interesting;  but  it  seems  im- 
possible that,  knowing  the  outcome  of  the  Sherman- Johnston 
agreement,  they  could  have  hoped  for  very  much  along  this 
line. 

On  June  2d  General  Smith  went  on  board  a  United  States 
ship  of  war  at  Galveston  and  formally  signed  the  Canby- 
Buckner  convention.  The  last  vestige  of  Confederate  mili- 
tary authority  now  vanished.  For  three  weeks,  however, 
after  the  surrender,  the  Federals  were  not  able  to  send  an 
army  to  take  possession  of  Texas  because  of  the  lack  of 
transports. 

Meanwhile  conditions  in  the  state  grew  worse.  Wild 
rumors  were  afloat  of  dire  punishments  to  be  inflicted  upon 
prominent  rebels  by  the  victorious  Yankees.  Trials  for 
treason  before  military  commissions  and  wholesale  confis- 
cation of  property  were  fully  expected ;  and  a  sort  of  panic 
seized  upon  many  of  those  who  had  held  office  under  the 
Confederacy.  Some  declared  they  could  not  live  under  the 
odious  rule  of  their  enemies  and  prepared  to  emigrate.  A 
lively  exodus  to  Mexico  ensued.  Among  those  to  go  were 
the  highest  officials  in  the  state,  Generals  Smith  and  Ma- 
gruder  and  Governors  Clark  and  Murrah,  whose  flight  was 
bitterly  resented  by  those  left  behind. 

On  May  2Qth  General  Sheridan  was  assigned  to  the  com- 
mand of  the  Military  Division  of  the  Southwest,  headquar- 
ters at  New  Orleans.  On  June  loth  he  ordered  General 
Gordon  Granger  to  proceed  with  eighteen  hundred  men  to 


40  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [4O 

Galveston.1  Granger  arrived  at  Galveston  on  June  iQth 
and  immediately,  in  conformity  to  instructions,  assumed 
command  of  all  forces  in  the  state  and  issued  orders  de- 
claring that  by  proclamation  of  the  President  all  slaves  were 
free,  that  all  acts  of  the  governor  and  the  legislature  of 
Texas  since  the  ordinance  of  secession  were  illegal,  that  all 
officers  and  men  of  the  late  Confederate  army  were  to  be 
paroled,  and  that  all  persons  "  having  in  their  possession 
public  property  of  any  description,  formerly  belonging  to 
the  late  so-called  Confederate  States  or  the  State  of  Texas," 
should  turn  it  over  to  the  proper  United  States  officer  at 
the  nearest  of  the  previously  designated  stations.2  As  rap- 
idly as  possible  troops  were  pushed  into  the  interior  of  the 
state  and  posted  at  the  most  important  points.  The  military 
was  to  serve  the  double  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  pro- 
visions of  the  surrender  and  of  preserving  order  until  a 
civil  government  could  be  established.  Most  of  the  troops 
sent  to  Texas  were  ordered  to  the  Rio  Grande  as  a  sort  of 
demonstration  against  the  French  in  Mexico.  The  rest 
were  wholly  inadequate  to  the  efficient  policing  of  the  state. 
The  posts  established  were  widely  separated  and  extensive 
districts,  comprising  sometimes  several  counties,  were  with- 
out proper  surveillance ;  and  this,  too,  at  a  time  when  society 
was  convulsed  with  sudden  and  momentous  changes  and 
lawlessness  was  everywhere.  Even  under  these  conditions 

1  Sheridan   says  in  the  dispatch :  "  There  is  not  a  very  wholesome 
state  of  affairs  in  Texas.    The  governor  and  all  the  soldiers  and  the 
people  generally  are  disposed  to  be  ugly,  and  the  sooner  Galveston 
can  be  occupied  the  better"  (Official  Records,  vol.  cit.,  pt.  ii,  841).     If 
by  this  it  was  meant  that  further  resistance  to  Federal  authority  was 
contemplated,   there   seems   to   be   absolutely  nothing   to    support   his 
statement.    It  is  true,  that  there  was  widespread  disorder  and  lawless- 
ness, but  the  reference  could  hardly  have  been  to  that. 

2  These  were  Houston,  Galveston,  Bonham,  San  Antonio,  Marshall 
and  Brownsville. 


4I]  THE  BREAK-UP  4I 

General  Sheridan,  to  provide  against  local  resistance  or  guer- 
rilla warfare,  issued  orders,  June  3Oth,  that  no  home  guards 
or  bands  for  self-protection  should  be  allowed  anywhere  in 
the  state,  on  the  ground  that  the  military  were  sufficient 
for  all  such  purposes.  By  the  same  order,  neighborhoods 
infested  by  guerrillas  were  to  be  held  responsible  for  the 
deeds  of  the  latter — an  act  indicative  of  the  harsh  suspicion 
with  which  Sheridan  always  regarded  Texas. 

The  military  authorities  now  proceeded  to  confiscate  all 
public  property  that  could  be  found.  Such  as  had  belonged 
to  the  Confederacy  or  had  been  used  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  became  the  property  of  the  United  States,  while 
that  belonging  solely  to  the  state  was  held  until  the  proper 
time  should  arrive  for  turning  it  over  to  the  state  officials. 
But  very  little  of  the  public  property  had  been  left  by  the 
soldiers  during  the  riotous  days  of  the  "  break-up/'  and 
the  Federals  charged  that  the  Confederate  officials  had  not 
observed  the  terms  of  the  convention  and  their  parole. 
These  charges,  later  reiterated,  were  undoubtedly  unjust; 
for  the  soldiers  had  seized  most  of  the  property  before  the 
surrender,  and  afterwards  the  officers  were  unable  to  restrain 
them.  Many  commands,  in  fact,  never  surrendered  at  all 
but  simply  disbanded,  as  has  been  shown,  even  before  the 
convention  had  been  agreed  upon  at  New  Orleans. 

2.  Confusion  about  Cotton 

If  most  forms  of  Confederate  property  had  disappeared 
or  evaded  Federal  confiscation,  it  was  otherwise  with  cotton. 
When  the  war  closed  there  was  scattered  all  over  the  coun- 
try a  considerable  amount  of  unmarketed  cotton,  and  as 
soon  as  hostilities  ceased  the  holders  were  anxious  to  get 
it  to  market  without  delay  in  order  to  obtain  the  enormous 
prices  then  being  paid  for  it.  General  Grant  had  given 
orders  to  the  commanders  in  the  Southwest  not  to  interfere 


42  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [43 

with  its  shipment,  since  it  was  to  the  business  interests  of 
the  whole  country  that  it  be  marketed,  but  to  encourage 
shipment  in  every  way.  The  military  were  instructed  not 
to  institute  inquiries  as  to  ownership,  but  to  leave  the 
treasury  agents  to  seek  out  such  property  as  belonged  to 
the  government.1  Accordingly,  General  Granger,  upon  his 
arrival  at  Galveston,  issued  orders  to  the  effect  that  until 
the  arrival  of  treasury  agents  all  cotton  should  be  turned 
into  the  quartermaster's  department  for  shipment  to  New 
Orleans  or  New  York,  there  to  be  sold  to  United  States 
purchasing  agents.  Bills  of  lading  were  to  be  given  and 
the  owners  were  to  be  allowed  to  accompany  the  cotton  in 
order  to  effect  the  sale.2  This  order  was  in  force  for  little 
more  than  a  month.  Treasury  agents  soon  arrived  and 
swarmed  over  the  state,  seeking  out  and  taking  possession 
of  everything  belonging  to  the  late  Confederacy,  especially 
cotton.  Some  of  this  cotton  had  actually  belonged  to  the 
Confederate  government;  some  had  been  set  aside  to  pay 
the  tax  but  had  never  been  delivered;  some  had  been  pur- 
chased by  the  state  military  board  but  had  never  been  paid 
for  nor  delivered;  some  had  gone  to  pay  state  taxes  and 
was  now  state  property;  but  a  great  part  had  never  been 
anything  but  private  property.  The  greatest  possible  con- 
fusion arose  in  regard  to  the  ownership  of  these  various 
classes  of  cotton.  The  planter  who  had  produced  it  was  un- 
willing to  give  up,  as  Confederate  property,  cotton  that  had 
never  been  paid  for,  and  he  still  claimed  it  as  his  own;  nor, 
it  must  be  confessed,  was  he  always  active  in  turning  over 

1  Instructions  from  Grant  to  Sheridan,  Official  Records,  War  of  Re- 
bellion, Ser.  I,  vol.  xlviii,  pt.  ii,  639;  Sheridan,  General  Orders,  no.  3, 
ibid.,  713;  Canby,  General  Orders,  no.  65,  ibid.,  694. 

a  Granger,  General  Orders,  no.  5,  Flake's  Bulletin  (Galveston),  July 
18,  1865. 


43  ]  THE  BREAK-UP  43 

that  which  had  actually  been  paid  for  (in  Confederate 
paper),  or  which  had  been  raised  for  the  government  under 
the  terms  of  an  "  exemption  contract."  *  On  the  other 
hand,  the  claims  of  the  treasury  agents  were  sweeping.  By 
order  of  the  general  agent  for  Texas,  H.  C.  Warmoth,  all 
personal  property  that  was  "  actually  or  constructively  in 
the  possession  of  the  Confederate  States  at  the  time  of  the 
surrender  "  was  to  be  seized.2  In  all  cases  persons  who 
wished  to  ship  cotton  from  any  point  in  Texas  were  re- 
quired to  give  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  cotton  for 
shipment  was  not  "  surrendered  "  cotton.3  The  burden  of 
proof,  therefore,  was  on  the  owner  of  the  cotton._ 

It  is  obvious  that  in  the  confusion  involving  the  subject 
and  incident  to  public  affairs  generally,  it  must  have  been 
no  easy  task  even  for  the  most  upright  and  generous-minded 
agent  to  keep  clear  of  popular  disfavor;  but  the  almost  un- 
limited powers  delegated  to  these  agents  and  the  constant 
opportunities  for  fiaud  and  peculation,  with  little  danger  of 
punishment,  were  in  themselves  demoralizing.  There  seems 
to  have  been  a  large  amount  of  truth  in  the  charges  of 
fraud,  robbery  and  extortion  that  were  made  against  so 
many  of  these  officials.  A  petition  to  President  Johnson, 
printed  in  the  Washington  Republican  (Washington, 
D.  C. ) ,  and  signed  by  merchants,  business  men  and  planters 
of  Louisiana  and  Texas,  declared  that  great  frauds  and 
acts  of  oppression  were  continually  practiced  by  treasury 
agents  in  the  matter  of  cotton ;  that  the  planters  west  of  the 
Mississippi  had  rarely  received  anything  in  payment  from 
the  Confederate  government,  and  had  been  informed  by 

1  An  arrangement  whereby  a  planter  had  been  granted  exemption 
from  military  service  upon  condition  of  raising  a  certain  amount  of 
cotton,  corn  or  beef  for  the  Confederate  government. 

2  Flake's  Bulletin,  August  30,  1865. 

«  F.  H.  Coupland  in  Flake's  Bulletin,  July  31,  1865. 


44  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [44 

agents,  military  officials  and  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury himself,  that  cotton  not  thus  paid  for  or  delivered  would 
pass  like  any  other  cotton.  Yet  when  the  cotton  had  been 
sold  to  the  merchants  the  treasury  agent  stepped  in  and 
took  possession  of  it.  Trade  was  paralyzed,  capital  made 
timid,  and  the  planters  were  unable  to  sell  their  cotton  or 
to  hire  the  labor  they  needed.1  A  correspondent  of  the 
New  Orleans  Picayune,  writing  from  Eastern  Texas,  gives 
an  account  of  similar  difficulties,  and  declares  that  every 
agent  under  whose  inspection  the  cotton  passed  required 
new  proof,  which  was  always  inconvenient  to  obtain.2  Sev- 
eral cases  of  fraud  came  to  light  at  Jefferson,  Texas,  where 
a  treasury  agent  was  later  indicted  on  three  distinct  charges 
of  fraud  and  swindling.  He  was  released  by  the  military 
authorities.  Usually  there  was  no  recourse  whatever  for 
the  parties  claiming  to  have  been  wronged.  A  favorite  de- 
vice of  the  dishonest  treasury  agent  was  to  hold  back  a  lot 
of  cotton  from  shipment,  under  pretense  of  investigating 
the  title,  until  the  owner  was  willing  to  give  a  bribe  for  its 
release.  Sometimes  an  agent  took  possession  of  the  cotton 
outright  and  shipped  it  on  his  own  account.  At  other  times 
he  ordered  it  shipped  to  certain  points  at  high  rates  and  re- 
ceived a  rebate  on  the  transportation  charges.3 

These  troubles  involved  only  the  cotton  left  over  from 
the  crop  of  1864;  but  so  slowly  was  the  crop  marketed  that 
they  did  not  cease  until  the  beginning  of  1866. 

3.  The  Negro  Question  and  Labor  Conditions. 
The  turmoil  and  confusion  of  the  "  break-up  "  and  the 
general  dread  of  all  that  a  military  occupation  might  entail 

1  See  Flake's  Bulletin,  September  6,  1865. 
*Ibid.,  August  30,  1865. 

•H.  Ware  to  L.  D.  Evans,  Jan.  30,  1866,  MS.  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence, Texas  State  Archives. 


45]  THE  BREAK-UP  45 

had  at  first  diverted  public  attention  somewhat  from  the 
most  serious  problem  that  the  close  of  the  war  had  forced 
upon  the  people  of  the  South.  What  was  to  be  done  with 
the  negro  ?  Was  he  to  be  set  free,  and  if  so,  what  measure  of 
freedom  should  he  have?  How  was  his  labor  to  be  secured 
and  so  regulated  that  he  should  be  an  economically  efficient 
member  of  society?  What  was  to  be  his  position  in  this 
society,  in  the  broad  domain  of  civil  rights  and  privileges, 
and  in  political  affairs?  The  magnitude  of  the  problem 
was  not  at  once  appreciated;  for  the  time  being  public  at- 
tention was  engaged  solely  with  that  part  which  was  of 
most  immediate  concern,  the  measure  of  freedom  to  be 
accorded  to  the  late  slave  and  the  best  method  of  securing 
his  labor.  The  other  and  more  intricate  phases  of  the  ques- 
tion were  of  later  development,  and  the  contingencies  which 
gave  rise  to  them  were  at  first  but  dimly  apprehended. 

It  had  been  long  foreseen  that  in  the  event  of  Federal 
victory  a  change  in  the  status  of  the  negro  would  be  inevi- 
table. Indeed,  the  certainty  of  his  emancipation  in  case  of 
the  failure  of  the  South  had  been  wielded  as  a  goad  to  a 
"  last  ditch  "  struggle.  Yet  the  Confederacy  itself,  in  final 
desperation,  proposed  to  grant  freedom  to  the  slaves  as  a 
reward  for  military  service  The  plan  came  to  nothing,  for 
the  Confederate  government  was  then  on  the  point  of  col- 
lapse. Then,  too,  slavery  as  a  system  had  already  been 
shattered  east  of  the  Mississippi  by  the  presence  of  the  Fed- 
eral armies.  In  Texas,  undisturbed  by  invasions,  the  insti- 
tution had  remained  essentially  unimpaired;  but  with  the 
break-up  of  the  Confederate  armies  and  the  approach  of 
the  Federals  the  changed  status  of  the  negro  was  sharply 
emphasized.  Long  before  Granger's  proclamation  at  Gal- 
veston,  June  iQth,  it  was  generally  known  that  the  slaves 
would  be  freed.  In  some  cases  the  planters  anticipated  the 
emancipation  by  setting  their  negroes  at  liberty ;  sometimes 


46  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [46 

the  negroes  themselves  slipped  away  from  their  homes  and 
began  roaming  about  the  country;  but  for  the  most  part 
they  were  kept  at  home  to  await  Federal  action. 

Even  at  this  time,  despite  the  attitude  of  the  national 
authorities,  there  was  considerable  belief  that  slavery  as  an 
institution  was  not  dead  nor  yet  doomed  to  die.  The 
Texas  Republican,  the  most  important  weekly  of  eastern 
Texas,  in  its  issue  of  June  i6th,  reviewed  the  situation,  de- 
scribing the  demoralization  of  the  negroes,  who  were  laps- 
ing into  vagrancy  and  consequent  "  filth,  disease  and  crime." 
The  negroes  would  not  work  when  once  it  was  definitely 
known  that  slavery  was  to  cease,  and  the  crops  could  neither 
be  cultivated  nor  gathered.  The  Republican  affected  to  be- 
lieve that 

the  ruinous  effects  of  freeing  four  millions  of  ignorant  and 
helpless  blacks  would  not  be  confined  to  the  South,  but  that  the 
blight  would  be  communicated  to  the  North,  and  that  the 
time  would  come  when  the  people  of  that  section  would  be 
glad  to  witness  a  return  to  a  system  attended  with  more  philan- 
thropy and  happiness  to  the  black  race  than  the  one  they  seem 
determined  at  present  to  establish ;  for  they  will  find  that  com- 
pulsory labor  affords  larger  crops  and  a  richer  market  for 
Yankee  manufacturers. 

The  masters  were  advised,  therefore,  not  to  turn  their  slaves 
loose  to  become  demoralized,  but  to  maintain  a  kind  and 
protecting  care  over  them. 

The  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  abolishing  slavery 
has  not  been  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  states,  nor  is  it 
likely  to  be  in  the  ensuing  ten  years.  When  the  state  gov- 
ernments, therefore,  are  reorganized,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  slavery  will  be  perpetuated.  We  can  tell  better  then  than 
at  present  how  long  it  is  likely  to  endure  and  prepare  for  the 
change. 


THE  BREAK-UP  47 

Emancipation,  if  adopted  at  all,  should  be  gradual,  but 
"  there  is  but  little  reason  to  doubt  that  whether  or  not 
slavery  is  perpetuated  in  name,  there  will  be  a  return  to  a 
character  of  compulsory  labor  which  will  make  the  negro 
useful  to  society  and  subordinate  to  the  white  race." 

The  Houston  Telegraph,  while  conceding  that  emanci- 
pation was  "  certain  to  take  place,"  was  of  the  opinion  that 
paid  compulsory  labor  would  replace  unpaid.  Since  the 
negro  was  to  be  freed  by  the  Federal  government  solely 
with  a  view  to  the  safety  of  the  nation,  his  condition  would 
be  modified  only  so  far  as  to  insure  this,  but  not  so  far  as 
materially  to  weaken  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  coun- 
try. Therefore,  the  negroes  would  be  compelled  to  work 
under  police  regulations  of  a  stringent  character.  Under 
this  happy  system  insolence  was  to  be  provided  against  on 
the  one  hand  and  injustice  on  the  other. 

Such  seem  to  have  been  the  hopes  of  the  well  informed. 
To  men  accustomed  to  dealing  with  the  indolence  of  the 
negro  in  slavery,  such  a  thing  as  successful  free  negro  labor 
was  absolutely  unthinkable.  No  other  than  negro  labor 
seemed  available  on  the  great  bottom  farms  of  the  "  black 
belt  " ;  without  this  labor  the  planting  interests  were  threat- 
ened with  ruin ;  and,  moreover,  to  leave  the  negro  the  prey 
of  the  vice  and  misery  certain  to  result  from  idleness  and 
vagrancy  would  be  criminal.  Compulsory  negro  labor, 
then,  seemed  the  natural  and  necessary  arrangement.  It 
was  clear  enough,  too,  that  slavery  as  an  institution,  recog- 
nized by  the  constitution,  could  not  be  abolished  by  procla- 
mation; and  that  three-fourths  of  the  states  would  adopt 
an  amendment  abolishing  slavery,  seemed  preposterous. 
Thus  the  life-long  beliefs  and  prejudices  of  the  Southerner 
conspired  with  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  to  lead  him 
into  a  policy  which,  certain  to  be  distorted  in  reports  given 
to  the  North,  was  in  its  reaction  to  force  upon  him  the  very 


48  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [4g 

things  he  would  have  feared  most — his  own  disfranchise- 
ment  and  negro  domination. 

Serenely  unconscious  of  negro  incapacity  and  unembar- 
rassed by  constitutional  guarantees,  the  Federal  authorities 
proceeded  to  complete  the  work  cut  out  for  them.  In  his 
emancipation  proclamation,  issued  at  Galveston  on  the  I9th 
of  June,  General  Granger  declared  that  in  accordance  with 
the  Presidential  proclamation  all  slaves  were  free,  and  that 
this  involved  an  absolute  equality  of  personal  and  property 
rights  between  former  masters  and  slaves,  the  previous  bond 
between  them  giving  way  to  that  between  employer  and 
free  laborer.  Mindful  of  the  propensities  of  the  freedmen, 
he  advised  them  to  remain  at  home  and  work  for  wages, 
and  warned  them  that  they  would  not  be  allowed  to  collect 
at  military  posts,  nor  would  they  be  supported  in  idleness 
there  or  elsewhere. 

As  long  as  the  regular  army  officials  were  in  control,  that 
is,  until  the  officials  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  arrived, 
efforts  were  made  to  keep  the  negroes  under  strict  super- 
vision. In  the  published  general  orders  of  post  commanders 
at  various  points  during  June  and  July,  Granger's  procla- 
mation is  reflected:  the  freedmen  are  repeatedly  urged  to 
stay  at  home  and  go  to  work  for  their  former  masters  for 
wages ;  they  are  assured  of  their  freedom  and  of  protection 
from  injustice,  but  are  warned  against  vagrancy  under  pen- 
alty of  being  put  to  hard  labor  without  compensation;  and 
in  many  cases  they  are  not  permitted  to  travel  on  the  public 
thoroughfares  without  passes  from  employers.1  That  the 
army  officials  failed  to  keep  the  negroes  from  vagrancy  is 
not  surprising.  The  army  posts  were  too  far  apart  to  keep 
all  communities  under  surveillance,  and  the  freedmen  them- 

1  General  Orders  published  in  Texas  Republican,  June  23,  1865 ;  TVi- 
Weekly  Telegraph,  June  30  and  July  5;  Flake's  Bulletin,  July  18. 


49] 


THE  BREAK-UP 


selves  were  too  ignorant  to  understand  that  their  new  free- 
dom did  not  mean  immunity  from  work,  and  that  they  could 
not  be  fed  and  clothed  forever  by  their  liberators. 

The  military  officials  made  no  effort  at  first  to  superintend 
the  drawing-up  of  contracts  between  the  freedman  and  his 
employer,  nor  to  act  for  the  freedmen  in  stipulating  wages 
or  other  terms.  The  provost-marshal-general  for  Texas, 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Laughlin,  issued  a  statement  that  ne- 
groes would  be  allowed  to  make  contracts  with  whomsoever 
they  wished,  and  that  both  parties  would  be  held  to  the 
terms  of  the  contracts;  that  unless  other  regulations  should 
be  promulgated  by  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  the  amount  and 
kind  of  consideration  for  labor  should  be  entirely  a  matter 
of  contract  between  the  employer  and  the  employees.1  Per- 
haps it  would  have  been  better  if  the  rate  of  wages  had  been 
fixed  in  some  way,  for  some  contracts  were  practically  nul- 
lified later  by  the  Bureau.  It  had  frequently  happened  that 
a  planter,  not  feeling  able  to  pay  wages  —  for  ready  cash  was 
scarce,  political  conditions  unsettled,  and  the  outlook  un- 
certain —  had  arranged  for  his  freedman  to  work  tempor- 
arily for  food  and  clothing  for  himself  and  family.  In 
most  cases  the  freedman  was  to  receive  a  part  of  the  crop 
in  the  fall.  To  the  child-like  negro,  concerned  only  with 
the  immediate  present,  there  was  no  difference  between  this 
and  his  old  condition  as  a  slave,  and  he  soon  wished  to  leave. 

From  a  few  sections  the  reports  were  favorable  —  the 
blacks  were  making  contracts  and  remaining  at  work;2  but 
as  the  summer  wore  on  complaints  came  from  all  sides  that 
vagrancy,  theft,  vice  and  insolence  were  increasing,  and  that 
where  negroes  had  made  contracts  they  broke  them  without 
cause,  often  leaving  their  families  for  their  employers  to 

1  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  June  28,  1865. 

2  Communication  to  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  June  28,  1865. 


50  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [50 

feed.1  The  Houston  Telegraph  thought  it  necessary  to 
warn  the  people  not  to  allow  themselves  to  develop  a  feeling 
of  hostility  and  bitterness  toward  the  blacks,  who,  although 
they  were  doing  very  many  foolish  and  vexatious  things, 
were  "  not  responsible  for  their  own  emancipation."  It 
would  have  been  well  if  the  whites  generally  could  have 
shown  this  tolerant  spirit ;  but  for  his  former  master  to  show 
indulgence  to  the  freedman  who  broke  his  contract  when  it 
suited  his  whim,  disobeyed  orders  just  to  see  how  it  felt  to 
be  "  free  ",  and  spent  most  of  his  time  "  visiting  around  " 
when  the  crops  were  most  in  need  of  work,  was  more  than 
could  be  confidently  expected  of  the  average  employer.  For 
the  time  being,  fortunately,  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state, 
where  the  demoralization  was  worst,  the  crops  were  already 
well  advanced  and  would  need  but  little  attention  until  fall. 
In  the  north  and  northeast,  where  the  Federal  troops  had 
not  yet  penetrated,  the  negroes  had  shown  less  inclination 
to  wander  about  or  else  their  former  masters  had  taken 
steps  to  keep  them  at  home.  While  in  a  few  instances  these 
planters  endeavored  to  keep  their  negroes  in  ignorance  of 
their  freedom,  in  most  cases  their  efforts  took  the  form  of 
combinations  to  control  the  labor  of  their  former  slaves; 
and  usually  each  planter  agreed  to  hire  no  negro  without 
the  consent  of  his  former  master.  Sometimes  freedmen 
who  broke  contracts  and  went  away  were  brought  back  by 
force,  and  in  some  cases  the  planters  were  guilty  of  need- 
less cruelty.  The  army  officials  generally  endeavored  to 
hold  the  negroes  to  their  contracts,  but  at  the  same  time 
they  refused  to  allow  coercion  on  the  part  of  the  employers. 
The  discontent  grew  steadily  worse  and  found  expres- 

1  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  July  7,  1865;  San  Antonio  Herald,  July  9, 
Jefferson  Bulletin,  August  — ,  Caddo  Gazette,  August  — ;  Texas  Repub- 
lican, August  18;  Southern  Intelligencer,  September  29. 


THE  BREAK-UP  5! 

sion  in  a  more  and  more  insistent  demand,  chiefly  on  the 
part  of  planters  and  newspapers  in  the  interior,  for  state 
regulation  of  black  labor.  The  Telegraph  alone  pointed 
out  that  the  "  North  would  not  likely  allow  the  South  thus 
to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  the  contest  over  slavery  after  having 
lost  the  contest,"  and  advocated  securing  the  immigration 
of  white  labor. 

Conditions  in  the  black  belt  did  not  materially  improve 
during  the  summer.  There  was  much  uneasiness  because 
of  persistent  rumors  that  negro  troops  were  to  be  sent  to 
Texas  for  garrison  duty ;  for  it  was  generally  felt  that  their 
presence  could  only  aggravate  the  situation  and  might  make 
it  positively  dangerous  by  inciting  unruly  negroes  to  law- 
lessness and  precipitating  racial  disturbances.  It  was  also 
known  that  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  was  to  be  established 
in  Texas,  and  the  anxiety  and  distrust  that  were  felt  as  to 
its  attitude  on  the  labor  question  did  not  tend  to  alleviate 
the  growing  discontent.  Public  opinion  had  become  skep- 
tical of  the  ability  of  the  army  officials  to  provide  the  usual 
and  necessary  supply  of  black  labor,  and  manifested  a 
greater  eagerness  for  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  regular 
state  government,  which  could  be  expected  to  deal  with  the 
problem  in  a  manner  agreeable  with  the  customs  and  social 
ideas  of  the  people.  For  this  reason,  largely,  the  arrival 
of  the  newly-appointed  provisional  governor,  who  was  to 
restore  civil  authority  and  set  in  motion  again  the  machinery 
of  state  government,  was  greeted  with  expectant  interest. 


PART  I 
PRESIDENTIAL  RECONSTRUCTION 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  STATE  UNDER  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT 
i.  Inauguration  of  the  New  Regime 

ON  June  17,  1865,  soon  after  it  became  known  that  armed 
resistance  had  ceased  in  the  Trans-Mississippi  Department 
and  that  troops  had  been  despatched  to  occupy  Galveston, 
President  Johnson,  in  pursuance  of  the  policy  adopted  in 
other  southern  states,  appointed  A.  J.  Hamilton  provisional 
governor  of  Texas.  Hamilton  was  a  native  of  Alabama, 
who  had  come  to  Texas  in  1847  and  had  become  prominent 
in  politics  before  the  war.  He  had  been  attorney-general 
of  the  state  and  in  1859  had  been  elected  to  Congress. 
Along  with  Houston  and  others  he  had  vigorously  opposed 
secession  and  refused  adhesion  to  the  Confederacy,  but 
had  remained  in  Texas  until  1862,  when,  threatened  with 
military  arrest,  he  escaped  into  Mexico  and  thence  to  New 
Orleans.  Here  he  entered  the  Federal  army  as  a  brigadier- 
general  of  volunteers,  and  in  1863,  when  the  Brownsville- 
Red-River  expedition  into  Texas  was  projected,  he  received 
a  commission  as  military  governor  of  the  state  from  Presi- 
dent Lincoln.  He  was,  therefore,  regarded  by  President 
Johnson  as  logically  the  man  for  provisional  governor  after 
the  surrender  of  the  Confederate  authorities.  Hamilton  was 
a  man  of  energy  and  ability,  of  sturdy  honesty,  aggressive 
and  uncompromising,  and  though  prone,  when  excited,  to 
violence  and  harshness  of  speech,  restrained  and  governed 
in  action  by  an  unfailing  generosity  and  abundant  common 
55]  55 


56  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [55 

sense.  He  was  an  orator  of  extraordinary  power  and  had 
enjoyed  the  reputation  of  being  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers 
in  the  South.  The  news  of  his  appointment  was  received 
with  general  satisfaction  by  the  Unionists  and  with  some 
misgivings  on  the  part  of  those  who  feared  he  was  returning 
for  purposes  of  vengeance. 

The  proclamation  which  contained  his  appointment  de- 
clared it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  guarantee  to 
each  state  a  republican  form  of  government,  and  that,  inas- 
much as  the  rebellion  had  deprived  the  people  of  Texas  of 
all  civil  government,  it  was  now  the  solemn  duty  of  the 
President,  imposed  by  the  constitution,  to  enable  the  loyal 
people  there  to  organize  a  state  government.  The  provisional 
governor  was  directed  to  prescribe  at  the  earliest  practicable 
period  rules  and  regulations  for  holding  a  convention  of 
delegates  for  the  purpose  of  altering  or  amending  the  con- 
stitution of  the  state;  and  he  was  given  authority  to  exer- 
cise all  necessary  and  proper  powers  to  restore  the  state  to 
its  constitutional  relations  to  the  United  States.  The  con- 
vention was  to  represent  only  that  portion  of  the  people  who 
were  loyal  to  the  United  States;  and  to  this  end  the  pro- 
clamation provided  that  in  the  election  for  delegates  no 
person  should  be  qualified  either  as  an  elector  or  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  convention  unless  he  had  previously  taken  the 
oath  of  amnesty,  as  prescribed  in  the  President's  proclama- 
tion of  May  29,  1865,  and  was  a  voter  as  prescribed  by  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  state  in  force  immediately  be- 
fore secession.  The  military  commander  of  the  department 
and  all  other  military  officers  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  were  directed  to  aid  and  assist  the  provisional  gov- 
ernor in  carrying  the  proclamation  into  effect,  and  were 
enjoined  to  abstain  from  hindering  or  discouraging  in  any 
way  the  loyal  people  from  organizing  a  state  government. 
The  Secretary  of  State  was  directed  to  put  in  force  all  the 


57]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  57 

laws  of  the  United  States,  the  administration  of  which  be- 
longed to  his  department  and  which  were  applicable  to  the 
state  of  Texas;  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  to  pro- 
ceed to  nominate  the  officers  necessary  to  put  into  operation 
the  revenue  laws,  giving  preference  in  each  case  to  loyal 
persons  residing  within  the  district ;  the  Postmaster-General 
was  directed  to  re-establish  the  postal  service;  the  United 
States  district  judge  for  the  district  of  Texas  was  author- 
ized to  hold  courts  according  to  the  acts  of  Congress;  the 
Attorney-General  was  directed  to  instruct  the  proper  offi- 
cers to  libel  and  bring  to  judgment,  confiscation  and  sale 
such  property  as  had  become  subject  to  confiscation;  and 
the  Secretaries  of  the  Navy  and  the  Interior  were  directed 
to  put  in  force  such  laws  as  related  to  their  respective  de- 
partments.1 

Governor  Hamilton  arrived  in  Galveston  on  July  2ist, 
where  he  was  welcomed  by  a  delegation  of  Unionists.  From 
there  he  sent  a  cheerful  letter  to  the  President,  expressing 
the  conviction  that  all  classes,  except  certain  of  the  ex-slave- 
holders, were  friends  of  the  government  and  were  rapidly 
availing  themselves  of  the  President's  amnesty  proclama- 
tion. He  deprecated  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  planters 
to  keep  the  negro  in  some  sort  of  bondage  and  to  talk  of 
"  gradual  emancipation,"  even  after  having  subscribed  to 
emancipation  in  their  oath  of  amnesty.2  On  the  25th  he 
issued  from  Galveston  a  proclamation  "  to  the  people  of  the 
state  of  Texas,"  reciting  the  manner  and  purpose  of  his 
appointment  and  indicating  in  a  general  way  the  course  he 
expected  to  take  with  respect  to  the  election  of  a  convention 
and  the  appointment  of  civil  officers.  Suitable  persons  were 
to  be  appointed  in  each  county  to  administer  the  oath  of 

1  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  vi,  p.  321. 

2  MS.  in  Johnson  Papers. 


58  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

amnesty  l  and  register  the  loyal  voters.  Civil  officers  for 
the  state,  districts  and  counties  were  to  be  appointed  pro- 
visionally. The  general  laws  and  statutes  in  force  in  the 
state  immediately  prior  to  the  ordinance  of  secession,  ex- 
cept in  so  far  as  they  had  been  modified  by  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  slaves  and  by  acts  of  Congress  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  rebellion,  were  declared  in  force  for  the  direction 
of  courts  and  civil  officers;  all  pretended  state  laws  passed 
since  secession  were  inoperative,  null,  and  void.  There  was 
to  be  "  amnesty  for  the  past,  security  for  the  future,"  but 
the  people  must  accept  the  fact  that  slavery  was  dead  and 
that  the  negroes  would  be  protected  in  their  freedom  by  the 
United  States.  Finally,  loyal  men  from  every  part  were 
invited  to  visit  the  capital  and  confer  with  the  governor 
upon  the  condition  of  the  state. 

When  the  provisional  governor  arrived  in  Austin  a  few 
days  later,  he  was  received  with  enthusiastic  ceremony  by 
the  Unionists,  of  whom  there  were  a  large  number  in  the 
city.  He  found  all  affairs  of  state  in  confusion.  There 
were  no  officials  of  a  civil  character,  the  treasury  had  been 

1  General  pardon  and  amnesty  had  been  proclaimed  by  President 
Johnson  for  all  who  had  taken  arms  against  the  United  States,  except 
certain  specified  classes,  provided  they  would  first  subscribe  to  the 

following  oath :  "I  ,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm),  in  the 

presence  of  Almighty  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."  The  classes,  fourteen  in  number,  excepted 
from  the  privileges  of  the  general  amnesty  were,  chiefly,  high  officials 
under  the  Confederacy,  or  those  who  had  left  the  service  of  the 
United  States  to  take  service  with  the  Confederacy,  or  those  who 
owned  property  to  the  value  of  over  $20,000.  It  was  necessary  for  these 
to  secure  special  pardons  from  the  President. — Messages  and  Papers 
of  the  Presidents,  vol.  vi,  pp.  310-312. 


59]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  59 

looted,  the  various  departments  were  untenanted,  the 
records  were  precariously  exposed,  there  was  even  no  roof 
on  the  capitol  building.  Immediately  a  commission  was 
appointed  to  look  into  the  condition  of  the  treasury  and  the 
comptroller's  department  and  to  audit  their  accounts;  state 
agents  were  appointed  to  look  after  and  take  charge  of 
state  property  of  whatever  description  in  the  various  dis- 
tricts; and  other  agents  were  empowered  to  locate  and  re- 
cover if  possible  bonds  alleged  to  have  been  illegally  dis- 
posed of  during  the  war.  Judge  James  H.  Bell,  associate 
justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  before  and  during 
the  war,  but  always  a  Union  man,  was  appointed  secretary  of 
state;  Wm.  Alexander,  another  Union  man,  who,  it  appears, 
had  secretly  opposed  Hamilton's  appointment,  was  made 
attorney-general.  Taxes  were  assessed  by  proclamation  and 
ordered  collected.  In  response  to  the  invitation  above  men- 
tioned, within  a  short  time  deputations  of  loyalists  from 
over  eighty  counties  made  their  way  to  Austin  to  aid  in  re- 
organizing the  government.  These  men  furnished  the  gov- 
ernor with  names  of  loyal  citizens  from  their  counties  for 
appointments  to  office,  and  were  generally  relied  upon  by 
him  for  information  concerning  conditions  in  the  various 
parts  of  the  state. 

As  rapidly  as  possible  officers  of  district,  county,  and 
justice  courts,  sheriffs,  tax  assessors  and  collectors,  and 
county  commissioners  were  appointed,  and  the  machinery 
of  the  law  set  in  motion.  The  courts  were  directed  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial  of  all  civil  and  criminal  cases  in  con- 
formity with  existing  laws  of  the  state  passed  prior  to  1861, 
and  of  the  United  States.1  The  time  of  holding  district 

1  In  one  important  particular  a  limitation  was  placed  upon  the  juris- 
diction of  the  courts.  Suits  for  the  collection  of  debts  and  for  the 
determination  of  rights  of  every  kind  could  be  instituted,  and  in  those 


60  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [6O 

courts  and  the  boundaries  of  the  districts  were  to  conform  to 
acts  passed  since  secession,  "  out  of  considerations  of  public 
policy  and  convenience."  Negroes  were  to  be  tried  and 
punished  in  the  same  manner  as  whites,  but  the  governor 
left  the  question  of  their  admission  as  witnesses  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  courts  themselves,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
a  judicial  and  not  a  political  question,  and  that  an  executive 
decision  might  be  overruled  by  some  subsequent  supreme 
court,  or  that  the  principle  might  fail  to  be  embodied  in  the 
constitution  by  the  future  convention.1  Attorney s-at-law 
not  in  the  classes  excepted  from  the  general  amnesty  were, 

involving  titles  to  land,  damages,  etc.,  the  courts  could  proceed  to  final 
judgment  and  execution;  but  in  suits  for  the  collection  of  debts  where 
the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  a  writ  of  injunction,  sequestration,  or 
attachment,  the  court  could  not  proceed  to  final  judgment  and  execution. 
— See  proclamation  of  September  8,  Executive  Records,  Register  Book, 
281. — The  reason  for  this  was  that,  in  the  prevalent  condition  of  dis- 
order and  financial  depression,  property  disposed  of  by  forced  sale 
would  bring  little  or  nothing  and  an  injustice  would  be  worked  upon 
the  debtor.  Later,  by  proclamation  of  December  5,  the  courts  were 
empowered  to  proceed  in  such  cases  to  final  judgment,  but  execution 
was  stayed. 

1  A.  J.  Hamilton  to  I.  R.  Burns,  Executive  Records,  Register  Book, 
281.  The  courts,  thus  left  to  themselves,  varied  greatly  in  their  rul- 
ings. Judge  C.  Caldwell,  in  his  charge  to  the  grand  jury  of  Harris 
county,  instructed  it  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  "has  swept  away 
those  distinctions  both  as  to  protection  and  liability  to  punishment 
which  have  hitherto  existed  between  whites  and  blacks."  These  distinc- 
tions and  the  exclusion  of  negroes  as  witnesses  had  been  necessary  to 
the  secure  tenure  of  the  slaves ;  but  "  when  the  reason  of  the  law  fails, 
the  law  likewise  fails,"  therefore  "  the  late  slaves,  now  f reedmen,  stand 
upon  terms  of  perfect  equality  with  all  other  persons  in  the  penal 
code."  Hence  all  persons  were  alike  subject  to  the  penal  law,  and  it 
necessarily  followed  "that  persons  of  African  descent"  were  "com- 
petent witnesses  where  any  of  their  race  were  parties."— Tri-lVeekly 
Telegraph,  November  29,  1865.  This  was  the  view  that  Hamilton 
himself  held.  In  most  cases,  however,  the  courts  considered  themselves 
bound  by  the  state  laws  of  1860  which  prohibited  negro  testimony  in 
any  form. 


6i]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  fa 

upon  taking  the  amnesty  oath  in  open  court,  to  be  allowed 
to  practice.1  In  all  appointments,  subscription  to  the  am- 
nesty oath  was  required,  but  preference  was  given  to  men 
of  undoubted  loyalty  in  so  far  as  such  matters  could  be  de- 
termined. In  many  counties  fit  "  union  "  applicants  were 
so  scarce  that  it  was  necessary  to  appoint  secessionists.  A 
notable  case  of  this  sort  was  the  selection  of  Richard  Coke, 
later  governor  and  United  States  senator,  as  judge  of  the 
nineteenth  judicial  district.  Though  there  were  frequent 
complaints  from  disgruntled  "  loyalist  "  office-seekers,  the 
appointments  seem  to  have  given  general  satisfaction. 

The  chief  duty  of  the  provisional  governor,  as  set  forth 
in  the  proclamation  containing  his  appointment,  was  to  pro- 
vide for  the  assembling  of  a  constitutional  convention 
elected  by  the  loyal  people  of  the  state.  The  test  of  loyalty 
was  simply  the  taking  of  the  oath  of  amnesty — a  policy  suf- 
ficiently generous,  and  based,  no  doubt,  upon  the  idea  that 
the  majority  of  the  people  had  entered  the  war  reluctantly 
and  were  at  heart  well-disposed  toward  the  Federal  gov- 
ernment. In  accordance  with  instructions,  Governor  Ham- 
ilton, on  August  I9th,  issued  a  proclamation  providing  for 
the  registration  of  voters.  In  each  county  the  chief  justice, 
the  district  clerk,  and  the  county  clerk  were  to  act  as  a  board 
of  registration  and  sit  at  least  one  day  in  each  week  at  the 
county  seat.  The  oath  of  amnesty  was  to  be  administered 
to  all  who  applied,  both  to  those  who  sought  registration 
as  voters,  and  to  those  who,  being  within  the  exceptions  to 
the  general  amnesty,  took  it  as  a  preliminary  step  toward 
special  pardon.  Separate  rolls  were  to  be  kept  of  these  two 

1  This  rule  was  later  so  far  modified  as  to  allow  attorneys  and  other 
persons  in  the  excepted  classes,  when  they  had  been  recommended  by 
the  governor  to  the  President  for  special  pardon,  to  follow  their  pro- 
fessions pending  the  decision  of  the  President. 


62  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [fa 

classes.  Meanwhile,  the  order  for  an  election  of  delegates 
was  withheld  until  the  results  of  the  registration  should 
become  known.  This  work,  however,  proceeded  very 
slowly.  Since  there  were  no  mails,  it  was  many  weeks 
before  the  proclamation  reached  some  of  the  counties,  and 
for  those  who  lived  far  from  the  county  seat  where  the 
board  held  its  meetings,  registration  was  usually  a  process 
involving  considerable  inconvenience.  But  even  when  this 
was  not  the  case  the  people  responded  to  the  invitation 
without  enthusiasm.  The  newspapers  throughout  the  state 
united  in  urging  them  to  register  in  order  to  hurry  along 
the  restoration  to  normal  conditions.  At  the  same  time  they 
urged  the  governor  to  order  an  election  and  to  assemble 
the  convention  as  early  as  possible,  for  in  all  the  other  states 
the  conventions  had  completed  their  labors  by  the  end  of 
October. 

2.  Loyalty  and  Disloyalty  in  the  State. 
The  governor  and  his  friends  were  of  the  opinion  that 
Texas  was  not  yet  in  proper  condition  for  the  calling  of  the 
convention.  It  seemed  to  them  that  the  people  were  not 
yet  free  from  their  ante-bellum  delusions  and  did  not  yet 
clearly  understand  the  problems  they  faced  and  the  proper 
way  in  which  to  solve  them.  A  lingering  belief  was  mani- 
fest, for  example,  that  compensation  might  yet  be  secured 
for  the  loss  of  slaves,  and  hence  a  reluctance  to  take  the 
amnesty  oath  lest  it  should  in  some  way  estop  claims  for 
the  compensation.  There  was  still  talk,  here  and  there,  of 
gradual  emancipation;  there  was  a  disposition  in  some  of 
the  remote  districts  to  keep  the  negroes  in  bondage  and  to 
treat  with  cruelty  those  who  endeavored  to  exercise  their 
freedom.  A  large  part  of  the  press  and  most  of  the  seces- 
sionist politicians  were  prejudiced  against  the  governor  and 
secretly  or  openly  hostile  to  the  plans  of  the  government 


63]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  63 

Because  of  this  Hamilton  and  his  advisers  considered  it 
necessary,  first  to  establish  order  and  civil  authority 
through  the  power  of  the  provisional  government  and  to 
enable  the  United  States  courts  to  repress  treasonable  ac- 
tion, and  then  allow  time  for  the  public  mind  to  become  tran- 
quillized and  to  be  directed  fairly  toward  the  changes  that 
would  be  necessary  in  the  constitution.  Because  of  the  vast 
extent  of  the  state  and  the  impracticability  of  distributing 
sufficient  troops  everywhere  to  secure  a  speedy  restoration 
of  order,  and  owing  to  the  utter  absence  of  mail  facilities 
for  informing  the  people  of  the  intentions  of  the  govern- 
ment, it  seemed  best  to  make  haste  slowly.1  Accordingly, 
with  the  view  of  making  clear  the  work  that  must  be  done 
in  the  convention,  if  the  state  was  to  enjoy  a  speedy  restora- 
tion to  its  normal  place  in  the  Union,  the  governor  issued, 
on  September  nth,  a  lengthy  address  to  the  people  of  the 
state.  After  reviewing  historically  the  whole  question  of 
slavery  and  secession,  which  he  regarded  as  a  long-con- 
tinued and  elaborate  conspiracy  against  the  Union,  and 
warning  the  people  against  the  press  and  the  politicians 
"  who  were  still  trying  to  mislead  them  by  the  same  deadly 
doctrines,"  he  explained  the  necessity  for  his  actions  as  gov- 
ernor, and  then  proceeded  to  state  his  views  on  that  prob- 
lem which  he  thought  the  people  were  least  ready  to  solve 
in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the  Federal  government.  Slav- 
ery, he  declared,  was  already  wholly  dead  and  could  not 
be  revived  in  any  form.  Compulsory  labor  laws  would  be 
regarded  by  the  people  of  the  North  as  a  mere  subterfuge 
and  would  not  be  tolerated;  for  the  people  of  that  section 
were  united  upon  this  one  thing  as  they  had  never  before 
been  united  upon  anything — "  that  slavery  must  cease  for- 

1  Letter  of  James  H.  Bell,  E.  M.  Pease  and  others,  also  of  A.  J. 
Hamilton,  MSS..  Johnson  Papers. 


64  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [64 

ever."  Now  that  the  negro  was  to  remain  free,  he  must 
be  given  equal  civil  rights  with  the  white  man,  and  should 
have  his  testimony  admitted  in  the  courts  in  all  cases,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  rules  which  applied  to  the  testimony  of 
whites.  The  governor  warned  the  people  that  without  some 
such  action  it  would  be  useless  to  expect  that  senators  and 
representatives  from  Texas  would  be  allowed  to  take  their 
seats  in  Congress.1  In  conclusion,  he  promised  that  the 
convention  should  be  called  as  soon  as  the  people  should 
have  qualified  by  taking  the  oath  of  amnesty  and  should 
have  had  an  opportunity  to  discuss  and  consider  well  the 
momentous  questions  upon  which  their  delegates  would  be 
required  to  take  action;  for  it  was  essential  to  the  speedy 
restoration  of  the  state  that  no  mistake  be  made. 

But  whatever  of  wartime  prejudice  they  may  have  har- 
bored against  Governor  Hamilton,  and  whatever  they  may 
have  thought  of  his  attitude  upon  the  negro  question,  the 
people  gave  abundant  evidence  of  good-will  toward  the  pro- 
visional government  itself.  So  weary  had  they  become  of 
disorder  and  lawlessness  and  so  fearful  of  a  purely  military 
government,  that  any  civil  authority,  even  though  one  not 
of  their  own  choosing,  was  welcome.  As  soon  as  the  new 
state  government  had  been  set  up,  public  meetings,  usually 
without  regard  to  political  affiliation,  were  called  in  many 
counties,  and  resolutions  were  passed  tendering  the  pro- 
visional governor  the  support  of  the  citizens  in  the  main- 
tenance of  law  and  order  and  in  the  restoration  of  the  civil 
government  on  the  basis  of  the  President's  policy.  In  ad- 
dition, just  and  liberal  treatment  of  the  freedmen  was 
usually  advocated,  and  sometimes  the  people  were  urged 

1  The  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph  had  long  before,  July  18,  expressed 
identical  views.  In  commenting  on  the  governor's  address  it  emphati- 
cally endorsed  his  recommendations  and  urged  the  people  to  "  support 
them  promptly  and  in  good  faith." 


65]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  65 

to  qualify  as  voters.  In  some  instances  where  the  secession 
element  was  preponderant,  the  resolutions  simply  "  accepted 
the  situation  "  and  pledged  support  to  the  authorities.1 

Party  lines  had  by  no  means  vanished,  though  they 
were  at  times  ignored.  The  secessionist  leaders  were,  of 
course,  generally  quiet;  but  the  approach  of  Federal  troops 
and  the  return  of  numbers  of  refugees  emboldened  the 
Unionists  in  many  localities  to  form  Union  associations  that 
did  not  hesitate  to  take  up  a  partisan  attitude.  "  The  Loyal 
Union  Association  "  of  Galveston,  for  example,  organized 
the  same  day  that  Hamilton  arrived  from  New  Orleans, 
pledged  itself  "  to  vote  for  no  man  for  office  who  had  ever 
by  free  acts  of  his  own  tried  to  overthrow  the  government, 
but  to  support  Union  men  always."  2  The  "  Union  Asso- 
ciation of  Bexar  County  "  in  November  declared  that  it 
was  necessary  for  Union  men  to  be  on  their  guard  lest  the 
element  which  had  endeavored  to  destroy  the  Union  get 
into  power ;  for  the  struggle,  "  not  of  arms  but  of  prin- 
ciples," was  to  be  fought  over  again.8 

A  cardinal  doctrine  of  these  Union  associations  was  that 
a  large  portion  of  the  people  of  the  state  ought  not  to  be 
reinvested  with  political  power,  because  of  their  continued 
disloyalty  to  the  Federal  government.  Assertions  to  this 
effect  were  constantly  reiterated  and  found  prominent  place 
in  Northern  journals,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  reports 
of  any  other  kind  from  Texas.  As  to  the  real  strength  of 
either  the  loyal  or  the  disloyal  sentiment  in  Texas  at  that 
time  no  accurate  statement  is  possible.  Beyond  doubt, 
most  people  were  not  enthusiastic  in  their  loyalty,  and  it 

1  For  these  meetings  see  the  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  Texas  Repub- 
lican, State  Gazette,  San  Antonio  Herald,  and  other  papers  throughout 
July  and  August,  1865. 

2  Flake's  Bulletin,  July  22,  1865. 

3  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  November  29,  1865. 


66  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [66 

was  but  natural  that  after  four  years  of  war  such  should 
have  been  the  case.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was  less  bit- 
terness than  was  manifested  under  the  harsh  Congressional 
policy  a  few  years  later.  Few  had  enjoyed  the  arbitrary 
regulations  and  exactions  which  the  Confederacy  had  been 
obliged  to  impose,  and  there  was  little  regret  for  the  passing 
of  that  government.  Perhaps  the  chief  resentment  against 
the  conqueror  grew  out  of  the  loss  of  property  in  slaves; 
and  it  seems  certain  that  tardiness  in  taking  the  oath  of 
amnesty,  set  down  by  some  as  a  proof  of  disloyalty,  was 
largely  due  to  a  fear  that  the  oath  might  be  a  bar  to  any 
future  compensation.  The  charge  that  the  element  that  had 
been  in  power  during  the  war  hoped  to  get  control  of  the 
state  government  again  was  beyond  question  true;  but  as 
they  had  not  been  disfranchised,  there  was  no  sensible 
reason  why  they  should  not  have  expected  that.  That  they 
would  have  used  the  power  thus  recovered  "  to  renew  the 
rebellion ",  is  in  every  way  inconceivable ;  but  that  they 
would  have  turned  it  against  the  radicals  of  the  North  is 
certain,  though  to  condemn  that  as  treason  seems  a  curious 
perversion  of  the  term. 

Most  of  the  charges  of  disloyalty  in  Texas  were  based 
upon  alleged  persecution  and  maltreatment  of  Union  men 
and  freedmen.  It  must  be  admitted  that  violence  of  this 
sort  constantly  occurred,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  due 
far  less  to  actual  hostility  to  the  Federal  government  than 
to  the  wide-spread  disorder  and  lawlessness  attending  the 
break-up  and  the  interregnum  following  it.  The  absence 
during  that  time  of  the  ordinary  peace  officers  had  given 
free  sway  to  turbulent  characters  of  all  sorts,  encouraged 
pillage  and  robbery,  permitted  neighborhood  feuds,  jay- 
hawking  and  guerrilla  marauding;  and  it  is  notable  that 
violence  was  not  directed  against  Unionists  and  freedmen 
alone.  The  fact  that  Union  men  had  not  always  fully  re- 


67]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  57 

covered  their  popularity  among  their  neighbors,  was  not 
evidence  in  itself  of  actual  disloyalty  on  the  part  of  the 
latter;  and  that  advantage  was  taken  of  such  unpopularity 
by  the  rowdies  who  bullied,  threatened,  and  sometimes 
robbed  or  murdered  Unionists,  is  proof  of  the  weakness  of 
the  arm  of  the  law  rather  than  of  anything  else.  The  vio- 
lence toward  freedmen  was  due  partly  to  that  tendency  of 
rowdyism  to  attack  the  weak  and  unprotected,  and  partly 
to  resentment  at  the  new  insolence  and  the  irrepressible 
bumptiousness  of  the  freedman  himself. 

In  many  counties  the  outlaws  were  so  numerous  and  so 
well  organized  that  they  could  defy  arrest,  and  in  others  so 
few  of  the  citizens  had  taken  the  amnesty  oath  that  the 
courts  were  hampered  and  delayed  by  the  difficulty  of  pro- 
curing jurors.1  The  number  and  character  of  the  general 
petitions  to  the  governor  from  various  parts  of  the  State 
asking  for  troops  or  the  organization  of  county  police,  is 
sufficient  proof  of  the  nature  of  the  disorders.  For  example, 
one  from  Bell  County,  October  9th,  recites  that  "  the  civil 
authorities  are  helpless  because  the  county  is  full  of  ruffians 
and  lawless  men,"  and  demands  troops.  Another  from 
Grayson  County,  November  loth,  declares  that  "  laws  can 
not  be  enforced  without  the  aid  of  the  military."  2  In  a 
letter  to  General  Wright,  September  27th,  the  governor  said 
that  crime  was  everywhere  rampant,  that  the  civil  authori- 
ties alone  could  not  be  depended  upon  for  some  time,  and 
that  in  many  counties  civil  process  could  not  be  executed. 
He  requested  that  military  forces  pass  through  the  counties 
where  none  were  stationed.3  But  there  were  large  districts 

1  Jno.  A.  Buckholts  to  Governor  Hamilton,  MS.  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence. 

*  MSS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

*  Executive  Records,  Register  Book,  281 


68  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [68 

comprising  several  counties  that  contained  not  a  single 
soldier,  and  the  troops  were  not  sufficient  to  police  thor- 
oughly the  vast  territory  over  which  they  exercised  author- 
ity. Therefore,  in  response  to  petitions  *  from  various  quar- 
ters where  outrages  were  occurring,  and  from  others  where 
fears  of  a  negro  uprising  existed,  the  governor  issued  a 
proclamation,  November  i8th,  authorizing  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  police  force  in  each  county,  to  be  subject  to  the  civil 
authorities  and  to  act  with  the  military.  This  police  force 
was  actually  organized  in  several  counties  and  seems  to  have 
been  very  effective  in  checking  disorders. 

Under  conditions  of  such  universal  violence  and  con- 
fusion, it  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  Union  men  had 
not  been  subject  to  insult  and  outrage.  Undoubtedly  there 
were  cases  of  unprovoked  violence  against  them,  and  there 
were  cases  in  which  mobs  were  guilty  of  intensely  disloyal 
conduct,  as  when  a  crowd  tore  to  pieces  a  United  States 
flag  on  the  court  house  at  Weatherford,2  or  when  another 
mob  at  Bonham  beat  and  shot  at  a  number  of  negroes  and 
destroyed  a  flag.3  But  such  occurrences  were  few  and  the 
preponderance  of  evidence  goes  to  show  that  most  of  these 
outrages  were  committed  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state 
and  were  the  work  of  outlaws  who  had  their  headquarters 
in  the  Indian  Territory  and  plundered  and  murdered  with- 
out distinction  of  party.4 

1  Various  MSS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  B.  F.  Barkley  to  Governor  Hamilton,  MS.  in  Executive  Correspond- 
ence. 

8  R.  B.  Sanders  to  Anthony  Bryant,  endorsed  by  Col.  M.  M.  Brown, 
U.  S.  A.,  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

4  Judge  Robert  Wilson  to  Governor  Throckmorton,  MS.  in  Executive 
Correspondence;  testimony  of  Ben  C.  Truman  before  Reconstruction 
Committee,  House  Reports,  ist  sess.,  3Qth  Cong.,  vol.  2,  pt.  iv,  p.  137; 
Kendall  to  Schuyler  Colfax,  in  San  Antonio  Herald,  April  20,  1866. 


69]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  69 

Whether  intended  for  that  purpose  or  not,  the  reports 
that  went  from  Texas  of  the  mistreatment  of  Unionists 
made  excellent  political  capital  for  the  radical  extremists  in 
Congress,  who  had  already  begun  their  attacks  on  the  Presi- 
dent's policy  of  restoration.  Many  of  these  stories  were  of 
the  most  extraordinary  sort — such,  for  example,  as  those 
in  the  anonymous  letters  which  Mr.  Sumner  was  so  fond  of 
reading  in  the  Senate 1 — and  are  unworthy  of  serious  atten- 
tion. Perhaps  the  statements  that  gained  most  credence 
at  the  North  were  those  of  Federal  officers  who  had  been 
stationed  in  Texas.  One  of  these,  General  Wm.  E.  Strong, 
inspector  general  on  the  staff  of  General  O.  O.  Howard,  is 
quoted  in  the  New  York  Herald,  in  January,  1866,  as  say- 
ing that  Texas  was  in  the  worst  condition  of  any  state  that 
he  had  visited ;  that  almost  the  whole  population  was  hostile 
in  feeling  and  action  to  the  United  States ;  that  there  was  a 
mere  semblance  of  government;  and  that  the  whites  and 
negroes  were  everywhere  ignorant,  lawless,  and  starving.1 
When  before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  in  March  he 
reiterated  the  statements,  adding  that  "  one  campaign  of  the 
United  States  army  through  eastern  Texas,  such  as  Sher- 
man's through  South  Carolina,  would  greatly  improve  th; 
temper  and  generosity  of  the  people."  General  David  S. 
Stanley,  who  had  been  stationed  at  San  Antonio  after  the 
"  break-up  ",  stated  before  the  same  committee  that  "  Texas 
was  worse  than  any  other  state  because  she  had  never  been 
whipped,"  that  the  women  were  universally  rebels,  and  that 
in  case  of  a  foreign  war  almost  the  entire  population,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Germans,  who  were  very  loyal,  would 

1  See  Congressional  Globe,  ist  sess.,  39th  Cong.,  pp.  91-95. 

2  Flake's  Bulletin,  though  a  staunch  Unionist  paper,  declared  this  in- 
terview "  a  mere  reporter's  yarn  "  because  it  contained  so  many  false 
statements. 


70  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [70 

go  ever  to  the  enemy.1  It  was  also  commonly  asserted  that 
many  rebels  who  had  been  quiet  and  submissive  at  the  close 
of  the  war,  were  now,  at  the  prospect  of  recovering  control 
of  the  state,  growing  insolent  and  defiant. 

3.  The  Freedmen  and  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau. 
There  was  no  subject  connected  with  the  restoration  of 
the  state  government  to  the  control  of  its  people  that  the 
general  public  in  the  North  watched  with  greater  solicitude 
than  the  adjustment  of  the  new  relations  with  the  freedmen. 
It  had  been  announced  that  the  treatment  accorded  these 
wards  of  the  nation  could  be  taken  as  a  sure  index  of  the 
loyalty  of  the  Southern  people.  It  was  unfortunate  that 
this  mistaken  idea  should  have  been  so  generally  accepted, 
and  unfortunate,  again,  that  the  people  of  the  South  could 
not  at  once  appreciate  its  power  and  the  necessity  of  being 
guided  by  it.  To  the  North,  as  the  rebellion  had  been 
in  behalf  of  slavery,  the  complete  destruction  of  that  insti- 
tution was  the  surest  guarantee  of  the  preservation  of  the 
Union,  and  any  attempt  to  evade  it  seemed  to  be  an  ex- 
pression of  rebellious  sentiments.  To  the  Southerner,  eman- 
cipation had  presented  itself  chiefly  as  a  confiscation  of  his 
property,  as  an  unwise  and  arbitrary  upsetting  of  the  in- 
dustrial system  to  which  the  negro  belonged,  and  as  an  in- 
justice to  the  negro  himself.  The  most  immediate  and  press- 
ing problem,  it  seemed,  was  to  preserve  the  normal  balance 
of  society,  and  to  provide  for  the  freedman  an  industrial 
position  in  that  society  such  that  agricultural  interests  would 
suffer  the  least  possible  additional  shock;  for  it  was  gener- 
ally believed  that  free  negro  labor  would  be  a  failure  and 
that  a  labor  famine  was  imminent.2 

1  See  House  Reports,   1st  sess.,  3Qth  Cong.,  vol.  2,  part  iv,  pp.  37 
and  39-40. 
» It  was  because  of  this  that  throughout  1865  and  1866  a  constant 


PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  7! 

In  fact,  the  experiences  of  the  summer  of  1865  in  Texas 
had  been  such  as  to  warrant  no  other  opinion.  In  the  south- 
central  and  south-eastern  counties  in  particular,  where  the 
actual  presence  of  the  military  made  it  difficult  for  the  whites 
to  apply  coercion,  the  blacks  had,  with  some  exceptions, 
either  preferred  not  to  enter  into  contracts  to  labor  or  had 
not  kept  them  when  made.  How  could  they  be  free,  the 
negroes  reasoned,  if  they  still  had  to  work  in  the  fields? 
Throughout  the  summer  months  they  had  slipped  away 
from  the  plantations  as  opportunity  offered  or  whim  sug- 
gested, and  despite  the  military  regulations  to  the  contrary, 
large  numbers  collected  around  the  towns  where,  luxuria- 
ting in  idleness  and  heedless  of  the  next  winter,  they  eked 
out  a  meagre  subsistence  by  petty  thieving,  begging,  or 
doing  occasional  odd  jobs.  Crowded  together  indiscrimi- 
nately in  small  huts,  they  rapidly  fell  victims  to  disease  and 
vices  of  all  sorts.1 

Meanwhile  the  harvest  time  approached  and  despite  the 
fact  that  the  acreage  was  not  large,  there  were  not  enough 
laborers  to  gather  the  crops.  The  freedmen  had  become 
possessed  of  the  singular  delusion  that  on  the  following 
Christmas  the  government  would  divide  among  them  the 
lands  of  their  former  masters.  The  government  had  given 
them  their  freedom  without  their  asking  for  it;  they  had 
heard  rumors  from  various  quarters  that  they  would  be 
given  property — why  should  it  not  be  true?  There  was  no 
use  in  working  if  they  were  to  be  made  rich  in  a  little  while ; 
so  they  met  all  propositions  to  work  with  the  response: 

agitation  was  going  on  for  promoting  the  immigration  of  white  labor. 
One  meets  it  everywhere,  in  the  press,  in  public  speeches,  in  resolutions 
of  public  meetings,  in  the  deliberations  of  the  constitutional  convention 
and  of  the  legislature. 

1  See  The  Southern  Intelligencer  (Austin),  September  29.  All  news- 
papers of  the  late  summer  bear  evidence  to  this  effect. 


72  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

11  We'll  wait  'til  Christmas."  J  It  is  small  wonder  that  the 
planter  who  saw  his  old  field  hands  idling  their  time  away 
in  town,  improvident  as  children,  making  no  preparations 
for  the  rigors  of  winter,  sinking  into  demoralization  and 
crime,  while  his  crop  went  to  waste  for  the  lack  of  their 
labor,  should  have  looked  forward  to  some  remedy,  some 
law  that  would  bring  back  these  victims  of  a  mistaken  phil- 
anthropy to  the  work  which  their  own  welfare  as  well  as 
that  of  the  general  public  seemed  to  demand.  None  but  a 
system  of  coercion,  he  thought,  offered  any  promise  of  the 
necessary  relief. 

The  Freedmen's  Bureau,  created  by  act  of  Congress, 
March  3,  1865,  to  ta^e  control  of  all  subjects  relating  to 
freedmen,  refugees,  and  abandoned  lands  in  the  conquered 
states,  did  not  begin  operations  in  Texas  until  much  later 
than  elsewhere.  The  assistant  commissioner  appointed  for 
Texas,  General  E.  M.  Gregory,  arrived  at  Galveston  late 
in  September,  and,  although  he  seems  to  have  been  actively 
at  work,  it  was  not  until  December  that  he  so  far  perfected 
an  organization  as  to  appoint  a  dozen  local  agents,  of  whom 
five  were  civilians,  at  the  most  important  points  in  the  in- 

1  Weekly  State  Gazette  (Austin),  November  25,  1865.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  fix  the  whole  responsibility  for  this  belief.  The  Federal  officers 
said  that  it  should  fall  upon  those  citizens  and  public  speakers  who 
during  the  war  declared  that  if  the  "  Yankees  "  won,  the  negroes  would 
be  freed,  property  confiscated  and  given  to  them,  and  the  whites  en- 
slaved. The  negroes  believed  and  remembered.  Strong,  House  Exec. 
Docs.,  no.  70,  p.  308,  ist  sess.,  39th  Cong.  The  citizens,  on  the  other 
hand,  asserted  that  the  Northern  radicals  who  talked  of  "  forty  acres 
and  a  mule"  had  started  it;  and  that  many  of  the  Federal  soldiers,  in 
order  to  wheedle  money  from  the  negroes,  fraternized  with  them,  told 
them  there  would  be  a  division  of  land  at  Christmas,  and  that  the 
soldiers  who  had  won  them  their  freedom  would  help  them  and  stand 
by  them. — C.  B.  Stuart  to  Governor  Hamilton,  MS.  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence. Probably  both  accusations  were  true. 


73]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  73 

terior.1  In  the  meantime,  the  local  work  had  been  carried 
on  by  the  various  post  commanders.  From  the  beginning 
General  Gregory  addressed  himself  assiduously  to  amelior- 
ating the  labor  situation.  In  his  first  circular  order,  Oc- 
tober 1 2th,  after  emphasizing  the  freedom  of  the  blacks  and 
making  clear  that  the  Bureau  was  authorized  not  only  to  act 
for  them  and  to  adjudicate  all  cases  in  which  they  were  con- 
cerned if  the  civil  courts  had  failed  them,  but  also  to  give 
them  substantial  protection,  he  urged  upon  the  freedmen 
the  necessity  for  their  going  to  work  under  contracts  care- 
fully drawn  up  and  approved  and  registered  by  the  Bureau. 
All  officers  and  good  citizens  were  enjoined  to  disabuse  the 
minds  of  the  freedmen  of  any  idea  of  a  Christmas  division 
of  property.  In  November,  General  Gregory,  in  company 
with  Inspector-General  Strong,  made  a  tour  through  the 
eastern  counties  for  the  purpose  of  acquainting  himself  with 
conditions  there.  During  the  trip  he  endeavored  to  give 
the  blacks  a  knowledge  of  their  real  situation,  especially 
with  reference  to  the  necessity  for  and  the  manner  of  mak- 
ing contracts  for  the  next  year.  He  returned  exceedingly 
optimistic  with  regard  to  the  character  and  promise  of  the 
sable  populace.2 

In  the  meantime,  so  many  petitions  had  poured  in  upon 

1  See  his  Circular  Order  no.  2,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  no.  70,  p.   147, 
ist  sess.,  3Qth  Cong. 

2  In  the  light  of  over  forty  years  of  subsequent  history,  the  following 
statement,  made  soon  afterwards,  is  highly  diverting :     "  The  freedmen 
are,  as  a  general  thing,  strongly  impressed  with  religious  sentiments, 
and  their  morals  are  equal  if  not  superior  to  those  of  a  majority  of  the 
better   informed  and   educated.     We  find  them  not  only  willing  but 
anxious  to  improve  every  opportunity  offered  for  their  moral  and  intel- 
lectual advancement,"  etc.    It  is  also  an  example  of  the  pathetic  ignor- 
ance which  some  of  these  high  officials  had  of  their  wards.    Report  to 
General  O.  O.  Howard,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  no.  70,  p.  375,  ist  sess., 
39th  Cong. 


74  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [74 

the  governor  to  forestall  a  threatened  uprising  of  the  blacks 
at  Christmas  that  he  authorized  the  organization  of  county 
police.1  Furthermore,  on  November  I7th,  he  issued  an  ad- 
dress to  the  negroes  which  he  caused  the  chief  justice  of 
each  county  to  read  to  them.  He  told  them  in  the  plainest 
terms  that  they  must  go  to  work,  that  they  could  not  remain 
idle  without  becoming  criminal,  that  they  would  get  nothing 
more  from  the  government  either  at  Christmas  or  at  any 
other  time,  and  that  if  they  disturbed  the  property  of  others 
they  would  be  severely  punished.  Reinforced  by  the  efforts 
of  General  Gregory  and  the  army  officials,  the  address  seems 
to  have  had  a  very  good  effect,  but  many  of  the  negroes 
still  cherished  a  lingering  hope  until  it  was  dispelled  at 
Christmas. 

General  Gregory  exerted  himself  during  December  and 
January  to  put  labor  upon  a  firm  basis  for  the  next  year; 
and,  though  his  lack  of  intimate  understanding  of  the  negro 
character  and  his  failure  to  appreciate  and  to  take  into  ac- 
count the  common  notions  of  social  precedence  often  gave 
offense  to  the  whites  and  retarded  somewhat  the  success  of 
his  plans,  his  energy  and  perseverance  did  much  to  bring 
about  a  more  hopeful  situation.  Planters  were  urged  to 
settle  with  the  laborers  for  the  past  season  and  to  make 
contracts  with  them  at  once  for  the  ensuing  year  on  fair 
and  liberal  terms.2  In  order  to  promote  the  contract  system 
he  made  a  trip  through  the  lower  river-bottom  counties 

1  Supra,  p.  64. 

2  There  was  considerable  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  blacks  that  they 
were  not  promptly  paid  for  the  season  past.    The  delay  was  sometimes 
due  to  the  scarcity  of  specie,  sometimes  to  disputes  over  alleged  violations 
of  contracts  by  negroes,  sometimes  to  the  employer's  dishonest  endeavor 
to  take  advantage  of  the  freedman's  ignorance.     Frequently  the  con- 
tracts made  in  the  early  summer  had  provided  that  the  negroes  work 
for  board,  clothing,  and  medical  attendance,  and  these  also  were  prolific 
sources  of  trouble.    Supra,  p.  45. 


PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  75 

where  the  black  population  was  densest.  General  conditions 
came  to  his  aid.  Cotton  planting  was  immensely  profitable 
because  of  the  high  prices  then  being  paid  for  the  staple, 
and  planters  who  were  sceptical  of  free  negro  labor  grew 
willing  to  give  it  a  trial.  With  the  calling  of  the  constitu- 
tional convention,  political  affairs  began  to  assume  a  more 
stable  aspect,  so  that  people  were  no  longer  apprehensive  of 
confiscation.  Many  of  the  blacks  who  had  been  brought 
into  Texas  during  the  war  were  now  making  their  way 
back  into  the  other  states.1  The  demand  for  labor  grew 
keener.  On  the  other  hand,  the  negroes,  having  been  dis- 
appointed in  their  Christmas  expectations,  were  more  ready 
to  work.  In  many  instances,  too,  where  they  were  out  of 
reach  of  the  Bureau's  commissary  stores,  their  previous  im- 
providence now  forced  them  to  work  to  secure  food.  A 
report  from  Washington  County  in  the  black  belt,  January 
24th,  stated  that  in  that  county  two-thirds  of  the  freed 
population  were  then  at  work  at  good  wages,  that  seven 
thousand  contracts  had  been  filed  already,  and  that  unem- 
ployed freedmen  were  becoming  scarce.2  Similar  reports 
came  from  other  communities  and  the  situation  gradually 
grew  more  promising  throughout  the  state. 

It  may  not  be  inappropriate  at  this  point  to  indicate 
briefly  the  general  character  of  the  work  the  Bureau  had  to 
do  in  Texas.  There  were  no  abandoned  lands  in  the  state 
and  the  Union  refugees  usually  depended  upon  the  military 
for  such  protection  as  they  needed ;  consequently  the  activi- 
ties of  the  Bureau  were  confined  to  looking  after  the  inter- 
ests of  the  negro.  These  activities  may  be  classified  roughly 
as  relief  work,  educational  work,  labor  supervision,  and 

1  Report  of  General  Strong,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  no.  70,  p.  312,  ist 
sess.,  3Qth  Cong. 
8  Flake's  Bulletin,  January  24,  1866. 


76  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [76 

judicial  protection.  Its  supervision  of  labor  interests,  that 
is,  oversight  of  contracts  and  wages,  has  already  been  con- 
sidered, and  for  the  others  brief  statements  will  suffice.  The 
actual  relief  work  done  was  comparatively  slight.  Rations 
were  issued  somewhat  extensively  by  the  military  au- 
thorities in  the  early  summer,  but  since  there  was  plenty  of 
food  to  be  had  for  work,  this  practice  was  gradually  checked. 
During  the  winter  the  number  fed  increased,  but  by 
the  end  of  January  only  sixty-seven  were  receiving  gov- 
ernment support.1  One  hospital  had  been  established,  but 
ceased  to  be  used  after  the  close  of  winter.2  The  educa- 
tional work  was  under  the  charge  of  Lieutenant  E.  M. 
Wheelock,  who,  by  the  end  of  January  had  in  operation 
twenty-six  day  and  night  schools  with  an  enrollment  of 
about  sixteen  hundred  pupils.3  These  schools  were  sup- 
ported partly  by  voluntary  contributions,  partly  by  a  small 
tuition  fee.  But  that  function  of  the  Bureau  which,  from 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  exercised,  caused  more  irrita- 
tion to  the  whites  than  any  other,  was  the  extension  of  pro- 
tection over  the  negro  in  the  state  courts.  In  localities 
where  such  courts,  by  reason  of  the  old  code,  refused  to 
allow  the  negro  to  give  testimony  or  otherwise  denied  him 
justice,  it  was  made  the  duty  of  all  Bureau  officials  to  with- 
draw from  the  courts  and  themselves  adjudicate  cases  in 
which  a  freedman  was  concerned.4  Unfortunately,  the  wide 
powers  here  implied  were  not  always  used  with  honesty 
or  discretion;  and  too  often,  by  arbitrary  or  needless  inter- 
ference with  the  regular  courts,  the  Bureau  forfeited  public 

1  Gregory  to  'Howard,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  no.  70,  p.  305,  ist  sess., 
39th  Cong.    Sick  and  aged  negroes  were  required  to  be  supported  by 
their  former  masters. 

2  Peirce,  The  Freedmen's  Bureau,  p.  90. 

8  Gregory  to  Howard,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  loc.  cit.,  p.  307. 
4  O.  O.  Howard,  Circular  Order,  Ibid.,  p.  146. 


77]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  77 

confidence  and  weakened  its  efforts  along  other  lines.  How- 
ever, the  worst  abuses  developed  only  after  the  suffrage 
had  given  political  power  into  the  hands  of  the  negro  and 
had  made  it  profitable  for  the  ambitious  Bureau  agent  to 
court  his  favor.  For  the  time  the  zealous  activity  of  the 
assistant  commissioner  in  clearing  the  towns  of  idle  negroes 
won  the  good  will  of  the  press  and  the  public.1 

4.  Relations  of  the  Civil  and  the  Military  Authorities 
The  proclamation  appointing  Governor  Hamilton  had 
neither  clearly  defined  the  powers  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernor, nor  explained  his  proper  relations  with  the  military 
authorities  further  than  to  order  that  they  should  aid  him 
in  the  performance  of  his  duties  and  not  interfere  with  him. 
It  was  evident,  however,  that  while  each  within  a  certain 
sphere  enjoyed  exclusive  authority,  there  was  a  region  over 
which  they  exercised  concurrent  or  rival  jurisdiction;  and 
it  early  became  clear  that  conflicts  were  likely  to  arise  in 
matters  pertaining  to  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  es- 
pecially in  criminal  cases.  Prior  to  the  establishment  of  the 
provisional  civil  courts,  all  criminal  cases  had  been  disposed 
of  through  military  courts ;  and,  while  it  was  generally  ex- 
pected that  the  latter  would  now  abandon  a  large  class  of 
cases  to  the  civil  authorities,  the  military  jurisdiction  over 
such  matters  had  not  been  expressly  abrogated  or  curtailed. 
The  establishment  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  courts  in- 
creased the  opportunities  for  conflicts.  There  were,  there- 
fore, three  classes  of  courts  in  the  state,  all  claiming  crimi- 
nal jurisdiction.  The  army  claimed  control  of  all  matters 
in  which  soldiers  or  employees  of  the  government  were  in- 
volved, and  was  responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  order 

1  Flake's  Bulletin,  January  24;  San  Antonio  Herald,  March  5;  Gal- 
vest  on  News,  March  6,  1866. 


78  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [78 

where  the  civil  courts  were  not  organized;  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  exercised  jurisdiction  over  matters  relating  to  f reed- 
men,  especially  where  it  was  believed  that  the  civil  authori- 
ties would  not  do  them  justice;  the  civil  courts  claimed  juris- 
diction in  all  criminal  cases,  though  in  the  face  of  the  mili- 
tary power,  these  claims  were  not  always  strenuously  as- 
serted. 

Governor  Hamilton  and  General  Wright,  the  department 
commander,1  preserved  amicable  relations  throughout,  and 
endeavored  in  every  way  to  prevent  a  conflict.  On  August 
1 7th  the  governor  wrote  to  General  C.  C.  Andrews,  one  of 
the  district  commanders,  requesting  that  a  white  man, 
whom  the  military  had  arrested  for  the  murder  of  a  freed- 
man,  be  turned  over  to  the  civil  court  for  trial.2  The  gov- 
ernor was  evidently  not  sure  of  his  ground,  for  he  asked 
what  course  the  military  authorities  proposed  to  take  in 
criminal  cases.  He  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  would  be 
entirely  safe  to  remit  all  offenders  to  the  civil  courts  for 
trial  and  that  it  would  be  good  policy  to  do  so,  since  the 
people  felt  much  anxiety  in  the  matter.  Soon  afterwards 
he  changed  his  mind.  On  September  27th  he  wrote  to 
General  Wright,  asking  that  the  military  branch  of  the  gov- 
ernment execute  vigorous  punishment  upon  criminals,  and 
confessing  that  the  civil  authorities  could  not  be  depended 
upon  for  some  time.  With  respect  to  the  relations  between 
the  two,  he  did  not  regard  the  provisional  government  of 
the  state  as  having  superseded  the  military  authority.  His 
view  of  the  political  condition  of  Texas  was  this : 

There  is  no  constitutional  state  government.    The  provisional 

1  General  H.  G.  Wright  relieved  General  Granger  of  command  of  the 
Department  of  Texas  on  August  6,  1865. 
»  Executive  Records,  Register  Book,  281. 


79]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  jg 

government  of  Texas  is  created  by  and  exists  at  the  will  of 
the  President.  My  authority  as  provisional  governor  is  lim- 
ited to  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  prepare  the 
people  of  the  state  and  provide  means  for  a  convention  to 
organize  a  new  constitutional  state  government,  which,  when 
adopted  and  recognized  by  the  general  government,  will  super- 
sede, within  the  limits  of  its  jurisdiction,  the  military  power 
in  all  things  not  properly  pertaining  to  the  military  authority 
of  the  United  States  in  time  of  peace.  For  the  present,  the 
action  of  the  civil  authorities  created  by  me  is  allowed  only 
as  a  means— to  the  extent  that  they  can  be  made  available — 
of  aiding  the  authorities  of  the  general  government  in  preserv- 
ing public  peace  and  order,  and  in  protecting  individual  rights 
and  property.  I  have  felt  sure  the  general  government  would 
not  object  to  such  quasi-civil  government  as  I  have  tempor- 
arily effected,  but  it  would  be  in  conflict  with  the  views  of  the 
government  to  claim  for  the  provisional  government  any 
power  except  such  as  emanates  directly  from  the  President. 
In  this  view  I  not  only  see  no  objection  to  the  trial  of  offend- 
ers before  military  tribunals,  but  believe  it  a  necessity  unavoid- 
able without  great  detriment  to  the  highest  interests  of  the 
people.1 

In  reply  to  this,  General  Wright  disclaimed  any  wish 
to  interfere  with  civil  processes  when  it  could  be  avoided. 
He  said : 

It  was  understood  when  I  assumed  command  that,  ist,  all 
matters  between  white  citizens  of  the  state  were  to  be  acted 
on  by  the  civil  authorities  constituted  by  you,  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable. 2d.  That  matters  in  which  freedmen  were  concerned 
were  to  be  left  to  the  action  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  which 
was  to  act  through  specially  appointed  agents,  of  which  your 
officers  might  form  a  part.  3rd.  That  the  military  authority 
should  confine  itself  to  matters  pertaining  to  the  military,  and 

1  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 


80  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [go 

should  give  necessary  aid  either  to  the  civil  authority  or  to  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau. 

Since  it  seemed  that  this  program,  though  highly  desirable, 
could  not  be  carried  out,  he  agreed 

to  issue  an  order  directing  military  commanders  to  turn  over 
to  civil  tribunals  all  criminal  cases,  wherein  soldiers  are  not 
concerned,  where  the  civil  authority  is  in  condition  to  act,  and 
where  justice  to  all  concerned  can  be  looked  for — the  colored 
man  being  put  upon  perfect  equality  with  the  white  before 
the  courts — and  where  such  justice  can  not  be  expected,  to 
bring  the  cases  for  trial  before  a  military  commission  or  a 
Freedman's  Bureau  court.1 

An  understanding  was  thus  effected  defining  more  clearly 
the  limitations  within  which  each  class  of  officials  was  to 
exercise  jurisdiction;  but  it  necessarily  left  unsettled  the 
questions  as  to  when  the  civil  authority  was  strong  enough 
to  deal  with  public  disorders  without  the  interference  of 
the  military,  and  whether  the  civil  court  was  granting  the 
freedman  the  privileges  to  which  he  was  entitled.  The 
effectiveness  of  such  an  agreement  would  depend  chiefly 
upon  the  mutual  forbearance  of  those  entrusted  with  carry- 
ing it  out  in  detail,  and  it  was  too  much  to  expect  a  great 
measure  of  that  quality  from  the  average  post  commander, 
ignorant  of  the  civil  law  and  impatient  of  a  less  direct 
method  than  that  to  which  the  camp  had  accustomed  him,  or 
from  the  judge  who  sought  to  uphold  the  dignity  of  the 
civil  authority  and  felt  constrained  to  base  his  acts  upon 
what  remained  of  the  old  code. 

The  first  serious  trouble  was  at  Victoria,  where  Colonel 
I.  T.  Rose,  of  the  77th  Pennsylvania,  was  stationed.  Eight 

1  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 


g!]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  gl 

distinct  charges  of  outrageous  conduct  on  the  part  of  Rose 
were  laid  before  the  governor.1  Finally,  a  white  man, 
M.  M.  Gwinn,  who  had  killed  a  negro  and  had  been  ac- 
quitted in  a  preliminary  trial  in  open  court,  in  which  the 
testimony  of  negroes  was  freely  admitted,  was,  after  being 
released,  rearrested  by  Rose  and  confined  in  jail.  A  cer- 
tified copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  court  was  put  in  the 
hands  of  the  governor,  who  sent  a  peppery  letter  to  the 
Colonel,  demanded  the  release  of  Gwinn,  and  laid  the 
matter  before  General  Wright.  Wright  ordered  the  release 
of  Gwinn  and  soon  afterwards  Rose  was  transferred  to  duty 
elsewhere. 

A  more  serious  affair  occurred  at  Jefferson.  R.  L. 
Robertson,  acting  as  treasury  agent,  was  indicted  by  a  grand 
jury  on  three  distinct  charges,  two  of  swindling  and  one 
of  theft.  He  was  released  by  the  interference  of  Captain 
Jones,  the  post  commander.  He  was  again  arrested  and 
his  release  was  ordered  of  District  Judge  Gray  by  Major 
Clingman,  at  Marshall.  After  the  judge  had  twice  refused, 
Captain  Jones  with  a  body  of  soldiers  forcibly  took  Robert- 
son from  jail.  The  civil  authorities  appealed  to  the  gov- 
ernor; the  military  appealed  to  their  superiors.  General 
Canby  issued  the  following:  "State  courts  have  no  juris- 
diction over  their  [treasury  agents']  official  conduct,  nor 
can  they,  without  usurpation,  investigate  the  title  of  prop- 

1  Among  these  charges  were  the  following :  ( i )  Robert  Tibbett  was 
confined  in  jail  for  nine  days  on  no  charge  whatever.  He  employed 
counsel,  who  was  threatened  with  imprisonment  if  he  pressed  matters. 
(2)  A  negro,  arrested  and  jailed  for  horse-stealing,  was  released  by 
Rose.  (3)  Another  negro,  committed  on  two  distinct  charges,  was 
likewise  released  by  soldiers.  (4)  Judge  L.  A.  White,  who  had  gone 
to  Rose  to  complain  of  depredations  of  soldiers,  was  cursed,  abused, 
shot  at,  and  jailed  by  the  drunken  colonel.  He  was  released  only 
when  he  agreed  to  drop  the  matter. — C.  Carsner  and  others  to  Governor 
Hamilton,  MSS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 


82  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [82 

erty  held  by  the  United  States  as  captured  and  abandoned." 
Concerning  this  Judge  Gray  wrote  to  Hamilton :  "  The  dis- 
trict court  of  Marion  County  has  never  claimed  jurisdiction 
over  the  official  acts  of  agents  of  the  government,  but  when 
an  agent  violates  the  penal  code,  the  district  court  has 
claimed  and  exercised  jurisdiction  over  him.  As  well  had 
the  agent  claimed  freedom  from  arrest  for  murder  as  for 
any  other  crime."  The  judge  then  said  that  if  he  could 
not  punish  cotton  thieves  he  would  not  punish  any,  and 
declined  to  hold  other  courts.  In  the  meantime,  his  arrest 
was  threatened  if  the  indictments  were  not  withdrawn. 
The  matter  dragged  along  in  this  fashion  until  all  attempts 
to  bring  Robertson  to  justice  had  to  be  abandoned.1 

Aside  from  the  disputes  over  the  respective  jurisdictions 
of  the  civil  and  military,  in  some  localities  the  conduct  of 
the  troops  was  a  source  of  irritation  and  complaint.  In  the 
summer  of  1865  Flake's  Bulletin,  of  Galveston,  was  full  of 
references  to  outrages  perpetrated  by  the  Federal  soldiers 
stationed  in  that  city.  Open  robbery,  insults  to  women,  and 
disorderly  conduct  were  matters  of  daily  comment.  The 
troubles  at  Victoria  have  already  been  indicated.  The  troops 
here  were  white.  By  far  the  greatest  complaint  was  against 
the  colored  troops  that  were  brought  into  the  state  in  the  late 
summer  and  fall  to  replace  the  white  volunteer  regiments 
that  were  being  discharged.  In  November  a  petition  was 
sent  Governor  Hamilton  from  Jackson  County  for  relief 
from  a  body  of  three  hundred  negro  troops  that  had  been 
detailed  there  to  cut  ties  for  the  Lavaca  and  San  Antonio 
Railroad.  These  negroes  were  heavily  armed  and  parties 
of  them  roamed  about  the  country  robbing  plantations,  in 
suiting  and  sometimes  outraging  women,  inciting  the  resi- 

1  See  various  letters,  MSS.,  in  Executive  Correspondence.    Also  The 
Southern  Intelligencer,  December  21,  1865. 


83]  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNMENT  83 

dent  negroes  to  like  conduct,  and  keeping  the  whole  country 
in  constant  terror.1  Negro  troops  were  quartered  at  Gal- 
veston  in  the  winter,  and  were  constantly  giving  trouble. 
In  the  latter  part  of  February  they  broke  loose  from  all 
restraint  and  spread  terror  over  the  city.  A  young  lady,  a 
member  of  one  of  the  most  respectable  families,  was  as- 
saulted and  horribly  treated,  and  several  persons  were  at- 
tacked and  shot  at.  The  Bulletin  of  February  28,  1866, 
says :  "  On  Saturday  these  outrages  reached  their  climax, 
stimulated,  no  doubt,  by  the  terrible  homicide  of  the  day. 
During  Saturday  and  Sunday  a  reign  of  terror,  which  has 
not  yet  wholly  subsided,  held  sway  over  the  city."  After 
recounting  a  number  of  unprovoked  attacks  upon  the  citi- 
zens, it  goes  on  to  say :  "  The  peace  of  the  city  must  be  pre- 
served. If  the  police  force  can  not  do  it,  then  let  the  mili- 
tary officials  take  entire  control;  and  if  they  can  not,  then 
the  citizens  must  do  it  for  themselves."  There  were  num- 
bers of  other  collisions  less  conspicuous.  Ben  C.  Truman, 
the  able  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Times,  in  a  com- 
munication published  March  5th,  says  that  large  numbers  of 
deserters  from  the  volunteer  regiments  in  the  western  part 
of  the  state  were  committing  all  sorts  of  murders  and  out- 
rages in  the  country,  most  of  which  were  charged  against 
the  people  of  that  section. 

One  of  the  most  troublesome  problems  that  the  state  had 
to  face  at  this  time  was  the  condition  of  its  frontier.  This 
region  had  been  subject  to  Indian  attacks  throughout  the 
war,  but  some  attempt  at  organized  protection  had  been 
made  by  the  state  and  Confederate  authorities.  After  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Confederate  troops  from  the  west,  the 
Indians,  the  Comanches  in  particular,  began  raiding  and 

1  Petition  and  letters  to  Governor  Hamilton,  MSS.  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence. 


84  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [84 

murdering  in  the  exposed  settlements.  The  people  were 
unable  to  defend  themselves  from  the  sudden  attacks,  and 
the  depredations  became  more  frequent  and  of  greater  mag- 
nitude. Throughout  1865  and  1866  the  whole  extent  of  the 
frontier  from  north  to  south  was  in  constant  terror  and  be- 
came almost  depopulated.  The  governor  was  besieged  with 
petitions  for  troops  and  made  repeated  requests  to  General 
Wright  for  cavalry.  Wright  disclaimed  any  authority  over 
the  cavalry  and  referred  the  matter  to  Sheridan.  Sheridan 
refused  the  troops  on  the  ground  that  they  were  needed  at 
interior  garrisons  for  the  protection  of  freedmen.  Ham- 
ilton, too,  believed  that  there  were  not  enough  troops  in  the 
interior  to  maintain  order,  and  thereafter  contented  himself 
with  appealing  to  Washington  for  more  soldiers  for  Texas. 
Almost  two  years  elapsed,  however,  before  frontier  posts 
were  finally  established  and  some  measure  of  protection  af- 
forded. 


CHAPTER  V 

TH£  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866 

i'i  was  not  until  November  I5th,  nearly  three  months 
from  the  beginning  of  registration,  that,  a  majority  of  the 
voters  having  qualified,  a  proclamation  was  issued  fixing 
the  date  of  the  election  for  January  8,  1866.  The  conven- 
tion was  to  meet  at  Austin  on  February  7th  and  was  to  con- 
sist of  delegates  equal  in  number  to  the  members  of  the  lower 
house  of  the  state  legislature  and  distributed  among  the 
counties  in  like  manner.  Delegates  were  not  required  to  be 
residents  of  the  districts  selecting  them,  and  no  person 
within  the  classes  excepted  from  the  general  amnesty  was 
eligible  as  a  delegate  unless  pardoned  by  the  President.  This 
last  provision  was  criticised  as  exceeding  the  governor's 
instructions,  for  the  only  restriction  imposed  by  the  Presi- 
dent's proclamation  was  that  each  delegate  should  have 
taken  the  amnesty  oath. 

Now  that  the  election  and  the  assembling  of  the  conven- 
tion were  definitely  provided  for,  candidates  appeared  and 
a  livelier  interest  was  shown  in  the  questions  that  must  come 
up  for  settlement.  By  this  time  the  example  of  the  other- 
states  and  the  known  attitude  of  the  President  had  wrought 
practical  unanimity  on  the  points  that  seemed  most  im- 
portant: that  slavery  was  a  thing  of  the  past  and  that  the 
fact  should  be  recognized  in  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion; that  the  war  debt  should  be  annulled  or  repudiated; 
and  that  the  act  of  secession  should  be  nullified.  But  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  these  things  should  be  done,  and  as  to 
the  settlement  of  certain  related  problems,  there  was  wide 
85]  85 


86  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [86 

divergence  of  opinion.  Should  the  secession  ordinance  be 
repealed  simply,  or  declared  null  by  reason  of  the  failure 
of  the  war,  or  null  and  void  from  its  inception?  The  war 
debt  must  be  nullified ;  but  what  of  a  certain  portion  of  the 
civil  debt  that  had  been  used  indirectly  in  prosecution  of  the 
war,  and  another  portion  that  had  been  contracted  in  a 
manner  prohibited  by  the  constitution  of  1845?  ^  was 
agreed  that  slavery  must  be  abolished ;  but  what  of  the  status 
of  the  f reedman  ?  To  what  extent  would  it  be  safe  and  ex- 
pedient to  invest  him  with  those  civil  rights  that  had  long 
been  the  very  foundations  of  liberty  for  the  dominant  race? 
All  of  these  were  matters  of  the  highest  importance,  but 
perhaps  the  last  received  the  greatest  attention.  With  re- 
spect to  it  most  of  the  candidates  showed  varying  degrees 
of  conservatism.  W.  C.  Dalrymple,  who  proved  the  suc- 
cessful candidate  in  Williamson  and  Travis  counties,  said 
in  a  published  letter : 

My  opponents,  .  .  .  each  and  all,  concede  something  to  the 
negroes ;  some  more,  some  less,  approximating  to  equality  with 
the  white  race.  I  concede  them  nothing  but  the  station  of 
"  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  ".  ...  If  a  republi- 
can form  of  government  is  to  be  sustained,  the  white  race 
must  do  it  without  any  negro  alloy.  A  mongrel  Mexico  af- 
fords no  fit  example  for  imitation.  I  desire  the  perpetuation 
of  a  white  man's  government.  .  .  .  The  negro  is  and  must 
remain  free.  This  is  one  of  the  results  of  the  late  conflict 
He  must  be  protected  in  person  and  property ;  this  is  due  to 
justice  and  humanity,  but  I  hope  and  believe  that  legislative 
wisdom  can  devise  some  mode  of  securing  fully  those  rights 
without  an  equality  in  the  courts  of  the  country.  Of  course 
I  am  opposed  to  negro  suffrage  in  whatever  form  or  with 
whatever  limitations  it  may  be  proposed.1 

This  was  the  ultra-conservative  view.    Another  candidate, 
1  State  Gazette,  January  6,  1866. 


87]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  g? 

also  successful,  Colonel  M.  T.  Johnson,  of  Tarrant  county, 
a  moderate  Unionits,  declared  in  a  published  circular  his 
opposition  to  granting  the  negro  any  political  rights  what- 
ever, and  insisted  that  he  should  be  made  to  work  by  uni- 
form laws  regulating  pauperism,  labor,  and  apprenticeship; 
but  at  the  same  time  asserted  the  necessity  of  treating  him 
with  justice  and  kindness  in  his  helpless  condition.1  A 
large  number  favored  allowing  the  freedman  a  right  to  tes- 
tify in  cases  in  which  a  negro  was  concerned.  A  few,  the 
most  advanced,  would  have  extended  this  right  to  all  cases. 
There  seems  to  have  been  only  one  candidate,  E.  Degener, 
a  prominent  German  of  San  Antonio,  who  openly  advo- 
cated negro  suffrage. 

The  most  notable  contribution  to  the  public  discussion 
was  a  long  and  earnest  letter  to  the  people  of  Texas  from 
John  H.  Reagan,  then  a  prisoner  of  war  at  Fort  Warren, 
Boston,  where  he  had  been  confined  since  his  capture  in 
May.  This  letter  was  truly  remarkable  for  the  clearness 
with  which  it  grasped  the  real  facts  of  the  situation  and  pre- 
dicted the  results  that  must  inevitably  flow  from  a  failure 
to  apprehend  the  spirit  prevailing  among  the  people  of  the 
North.  It  was  written  on  August  n,  1865,  and  was  pub- 
lished in  the  Texas  papers  about  the  first  of  October.  The 
state,  Reagan  thought,  occupied  the  position  of  a  conquered 
nation.  The  state  government  would  not  be  restored  until  a 
policy  should  be  adopted  acceptable  to  the  will  of  the  con- 
querors. "  A  refusal  to  accede  to  these  conditions  would 
only  result  in  a  prolongation  of  the  time  during  which  you 
will  be  deprived  of  the  civil  government  of  your  own  choice, 
and  will  continue  subject  to  military  rule."  In  order  to 
avoid  this  danger  it  was  necessary  to  recognize  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  United  States  government  and  its  right 

1  San  Antonio  Daily  Herald,  January  3,  1866. 


88  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [88 

to  protect  itself  against  secession,  and  to  recognize  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery  and  the  right  of  freedmen  to  the  privileges 
and  protection  of  the  law.  It  seemed  probable,  however, 
that  this  alone  would  not  satisfy  the  people  of  the  North; 
it  was  very  probable,  in  fact,  that  they  would  demand  noth- 
ing less  than  suffrage  for  the  freedmen.  Reagan  thought 
the  South  in  no  position  to  resist  such  a  demand,  although 
bitter  opposition  was  to  be  expected  on  the  part  of  Southern 
men.  The  demand  could  be  satisfied  by:  First,  admitting 
the  testimony  of  negroes  in  the  courts,  subject  only  to  the 
same  rules  as  applied  to  whites;  second,  fixing  an  intel- 
lectual, moral,  and  if  necessary,  a  property  test  for  the  ad- 
mission of  all  persons  to  the  elective  franchise,  regardless 
of  race  or  color,  provided  that  no  person  previously  entitled 
to  vote  should  be  deprived  of  the  right  by  any  new  test. 
The  results  of  such  a  policy  would  be  to  remove  the  grounds 
of  hostility  between  the  races  and  put  an  end  to  sectional 
and  interstate  agitation.1 

Whatever  the  inherent  soundness  of  these  views,  they 
failed  to  find  much  support  in  Texas.  The  public  was  far 
from  ready  for  a  strategic  move  involving  so  many  conces- 
sions, and  a  perfect  storm  of  disapproval  arose.  Reagan 
was  compelled  to  suffer  for  a  time  the  opprobrium  so  often 
the  lot  of  those  who  can  see  further  into  the  future  than 
their  fellows.2 

1  This   letter   is    reprinted   in   Reagan's   Memoirs,   pp.   286-295.    The 
original  MS.  is  in  the  Executive  Correspondence,  Executive  Archives. 

2  His  course,  however,  won  him  a  measure  of  executive  clemency. 
Hamilton  warmly  approved  the  letter,  and  both  he  and  ex-Governor 
Pease  wrote  to  President  Johnson  to  secure  a  parole  for  Reagan  in 
order  that  he  might  return  to  Texas,  where  it  was  hoped  his  great 
influence  and  integrity  of  character  would  be  useful  in  securing  the 
best  interest  of  the  state.     (See   MS.   in   Johnson  Papers.)     He  was 
immediately  released,  but  found  his  opinions  in  such  disfavor  that  he 
retired  to  the  privacy  of  his  farm  without  taking  any  further  part  in 
the  discussion  of  public  matters. 


89]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  gg 

The  elections  passed  off  quietly,  only  a  small  vote  being 
cast  because  of  the  inclemency  of  the  weather.  Until  the 
delegates  assembled  at  Austin,  as  appointed,  February  7th, 
there  was  considerable  doubt  as  to  what  element  would  be 
in  control.  It  was  soon  apparent  that  a  strong  minority 
were  "  unionists  ".  Of  these  the  more  prominent  were  I.  A. 
Paschal  and  E.  Degener,  of  San  Antonio ;  John  Hancock,  of 
Austin,  always  a  staunch  opponent  of  secession,  but  now  in- 
clined to  a  moderate  policy;  J.  W.  Throckmorton,  later 
"  conservative  "  governor ;  E.  J.  Davis,  later  "  radical  " 
governor;  Shields,  X.  B.  Saunders,  Latimer,  R.  H.  Taylor, 
Ledbetter,  and  J.  W.  Flanagan.  A  number  of  equally  ag- 
gressive "  secessionists  "  were  present ;  some  of  whom  were 
in  the  classes  excepted  from  the  general  amnesty  and  had  so 
far  failed  to  secure  Presidential  pardon.  The  most  con- 
spicuous was  O.  M.  Roberts,  who  had  been  president  of  the 
secession  convention  in  1861  and  whose  presence  was  there- 
fore especially  resented  by  those  who  regarded  secession 
as  treason.  Of  the  same  class  were  ex-Governor  H.  R. 
Runnels,  John  Ireland,  C.  A.  Frazier,  D.  C.  Giddings,  R.  A. 
Reeves,  ex-Governor  Henderson,  J.  W.  Whitfield,  and  T. 
N.  Waul.  A  considerable  element  in  the  convention,  the 
group  which  really  held  the  balance  of  power,  should  be 
classed  as  merely  conservative.  They  were  likely  to  vote 
against  the  unionists  out  of  opposition  to  radicalism  rather 
than  because  of  hostility  to  the  United  States  government. 

The  convention  took  up  its  work  in  the  most  leisurely 
manner.  The  greater  part  of  the  first  three  days  was  con- 
sumed in  the  mere  preliminaries  of  organization.  J.  W. 
Throckmorton  was  elected  president  on  the  second  ballot. 
His  election  was  regarded  with  satisfaction  on  all  sides. 
He  was  an  original  unionist,  one  of  the  seven  who  had 
voted  against  the  ordinance  of  secession  in  1861,  but  he  had 
entered  the  Confederate  service  as  commissioner  to  the  In- 


90  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [90 

dians  and  had  risen  to  the  rank  of  brigadier-general.  As 
president  of  the  convention  he  was  drawn  more  and  more 
to  the  side  of  the  majority  and  became  the  chief  defender 
in  Texas  of  President  Johnson's  policy. 

The  first  skirmish  between  the  opposing  factions  came  on 
the  third  day,  when  Paschal  introduced  a  resolution  to  ap- 
point a  committee  to  notify  the  governor  that  the  convention 
was  organized  and  "  ready  to  take  the  constitutional  oath," 
and  to  receive  any  communication  he  thought  proper  to 
make.1  The  secessionists  were  up  in  arms  immediately 
against  taking  the  constitutional  oath.  Roberts,  Reeves, 
and  Frazier  hotly  insisted  that  the  delegates  had  met  only 
in  "  a  primitive  capacity  "  to  make  a  constitution  and  to 
organize  a  government;  that  they  had  no  status  as  officers 
of  the  United  States,  and  therefore  it  was  not  incumbent 
upon  them  to  take  an  oath  of  such  character.  Paschal  and 
Saunders  defended  the  resolution  by  pointing  out  that  as 
the  convention  had  been  called  by  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  to  frame  a  state  government  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  it  was  just  as  necessary 
for  the  members  to  take  the  regular  oath  as  it  was  for  any 
other  officials  acting  under  that  government  to  take  it.  At 
this  juncture,  Hancock,  reputed  a  "  soft  unionist,"  offered 
as  a  compromise  an  amendment  under  which  those  members 
who  had  not  already  done  so  should  take  the  amnesty  oath, 
while  no  oath  at  all  should  be  required  of  the  other  members.* 
This  was  by  no  means  satisfactory  to  the  unionists  and  in 
an  effort  to  strike  out  the  amendment  they  were  defeated 
by  the  narrow  margin  of  thirty-nine  to  forty-one.  Han- 

1  See  Convention  Journal,  p.  II. 

2  Convention  Journal,  p.  12.    For  report  of  debate,  see  Flake's  Daily 
Bulletin,  February  15,  1866,  or  Ben  C.  Truman  in  New  York  Times, 
March  5,  1866. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  gi 

cock's  amendment  was  adopted  and  the  resolution  passed. 
It  was  the  first  alignment  of  forces  and  it  is  worth  noting 
that  the  president,  Throckmorton,  supported  Paschal's  reso- 
lution. Before  the  next  day  the  victorious  reactionaries  re- 
pented of  their  action.  It  would  not  do  for  the  news  to  go 
abroad  that  the  first  act  of  the  convention  had  been  an  ex- 
pression of  hostility,  or  at  least  of  disrespect,  toward  the 
national  constitution.  After  a  hurried  consultation  they  de- 
cided to  retrace  their  steps.  Immediately  after  convening 
next  morning,  Hancock  moved  a  reconsideration  of  his  reso- 
lution, and  it  was  carried  by  an  overwhelming  majority, 
only  eleven  irreconcilables,  among  whom  were  Giddings, 
Ireland,  and  Runnels,  opposing.  Paschal  then  offered  the 
resolution  for  taking  the  regular  constitutional  oath,  and  it 
passed  this  time  without  a  division. 

On  the  same  day  the  message  of  Governor  Hamilton  was 
received.  He  recapitulated  the  instructions  contained  in  his 
appointment,  explained  the  necessity  for  his  going  beyond 
the  letter  of  them  in  placing  on  the  registration  boards  per- 
sons not  designated  by  the  President,  and  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  his  proclama- 
tion governing  the  election,  several  persons  who  had  been 
excepted  from  the  amnesty  and  had  not  received  the  special 
pardon,  were  now  occupying  seats  in  the  convention.  After 
defending  his  course  in  not  calling  the  convention  earlier, 
and  expressing  concern  at  the  apathy  of  the  people  in  the 
elections,  he  pointed  out  that  the  other  states  had  by  too 
hasty  action  passed  measures  that  debarred  them  from  se- 
curing representation  in  Congress,  and  suggested  that  Texas 
might,  by  observing  the  developments  elsewhere,  profit  by 
this  delay.  It  was  expected  by  the  President,  by  Congress, 
and  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  that  such  changes 
would  be  made  in  the  organic  law  of  the  state  as  would  make 
it  conform  in  spirit  and  principle  to  the  actual  changes 


92  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [o2 

wrought  by  the  war.  In  the  first  place  it  would  be  expected 
that  the  convention  express  a  clear  and  explicit  denial,  in 
such  form  as  seemed  proper,  of  the  right  to  secede  from  the 
Union.  In  the  second  place  it  would  be  expected  to  mani- 
fest "  a  cheerful  acquiescence  "  in  the  abolition  of  slavery 
by  a  proper  amendment  to  the  constitution.  Both  of  these 
questions  had  already  been  definitely  settled  on  the  field  of 
battle  and  the  sole  function  of  the  delegates  was  to  recog- 
nize fittingly  an  accomplished  fact.  The  next  duty  of  the 
convention  would  be  to  repudiate  the  debt  incurred  by  the 
state  in  support  of  the  war;  for  to  provide  for  its  payment 
would  be  to  justify  its  purposes.  What  portion  of  the  total 
public  debt  incurred  since  the  beginning  of  the  war  was  of 
this  character  it  would  be  difficult  to  ascertain;  but  it 
seemed  that  it  would  probably  amount  to  three-fourths,  and 
the  report  of  ex-Governor  Pease  and  Swante  Palm  was 
furnished  to  facilitate  an  investigation.  Finally,  and  most 
important  of  all,  was  the  determination  of  the  civil  and  polit- 
ical status  of  the  freedmen.  Here  the  governor  expressed 
an  apprehension  that  his  views  would  not  be  acceptable  to 
the  majority  of  the  convention,  but  he  repeated  his  previous 
warning  that  if  any  legislation  tending  to  re-establish  slavery 
or  to  nullify  any  of  the  proper  effects  of  emancipation  were 
indulged  in,  or  anything  less  than  the  full  civil  rights  of  free 
citizens  were  granted  the  blacks,  it  would  delay  indefinitely 
the  return  of  the  state  to  its  normal  place  in  the  Union.  In 
addition  to  full  rights  in  the  courts  and  in  the  holding  of 
property,  he  earnestly  advised  the  convention  to  make  it 
possible  in  the  future  for  the  negro  to  attain  to  political  suf- 
frage. 

I  do  not  believe  [he  said]  that  the  great  mass  of  the  freedmen 
in  our  midst  are  qualified  by  their  intelligence  to  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage,  and  I  do  not  desire  to  see  this  privilege  con- 


93]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  93 

ferred  upon  them;  [but]  if  we  fail  to  make  political  privi- 
leges depend  upon  rules  of  universal  application,  we  will  in- 
evitably be  betrayed  into  legislation  under  the  influence  of 
ancient  prejudices  and  with  a  view  only  to  the  present.  I 
think  that  human  wisdom  can  not  discern  what  is  to  be  the 
future  of  the  African  race  in  this  country.  ...  I  would  not 
be  willing  to  deprive  any  man,  who  is  qualified  under  existing 
laws  to  vote,  of  the  exercise  of  that  privilege  in  the  future; 
but  I  believe  it  would  be  wise  to  regulate  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  are  to  become  voters  hereafter  by  rules  of  universal 
application.1 

On  the  next  day  the  governor's  complaint  about  the  pres- 
ence of  unpardoned  rebels  in  the  convention  bore  fruit  in  a 
resolution  by  E.  J.  Davis  to  the  effect  that  no  person  ex- 
cepted  from  the  amnesty  should  be  entitled  to  a  seat  until 
pardoned.  Ex-Governor  Henderson  offered  a  substitute 
referring  all  credentials  to  the  committee  on  privileges  and 
elections,  and  the  matter  was  finally  referred  to  that  com- 
mittee. On  the  next  day  the  committee  called  before  it  the 
delegates  whose  seats  were  thus  in  question,  Runnels,  Waul, 
Whitfield,  and  Ireland,  and  after  consideration  reported  that 
these  had  all  made  application  for  special  pardon  and  that 
the  applications  had  been  endorsed  by  the  governor.  A  re- 
solution was  finally  passed  allowing  them  to  retain  their 
seats  pending  the  action  of  the  President.2 

The  convention  got  down  to  work  very  slowly.  It  had 
been  in  session  a  full  week  before  any  move  at  all  was  made 
with  respect  to  the  secession  ordinance.  It  was  still  four 
days  later  before  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  brought  up 
for  discussion.  In  fact  as  much  time  was  taken  up  with  the 
mere  preliminaries  of  organization  as  had  been  required  for 

1  See  Convention  Journal,  pp.  16-27. 
» Ibid.,  pp.  29,  32,  42,  48. 


94  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [94 

the  complete  work  of  any  of  the  state  conventions  of  the 
previous  summer.1 

On  February  I3th  Latimer,  of  Red  River  County,  intro- 
duced an  ordinance  on  the  first  serious  question  with  which 
the  delegates  were  called  upon  to  deal,  the  disposition  of  the 
ordinance  of  secession.  There  proved  to  be  a  great  variety 
of  opinions  as  to  its  character,  and  upon  the  subject  party 
lines  came  to  be  closely  drawn.  The  chief  point  at  issue 
was  whether  the  secession  ordinance  was  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning,  or  became  null  and  void  as  a  result  of 
the  war.  The  first  view  was  based  upon  the  principle  that 
there  never  was  such  a  thing  as  a  "  right  of  secession  " ;  the 
second  view  implied  that  the  right  of  secession  had  been  at 
least  an  open  legal  question  until  the  war  had  settled  it. 
Latimer's  ordinance  simply  declared  null  and  void  and  of  no 
effect  from  the  beginning  the  ordinance  of  secession  and  all 

1  Mr.  Ben  C.  Truman,  who  as  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Times 
and  confidential  agent  of  President  Johnson  toured  the  South  and 
attended  all  the  conventions,  and  who  was  certainly  one  of  the  keen- 
est and  sanest  observers  of  conditions  everywhere,  seems  for  a  time 
to  have  lost  all  patience  with  the  dilatory  progress  of  the  Texans. 
In  the  Times  of  March  n  he  said:  "The  convention  spends  all  its 
time  electioneering  for  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is  a  weak  set." 
And  he  appended  this  sarcastic  summary  of  its  work  up  to  that  time: 

"  ist  day.     Convention  met  and  adjourned  without  doing  a  thing. 

2nd  day.     Met  and  elected  president  and  clerk.    Adjourned. 

3rd  day.     Met  and  elected  more  officers.    Adjourned. 

4th  day.     Met  and  refused  to  take  the  oath.    Adjourned. 

5th  day.  Met  and  reconsidered  their  refusal  to  take  the  oath  and 
took  it.  Adjourned. 

7th  day.  Met  and  argued  whether  the  convention  should  do  some- 
thing or  nothing.  Adjourned. 

8th  day.     Ditto. 

pth  day.     Ditto. 

loth  day.    Ditto. 

nth  day.    Agreed  to  do  something.    Adjourned. 

12th  day.    Did  nothing.    Adjourned" 


95]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  95 

the  other  acts  of  the  convention  of  1861.  Hancock  proposed 
a  substitute  to  the  effect  that  the  ordinance  had  been  "  in 
legal  contemplation  void,  being  a  revolutionary  measure, 
and  subject  to  the  general  principles  of  revolutions."  *  This 
was  a  clever  compromise,  but  suited  neither  side.  On  the 
next  day  Henderson  offered  an  ordinance  declaring  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  government  of  the  United  States  "  by  the 
exercise  of  its  power  "  had  determined  that  no  state  had 
the  constitutional  right  to  secede,  the  said  ordinance  was 
repealed.2  Later,  Reeves  wished  simply  to  accept  the  de- 
cision of  the  war  and,  in  order  to  restore  the  state  to  its 
former  relations  to  the  Federal  government,  merely  to  re- 
nounce the  doctrine  as  asserted  in  the  aforesaid  ordinance 
of  secession.8  Judge  Frazier  was  able  to  evolve  another  in- 
terpretation :  that  the  inhabitants  of  Texas  were  a  conquered 
people,  governed  by  the  laws  of  war  and  of  nations,  by 
which  alone  the  United  States  government  was  restrained, 
and  that  these  laws  required  no  more  of  the  people  than 
that  they  should  accept  the  will  of  the  conqueror ;  and  hence 
it  was  "  not  necessary  to  repeal,  annul,  or  declare  null  and 
void  that  ordinance,  since  the  surrender  of  the  South  had 
settled  the  question."  4  X.  B.  Saunders  introduced  an  ordi- 
nance to  the  same  effect  as  Latimer's,  declaring  the  ordi- 
nance of  secession  and  all  other  acts  of  the  secession  con- 
vention null  and  void  ab  initio.  This  was  the  position  of 
the  staunch  unionists.  When  the  committee  on  the  condi- 
tion of  the  state  reported,  its  ordinance  was  one  that  simply 
acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  declared  the  troublesome  act  "  annulled 
and  of  no  further  effect."  5  The  minority  report  of  this 

1  Convention  Journal,  p.  35.  2  Ibid.,  p.  38. 

•  Ibid.,  p.   44.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  47-48. 

B  Ibid.,  p.  62. 


96  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [96 

committee  asserted  that,  as  no  warrant  for  the  act  of  seces- 
sion could  be  found  in  the  constitution,  which  was  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  it  must  have  been  a  nullity  from 
the  beginning ;  and  even  viewing  it  as  a  revolutionary  meas- 
ure, the  result  of  the  struggle  forced  the  same  conclusion, 
for  "  abortive  attempts  at  revolution  never  impress  any 
changes  upon  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  government." 
Moreover,  the  minority  argued,  the  report  of  the  majority 
virtually  asserted  that  the  secession  ordinance  had  a  legal 
existence  up  to  the  present  time  and  was  in  actual  force — 
a  theory  in  every  way  untenable.  The  minority  therefore 
reported  an  ab  initio  ordinance.1 

The  real  fight  over  this  question  began  on  March  9th  and 
extended  over  three  days.  The  ab  initio  men,  or  "  radicals," 
as  they  were  beginning  to  be  called,  struggled  hard  to  sub- 
stitute some  form  of  the  minority  report  for  that  of  the 
majority.  Not  quite  equal  in  numbers  to  their  opponents, 
they  failed  in  this,  and  then  resorted  to  obstructive  tactics. 
Finally,  the  conservatives  by  sheer  strength  pushed  through 
to  engrossment,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  I2th  of  March,  by 
a  vote  of  43  to  37,  the  ordinance  finally  adopted — acknowl- 
edging the  supremacy  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  declar- 
ing the  act  of  secession  null  and  void  without  direct  refer- 
ence to  its  initial  status,  and  distinctly  renouncing  the  right 
previously  claimed  by  Texas  to  secede  from  the  Union.2 

The  radicals  were  not  at  first  disposed  to  accept  their 
defeat  gracefully.  At  a  caucus  of  the  minority  held  that 
night  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state,  Hancock  strongly 
urged  the  withdrawal  of  the  ab  initio  men,  for  the  purpose 
of  breaking  the  quorum  and  dissolving  the  convention  in 

1  Convention  Journal,  pp.  79-81. 

2  Ibid,,  pp.  146-165;  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V,  p.  887. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  97 

order  that  a  new  one  might  be  called.  However,  Governor 
Hamilton  would  not  promise  to  call  another  one  at  once, 
and  there  was  nothing  for  the  minority  to  do  but  to  return 
to  their  seats.1  Flake's  Bulletin,  a  radical  weekly  paper  of 
Galveston,  declared  as  late  as  March  2ist  that  the  conven- 
tion had  "  shown  its  hand  by  passing  an  emasculated  ordi- 
nance known  to  be  unsatisfactory  to  Union  men  every- 
where " ;  that  the  majority  had  proved  itself  disloyal ;  that 
"  the  sole  intent  and  meaning  of  this  ordinance  was  to  gain 
a  rapid  entrance  into  the  national  councils  in  order  to  renew 
the  struggle  and  fight  the  rebellion  over  again  " ;  and  it 
suggested  that  as  the  majority  was  "  still  wedded,  like 
Ephraim,  to  its  idols,"  it  might  yet  "  become  the  duty  of  the 
loyal  minority  to  withdraw  from  the  convention." 

It  had  been  widely  asserted  by  the  radicals  that  nothing 
less  than  a  distinct  admission  of  the  original  illegality  of  the 
attempted  secession  would  satisfy  President  Johnson  and 
the  North,  and  that  without  such  an  admission  the  new 
state  government  would  not  be  recognized ;  and  indeed  the 
Houston  TrirWeekly  Telegraph,  the  ablest  of  the  conser- 
vative papers,  had  pointed  out  in  November  that  the  result 
of  the  fall  elections  in  the  North  meant  that  the  issues  of 
the  war  had  not  been  abandoned  by  the  South  in  terms 
sufficiently  decisive,  and  that  to  repeal  the  ordinance  would 
not  be  enough :  "  if  it  was  ever  valid  it  still  is ;  .  .  .  the 
whole  idea  of  reserved  state  sovereignty  and  of  partnership 
in  the  government  must  be  expelled  from  the  system  for- 
ever." On  the  other  hand  it  could  hardly  have  been  ex- 
pected that  the  secession  leaders  would  be  willing  to  violate 

1  See  letter  of  H.  Ledbetter  in  Flake's  Weekly  Bulletin,  May  23, 
1866.  The  names  of  those  at  the  caucus  and  absent  from  the  con- 
vention are  given  in  the  Convention  Journal,  p.  165. 


98  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [98 

their  records  of  "  political  consistency  "  j1  while  there  were 
many  others  who  refused  to  "  brand  as  traitors  their  fathers, 
brothers,  and  sons  who  had  died  in  battle  for  the  South."  2 
In  commenting  on  the  action  of  the  convention,  the  Tele- 
graph of  March  I7th  said: 

They  [the  radicals]  desired  the  convention  should  say  that 
secession  or  revolution  was  a  crime  in  itself,  and  consequently 
void.  It  was  understood  that  this  significance  should  attach 
to  the  words  "  null  and  void,  ab  initio."  The  idea  attached  to 
the  ordinance  passed  is  that  the  war  has  decided  that  it  was 
null  and  void  ab  initio.  On  this  difference  the  issue  is  raised. 
It  is  whether  the  people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  shall  de- 
clare that  they  did  wrong  knowingly  and  willingly  in  1861  in 
attempting  secession. 

Flake's  Bulletin,  in  commenting  on  the  foregoing,  said : 

The  difference  in  position  is  defined  with  unusual  clearness 
and  great  candor.  .  .  .  We  do  certainly  desire  that  the  ordi- 
nance of  secession  be  declared  a  wrong  knowingly  forced  upon 
the  people  of  Texas  by  their  political  leaders.  We  contend 
that  rebellion  was  wrong,  that  it  was,  in  the  theological  lan- 
guage, original  sin,  that  it  was  malum  in  se,  and  that  the  next 
rebellion  will  be  just  like  it,  wrong  from  the  beginning. 

The  most  important  subject  that  engaged  the  attention  of 

1  Governor  Hamilton  is  quoted  as  saying  about  this  time :  "After  all, 
our  people  are  doing  about  as  well  as  a  reasonable  man  ought  to  ex- 
pect.    Politicians  must  have  their  '  explanations  '  and  their  '  records ' ; 
they  must  be  allowed  to  retreat  gracefully  and  to  fall  gently;  but  the 
vast  majority  of  them  are  all  right  at  heart.    They  must  have  time." 
Truman  to  Johnson,  MS.  in  Johnson  Papers;  see  also  in  Senate  Exec. 
Docs.,  vol.  ii,  no.  43,  ist.  sess.,  3pth  Cong. 

2  See  speech  of  John  Ireland  in  Tri-Weekly  State  Gazette,  March  20, 
1866. 


99]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  99 

the  convention  was  the  status  to  be  given  the  negro.  There 
was  practical  unanimity  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery.  All  were  now  agreed  that  the  institution  had 
ceased  to  exist,  for  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  had  been 
ratified  and  declared  in  force  in  December;  neither  was 
there  any  division  of  opinion  concerning  the  right  of  the 
freedmen  to  be  secure  in  person  and  property.  There  was 
considerable  debate  upon  the  question  of  admitting  negro 
testimony  in  the  courts.  The  majority  of  the  members  were 
willing  to  admit  such  testimony  in  any  case,  civil  or  crimi- 
nal, involving  a  right  of,  or  injury  to,  any  negro  in  person  or 
property ;  but  there  was  a  large  and  active  minority,  chiefly 
the  political  friends  of  Hamilton,  that  strongly  urged  the 
admission  of  negro  testimony  in  all  cases  under  the  same 
rules  that  governed  the  testimony  of  the  whites.1  The  latter 
proposition  was  repugnant  to  popular  sensibilities  because 
it  was  regarded  as  the  first  step  toward  social  equality,  and 
this  was  the  chief  argument  against  it;  though  it  was  also 
strongly  urged  that  if  the  negro  were  allowed  to  testify 
only  in  cases  Affecting  the  negro,  he  was  legally  placed  upon 
a  better  foundation  than  the  white  man,  since  he  would  be 
able  to  subpoena  witnesses  from  both  whites  and  blacks, 
while  the  white  man,  where  no  negro  was  involved,  could 
summon  only  those  of  his  own  color.2  The  radicals  an- 
swered that  a  liberal  policy  was  expected,  nay,  demanded 
both  by  the  government  at  Washington  and  by  Northern 
sentiment,  and  would  be  prerequisite  to  readmission  to  the 
national  councils;  and  furthermore,  it  was  pointed  out  that 
as  long  as  the  freedmen  labored  under  any  disabilities  in  the 

1  Strangely  enough,  Frazier,  "  the  bitter  rebel,"  as  Truman  calls  him, 
was  among  the  advocates  of  this  measure.     See  the  Journal,  p.  97. 

a  Truman  to  Johnson,  MS.  in  Johnson  Papers;  also  in  Sen.  Exec. 
Docs.,  vol.  ii,  no.  43,  ist  sess.,  3Qth  Cong. 


100  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [IOO 

civil  courts  there  was  no  prospect  of  a  release  from  the  an- 
noyance of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau. 

The  article  first  reported  by  Hancock  from  the  com- 
mittee on  general  provisions,  February  I7th,  provided  that 
slavery  should  not  exist  in  the  state  and  that  freedmen 
should  be  secure  in  all  rights  of  person  and  property,  and 
should  not  be  prohibited  from  testifying  in  any  case  affect- 
ing one  of  their  own  color.  A  number  of  amendments  were 
offered  to  this  section  defining  the  rights  of  freedmen  in  the 
courts;  but  despite  the  efforts  of  a  few  to  restrict  these 
rights  more  narrowly,  and  of  a  strong  minority  to  extend 
them,  the  provision  went  through  essentially  unchanged. 
As  finally  adopted,  the  ordinance,  which  became  Article 
VIII  of  the  Constitution,  declared  that,  African  slavery 
having  been  terminated  by  the  United  States  government 
by  force  of  arms  and  its  re-establishment  prohibited  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment 
for  crime,  whereof  the  party  should  have  been  duly  con- 
victed, should  exist  within  the  state.  Negroes  were  to  be 
protected  in  their  rights  of  person  and  property;  to  have 
the  right  to  sue  and  be  sued,  to  contract  and  be  contracted 
with,  to  acquire  and  transmit  property;  and  all  criminal 
prosecutions  against  them  were  to  be  conducted  in  the  same 
manner  and  with  the  same  penalties  as  in  the  case  of  whites. 
They  were  allowed  to  testify  orally  in  any  case,  civil  or 
criminal,  involving  the  right  of,  injury  to,  or  crime  against, 
any  of  their  own  race  in  person  or  property,  under  the  same 
rules  of  evidence  that  were  applicable  to  the  white  race; 
and  the  legislature  was  empowered  to  authorize  them  to 
testify  as  witnesses  in  all  other  cases,  under  such  regulations 
as  should  be  prescribed,  "  as  to  facts  hereafter  occurring."  l 

1  See  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  vol.  v,  p.  881. 


101]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  IO1 

This  last  clause,  if  not  distinctly  a  concession  to  the  minor- 
ity, at  least  wisely  left  the  matter  open  for  determination 
according  to  future  developments.  Whether  the  Texans 
were  more  liberal  in  this  respect  than  the  delegates  to  the 
other  state  conventions  or  whether  they  felt  themselves 
driven  to  this  position  by  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  then  under 
consideration  in  Congress,  is  not  easily  apparent.  Truman 
thought  them  freely  inclined  to  favor  the  negro;1  and  it 
was  evident  that  few  of  them  believed  that  the  bill  could 
pass  over  the  President's  veto.  Moreover,  the  most  of 
them,  including  many  that  had  favored  the  most  liberal 
policy  toward  the  negro,  were  very  hostile  to  that  bill  be- 
cause it  invaded  a  field  which  they  regarded  as  being  ex- 
clusively under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  states. 

The  idea  of  negro  suffrage  found  little  favor  on  any  side. 
Degener  offered  a  long  minority  report  from  the  committee 
on  legislative  department  in  advocacy  of  unrestricted  suf- 
frage, but  he  stood  practically  alone.  Few,  even  of  those 
who  did  not  oppose  it,  would  openly  advocate  it.2  On  the 
whole,  Texas  had  granted  the  freedmen  more  civil  rights 
than  had  any  other  southern  state,  though  she  had  not  gone 
as  far  as  it  was  understood  that  President  Johnson  desired. 
Still,  it  was  asserted  by  the  radicals,  now  becoming  identi- 
fied with  the  anti-Johnson  party,  that  it  was  the  President's 
veto  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  during  this  time  that 

1  Truman  to  Johnson  in  Sen.  Exec.  Docs.,  vol.  ii,  no.  43,  ist  sess., 
39th  Cong. ;  also  his  testimony  before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  in 
House  Com.  Reports,  vol.  ii,  part  iv,  p.  137,  ist  sess.,  39th  Cong. 

2  Ben  C.  Truman  testified  before  the  Reconstruction  Committee  that 
there  were  seven  men  in  the  convention  who  favored  negro  suffrage 
and  that  four  voted  for  it.     See  House  Com.  Reports,  vol.  ii,  part  iv, 
pp.  136,  137,  ist  sess.,  39th  Cong. 


102  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [IO2 

had  encouraged  the  majority  to  refuse  the  negro  wider 
privileges.1 

The  question  of  the  public  debt  presented  a  peculiar  dif- 
ficulty. There  was  no  hesitation  in  repudiating  the  war 
debt,  but  the  third  section  of  the  ordinance  reported  by  the 
committee  on  finance  repudiated  the  entire  civil  debt  in- 
curred between  January  28,  1861,  and  August  5,  1865. 2  On 
this  point  there  was  a  sharp  debate,  but  the  majority  in  its 
favor,  comprising  men  of  both  parties,  was  so  strong  that, 
obstructive  tactics  availed  little;  and  with  slight  modifica- 
tions the  ordinance  was  passed  on  March  1 5th.  The  reasons 
advanced  for  repudiating  the  civil  debt  were:  (i)  that  the 
treasury  warrants,  comprising  the  greater  part  of  it,  had 
been  issued  in  plain  violation  of  the  constitution  of  1845, 
which  must  be  regarded  as  still  in  force;3  (2)  the  state 
authorities  had  recklessly  piled  up  a  debt  of  nearly  eight  and 
a  half  millions  of  dollars,  and  to  impose  upon  the  state  the 
obligation  to  carry  so  heavy  a  burden  would  not  only  drive 
away  immigration  but  would  bankrupt  the  state;  (3)  that 
nearly  all  of  these  warrants  had  found  their  way  into  the 
hands  of  the  "  gang  of  heartless  stay-at-home  speculators  "  * 
who  had  shirked  their  duty  during  the  war,  and  it  would  be 
unfair  to  tax  for  their  benefit  the  poverty-stricken  soldiers 
in  the  ranks;  (4)  that  a  large  amount  of  the  debt  had  been 
issued  to  "  regulators "  for  hunting  down  and  executing 
without  trial  loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States  then  resi- 

1  Wm.  Alexander  to  Alonzo  Sherwood,  MS.  in  Johnson  Papers. 

*  Convention  Journal,  p.  117. 

8  Article  VII,  Section  8,  of  that  constitution  provided  that  "  in  no 
case  shall  the  legislature  have  the  power  to  issue  treasury  warrants, 
treasury  notes,  or  paper  of  any  description  intended  to  circulate  as 
money." 

4J.  K.  Bumpass  in  State  Gazette,  quoted  in  San  Antonio  Daily 
Herald,  April  3,  1866. 


103]  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866 

dent  in  Texas.1  How  much  support  each  one  of  these  argu- 
ments contributed  to  the  measure  it  would  be  difficult  to 
determine;  but,  combining  strong  legal  and  partisan  reasons, 
they  presented  an  array  that  was  overwhelming.  This  act 
was  attacked  by  the  press,  however,  with  perhaps  more 
bitterness  than  all  the  other  measures  together.  Certain  of 
the  conservative  journals  in  particular  exhibited  a  resent- 
ment that  was  most  acrid.1  The  San  Antonio  Herald,  which 
had  shown  some  anxiety  on  this  point  previous  to  the  con- 
vention, asserted  that  the  warrants  of  the  state  had  noth- 
ing on  their  face  to  show  that  they  were  in  any  way  con- 
nected with  the  rebellion;  that  most  of  the  debt  was  for 
purely  civil  services  and  that  the  rest  was  for  the  defense  of 
the  frontier  against  the  Indians.  The  State  Gazette  de- 
clared the  repudiation  an  act  of  bad  faith,  one  that  had  not 
been  required  by  the  Federal  government,  and  had  not  been 
adopted  in  the  other  states  of  the  South  that  had  suffered  far 
worse  during  the  war  than  had  Texas. 

Although  these  important  measures  concerning  secession, 
the  freedmen,  and  the  war  debt  were  the  only  ones  that  the 
convention  had  been  specifically  required  to  take  up,  there 
were  other  matters  that  naturally  came  up  for  consideration. 
An  ordinance  of  great  importance  was  one  recognizing  cer- 
tain acts  of  the  government  de  facto  as  it  existed  during  the 
war.  When  the  Federals  first  took  control  of  the  state  all 
the  acts  of  the  state  government  subsequent  to  the  ordinance 
of  secession  were  declared  invalid.  This,  however,  was 
felt  to  work  an  unnecessary  hardship  in  many  cases,  and 

1  For  the  arguments  here  presented  in  favor  of  this  ordinance  I  am 
indebted  to  the  Hon.  X.   B.   Saunders  of  Belton,  Texas,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  convention. 

2  It  was  asserted  at  the  time  that  several  held  in  their  possession 
large  amounts  of  the  now  worthless  state  warrants. 


I04  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [IO4 

Governor  Hamilton  had  gradually  adopted  the  policy  of 
recognizing  as  valid  such  acts  and  laws  as  were  not  in  con- 
flict with  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  was  generally 
felt  to  be  absolutely  necessary  for  the  peace  and  well  being 
of  society  that  the  private-law  ctatus  of  citizens  sholud  not 
be  disturbed  by  reason  of  the  war.  Under  the  authority 
of  the  state  government  during  the  war  property  had  been 
transferred;  estates  administered;  contracts  entered  into; 
business  relations  formed;  courts  held,  judgments  rendered, 
and  decrees  executed;  marriage  relations  entered  into  and 
children  born.  To  have  disturbed  or  destroyed  the  legiti- 
macy of  all  these  acts  would  have  been  to  undermine  and 
destroy  the  very  foundations  upon  which  depended  the  sta- 
bility of  society.  Such  a  course  could  have  subserved  no 
useful  purpose  in  state  policy,  for  these  acts  would  not  be 
construed  as  having  been  "  in  aid  of  the  rebellion/'  Conse- 
quently, long  before  the  convention  was  called,  the  pro- 
visional authorities  had  made  and  recognized  a  distinction 
between  acts  in  aid  and  support  of  the  rebellion  and  those 
which  had  been  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the 
private  relations  of  the  people  and  without  any  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  war.  But  though  this  distinction  was  already 
recognized  and  acted  upon,  it  was  necessary  for  the  con- 
vention to  embody  it  in  the  organic  law  of  the  land  in  order 
to  insure  the  permanence  of  the  principle.  The  ordinance 
passed  on  the  subject  was  a  sort  of  omnibus  bill,  covering 
a  wide  range  of  related  subjects.  All  laws  and  parts  of 
laws  enacted  by  the  legislature  subsequent  to  the  ist  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1 86 1,  and  not  in  conflict  with  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  nor  with  the  constitution  of 
Texas  as  it  was  prior  to  that  date,  nor  in  conflict  with  the 
proclamations  of  the  provisional  governor,  were  declared  to 
be  in  full  force  as  laws  of  the  state ;  and  all  acts  of  the  differ- 


105]          CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866  IOc 

ent  officers  of  the  state,  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial, 
done  in  compliance  with  the  laws  not  in  conflict  as  above 
stated,  were  declared  in  force,  unless  annulled  by  act  of  the 
convention.  All  acts  of  the  secession  convention  were  an- 
nulled. The  acts  of  the  provisional  government  and  its  offi- 
cers were  declared  valid.  Furthermore,  it  was  provided  that 
no  suit  or  prosecution  should  be  maintained  or  recovery  had 
against  any  agent,  bailee,  executor,  administrator,  or  trustee, 
who  had  been  compelled  to  deliver  up  property  or  money  held 
by  them  to  Confederate  States'  receivers.  No  person  was 
to  be  sued  or  prosecuted  for  any  action  done  in  compliance 
with  superior  orders  under  Confederate  authority.1  Per- 
sons absent  from  Texas  during  the  war,  against  whom  any 
judgment  was  rendered  in  a  civil  suit  during  such  absence, 
were  allowed  two  years  from  April  i,  1866,  in  which  to  re- 
open and  set  aside  such  judgment,  with  the  effect  to  set 
aside  any  sale  or  disposition  of  any  property  affected.2 
A  number  of  minor  matters  are  worthy  of  passing  notice. 

1  This  part  of  the  ordinance  was  attacked  by  Governor   Hamilton 
in   a  violent  and  angry  speech   before  the  convention   on    March   31. 
He  said :  "  The  convention  have  passed  a  measure  legislating  whole- 
sale robbery  and  murder  throughout  the  land.    A  measure  of  peace ! 
Does  it  bring  peace  to  the  bereaved  hearts  made  desolate  by  such  deeds  ? 
...  I  imagine  the  friends  of  this  resolution  had  in  their  minds  cer- 
tain gentlemen   here  and  there  who  were   receivers  under  the   Con- 
federate  States'   laws.  .  .  .  The  loyal   citizens  were   robbed,  and  now 
because  these  receivers  acted  under  authority,  they  must  be  protected 
and  you  imagine  this  convention  is  powerful  enough  to  protect  them. 
They  will  and  shall  be  called  to  account.    There  is  but  one  cure.    They 
must  leave  this  country  or  account  for  it  just  as  sure  as  the  sun  is 
shining  in  Heaven  above  us.  ...  You  [the  members]  have  an  account 
to  settle  before  the  people  yet.    You  have  not  done  with  this.    You 
shall  confront  them,  and  shall  answer  to  them,  and  if  God  spares  my 
life,  I  pledge  myself  to  go  before  the  people  of  the  state  and  draw 
these  men  up  and  make  them   answer."     See   Southern  Intelligencer, 
May  24,  1866. 

2  See  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V,  pp.  895-898. 


106  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [IO6 

Certain  amendments  were  added  to  the  constitution — that 
of  1845 — lengthening  the  terms  of  most  state  officers  to 
four  years  and  increasing  the  salaries.  Some  changes  were 
made  in  the  form  and  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  with  a  view 
to  greater  efficiency.  The  governor  was  requested  to  peti- 
tion the  President  for  more  adequate  frontier  protection. 
An  ordinance  was  passed  on  the  last  day  providing  for  a 
possible  division  of  the  state,  the  vote  standing  31  to  17.* 
One  of  the  last  acts  of  the  convention  was  the  appointment 
of  four  delegates  who  were  to  proceed  to  Washington  and 
lay  before  the  President  the  result  of  their  deliberations  and 
to  "  endeavor  to  impress  upon  the  national  authorities  the 
loyal  and  pacific  disposition  of  the  people  of  Texas."  On 
several  occasions  the  majority  had  attempted  to  get  through 
resolutions  endorsing  President  Johnson's  policy,  but  action 
was  delayed  until  the  last  minute,  when  the  measure  failed 
for  want  of  a  quorum. 

The  action  of  the  convention  in  passing  the  ordinances 
concerning  secession,  the  freedmen,  and  the  debt  was  to  be 
regarded  as  final,  but  the  amendments  to  the  constitution 
were  to  be  voted  upon  at  the  first  general  election  for  state, 
district,  and  county  officers,  which  was  fixed  for  June.  The 
new  state  government  was  to  be  inaugurated  in  August. 

The  convention  adjourned  April  2d,  after  a  session  of 
eight  weeks.  By  this  time  the  two  parties,  radical  and  con- 
servative, which  had  been  in  evidence  almost  from  the  first, 
had  become  something  more  nearly  approaching  definite 
organizations.  The  acts  of  the  convention  were  looked 
upon  as  being  chiefly  the  work  of  the  conservatives,  and 
were  in  consequence  bitterly  attacked  by  the  radical  news- 

1  The  demand  for  separation  was  especially  strong  in  the  western 
part  of  the  state  where  the  Union  sentiment  had  been  very  strong  and 
where  there  were  a  great  many  Germans. 


107]          CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1866 

papers,  especially  by  the  Southern  Intelligencer,  which  had 
become  the  recognized  organ  of  the  radicals.  The  Intelli- 
gencer declared  that  the  convention  had  done  things  it 
ought  not  to  have  done  and  had  left  undone  the  things  that 
it  ought  to  have  done.  It  had  failed  to  declare  secession 
null  and  void  from  the  beginning;  only  a  portion  of  the  civil 
rights  had  been  conceded  to  the  f reedmen ;  and  it  had  failed 
to  submit  all  its  ordinances  to  the  people  for  ratification. 
Nor  were  the  conservative  papers  altogether  pleased  with 
the  last  days  of  the  session,  and  at  first  they  did  not  attempt 
to  conceal  their  dissatisfaction.  Each  party  in  the  conven- 
tion had  begun  maneuvering  in  anticipation  of  the  June 
elections,  and,  in  haste  to  get  an  early  start  in  the  canvass 
and  unwilling  to  wait  for  a  state  nominating  convention, 
each  had  resorted  to  the  old  expedient  of  a  caucus  nomina- 
tion. The  San  Antonio  Herald,  the  Austin  State  Gazette, 
and  the  Houston  Telegraph  joined  in  denouncing  this  cau- 
cus nomination,  which,  taken  with  the  refusal  to  submit 
certain  of  the  ordinances  to  the  people,  they  regarded  as 
proof  that  the  delegates  cared  only  to  grab  all  the  offices 
and  considered  this  as  more  important  than  the  welfare  of 
the  state.  Some  of  these  papers,  too,  were  still  smarting 
over  the  repudiation  of  the  civil  debt.  But  this  did  not  last 
long ;  the  conservatives  were  soon  forced  by  the  pressure  of 
party  strife  to  accept  and  defend  the  work  of  the  convention 
and  to  support  the  caucus-made  nominees  of  their  faction. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

i.  The  State  Elections  of  1866 

THE  last  day  of  the  constitutional  convention  had  been 
given  over  largely  to  preparations  for  the  approaching  elec- 
tions. About  two  weeks  before  adjournment  a  caucus  of 
the  radicals  had  tendered  to  Hamilton  the  nomination  for 
the  governorship,  which  he  declined.  Thereupon  a  new 
ticket,  headed  by  ex-Governor  E.  M.  Pease  and  B.  H.  Ep- 
person, was  made  out  and  published  with  a  declaration  of 
the  principles  for  which  this  party  had  contended  in  the 
convention.  Their  opponents,  after  some  hesitation  on  the 
part  of  the  ultra-secessionists,  centered  upon  Throckmorton, 
president  of  the  convention,  and  Geo.  W.  Jones,  delegate 
from  Bastrop  in  the  same  body.  In  a  public  letter,  April 
2d,  announcing  their  candidates,  the  conservatives  endorsed 
the  President's  policy  for  the  restoration  of  the  state  gov- 
ernments, asserted  their  opposition  to  the  negro-political- 
equality  policy  of  the  radicals  in  Congress,  and  declared 
that  the  Texas  radicals  were  preparing  "  to  aid  and  abet 
Stevens,  Sumner,  and  Phillips  ...  in  the  establishment  of 
a  consolidated,  despotic  government."  *  The  tickets  thus 
put  out  did  not,  however,  remain  intact.  Epperson,  al- 
though always  a  strong  Union  man,  refused  to  align  himself 
with  the  radicals  and  was  finally  replaced  by  Lindsay; 
while  several  of  the  conservative  nominees  either  withdrew 

1  Southern  Intelligencer,  April  19,  1866. 
108  [108 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT          IOg 

or  declined  to  run.     Changes  continued  to  be  made  in  both 
tickets  up  to  the  eve  of  the  election. 

From  the  outset  the  canvass  was  bitter.  The  radicals, 
their  defeats  in  the  convention  still  rankling,  charged  that 
their  opponents  were  unwilling  to  abide  by  the  true  results 
of  the  war;  that  they  refused  even  to  accept  the  President's 
policy  which  they  professed  to  endorse  and  support — in 
proof  of  which  it  was  pointed  out  that  the  convention  had 
fallen  short  of  the  President's  recommendations;  in  fact, 
that  they  were  as  rebellious  as  in  1861 ;  and  that  their  real 
object  was  to  get  possession  of  the  state  offices  and  once 
more  work  into  control  of  the  national  government  in  order 
to  establish  there  the  principles  overthrown  in  the  "  rebel- 
lion," or  failing  in  that,  to  reopen  the  "  rebellion  "  at  a  con- 
venient opportunity,  and  meanwhile  to  drive  all  Union  men 
out  of  the  state  and  nullify  the  emancipation  of  the  negroes.1 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  charged  upon  the  radicals  that, 
being  disappointed,  first  in  the  hope  of  prolonging  the  provi- 
sional government  indefinitely,  and  next  in  securing  control 
of  the  convention,  and  having  little  chance  of  securing  a 
new  lease  of  power  at  the  coming  election,. they  were  prepar- 
ing to  desert  President  Johnson  whom  they  still  professed 
to  admire  and  endorse,  and  to  align  themselves  with  the 
ultra-radical  element  in  Congress  in  its  evident  intention  of 
re-establishing  military  rule  over  the  South  and  enforcing 
political  equality  between  whites  and  negroes.  While  the 
conservatives  were  stigmatized  as  "  disloyal  "  and  "  rebel- 
lious "  because  of  their  hostility  to  the  Civil  Rights  and 
Freedmen's  Bureau  Acts,  they  accused  their  antagonists  of 
being  the  real  disunionists  because  they  supported  the  "  de- 
structive, unconstitutional  legislation "  of  Congress  and 

1  See  files  of  Flake's  Bulletin,  San  Antonio  Express,  and  Southern 
Intelligencer  (radical  papers)  for  April,  May,  and  June,  1866. 


1 10  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [ i  Io 

favored  delay  in  the  restoration  of  the  state  to  its  normal 
place  in  the  Union. 

Probably  there  was  as  much  truth  in  these  charges  as  in 
those  of  the  average  heated  political  campaign.  It  is  cer- 
tainly true  that  the  conservatives  were  unwilling  to  concede 
more  changes  in  the  characters  and  relations  of  the  state 
and  Federal  governments  than  they  would  be  obliged  to, 
and  it  seems  true  that  their  admiration  of  the  President  at 
this  time  was  closely  related  to,  and  in  direct  proportion  to, 
their  fears  of  the  Congressional  radicals;  but  to  confuse 
their  hatred  of  the  latter  with  their  attitude  toward  the  gov- 
ernment, or  to  assert  that  desire  for  political  power  and 
influence  was  tantamount  to  rebellion,  or  that  they  were 
preparing  a  crusade  against  Union  men  and  a  renewal 
ot  rebellion,  was  the  sheerest  nonsense,  and  beyond  the 
threats  of  a  few  braggarts  and  ruffians  there  seems  to  have 
been  no  foundation  for  the  charge.  Surely  nothing  disloyal 
could  be  found  in  the  utterances  of  their  candidate,  Throck- 
morton.  In  the  course  of  one  of  his  speeches,  while  dis- 
cussing the  relations  of  the  people  to  the  government,  he 
said  : 

The  President  may  be  defeated  in  his  policy ;  other  laws 
equally  as  objectionable  as  the  civil  rights  statute  may  be  en- 
acted; the  Northern  people  may  refuse  to  believe  in  our  sin- 
cerity and  loyalty;  we  may  be  kept  out  of  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation and  yet  be  required  to  meet  our  portion  of  the  public 
burdens ;  .  .  .  We  may  continue  to  be  misrepresented  and  tra- 
duced ;  troops  may  be  quartered  among  us  where  there  is  pro- 
found peace  and  the  frontier  remain  unprotected.  .  .  .  But  if 
these  things  happen  it  is  our  duty  to  bear  them  patiently. 
Whatever  law  is  passed,  however  odious  it  may  be,  it  should 
be  obeyed  by  us  as  long  as  it  the  law  of  the  land.  Let  us  by 
our  conduct  and  example  sustain  the  majesty  and  supremacy 
of  the  law.1 

1  Clipping  from  Houston  Telegraph,  found  in  Johnson  Papers. 


!  !  !  ]  RESTORA  TION  OF  STA  TE  GO  VERNMENT  1 1 1 

Nor  is  it  entirely  true  that  the  radicals  had  as  yet  embraced 
all  of  the  doctrines  of  Thaddeus  Stevens  or  of  Wendell 
Phillips.  Pease  declared  that  he  was  opposed  to  complete 
negro  suffrage  because  the  blacks  were  not  intelligent 
enough  to  vote ;  but,  if  the  United  States  government  should 
require  it,  he  would  be  willing  to  concede  the  suffrage  to 
such  negroes  as  could  read  and  write  understandingly  rather 
than  have  Texas  remain  under  provisional  government, 
and  he  claimed  that  this  was  the  view  of  the  majority  of  his 
party.1  Nevertheless,  it  soon  became  apparent  that  that 
party  was  really  in  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  the  Presi- 
dent. As  the  conservatives  had  found  a  natural  ally  in  Mr. 
Johnson,  their  opponents  had  been  brought  more  and  more 
into  dependence  upon  the  Congressional  radicals;  and,  as 
every  day  it  became  more  evident  that  the  conservatives 
would  carry  the  state,  while  in  the  North  the  ultimate  de- 
cision in  the  great  problem  before  the  nation  was  to  be  with 
Congress  rather  than  the  President,  an  alliance  with  Con- 
gress offered  the  radicals  advantages  of  an  exceedingly 
seductive  character.  Long  before  the  date  of  the  election 
the  alliance  was  made  known.  Governor  Hamilton's  attor- 
ney-general, Alexander,  had  written  to  the  leaders  in  Wash- 
ington beseeching  them  to  delay  restoration  as  long  as  pos- 
sible, and  the  correspondence  found  its  way  into  the  papers.8 
Hamilton  himself,  after  a  brief  but  stormy  campaign  tour, 
turned  over  the  duties  of  his  office  to  Bell,  the  secretary  of 
state,  and  hurried  north  to  enlist  in  the  campaign  against 
the  President,  where  his  violent  denunciations  of  both  John- 
son and  the  people  of  Texas  won  him  fame  in  the  North  and 
increased  hatred  in  his  own  state.  Pease  had  been  personally 
popular  and  he  conducted  his  campaign  in  the  state  with 

1  San  Antonio  Express,  May  24,  1866. 
*  Weekly  State  Gazette,  May  12,  1866. 


1 1 2  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  \112 

characteristic  moderation;  but  the  anti-radical  feeling  was 
too  strong,  and  the  conservatives  were  overwhelmingly 
victorious  in  the  elections.  The  Throckmorton  ticket  was 
elected  by  an  immense  majority,  49,277  to  12,168  votes. 
At  the  same  time  the  amendments  to  the  constitution  were 
ratified  by  28,119  to  23,400  votes.  This  comparatively 
small  majority  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the  gen- 
eral increase  provided  for  in  the  salaries  of  state  officials 
was  very  unpopular. 

2.  Inauguration  of  the  New  Government 

As  soon  as  it  was  positively  known  that  the  conservative 
ticket  was  elected,  the  secretary  of  state,  Judge  Bell,  tele- 
graphed President  Johnson  for  instructions,  expressing  the 
opinion  that  the  provisional  officers  should  retain  control 
until  the  President  should  consent  to  the  installation  of  those 
newly  elected.  His  course  received  the  approval  of  Mr. 
Johnson,  who,  however,  gave  no  immediate  indication  of 
the  action  he  expected  to  take.  In  the  meantime  it  was 
rumored  that  the  conservatives  would  not  be  allowed  to 
take  possession  of  the  state  offices,  and  that  the  provisional 
government  would  be  continued.  A  number  of  the  radicals 
had  gone  North  and  it  was  feared  that  their  representations 
as  to  the  disloyalty  of  the  victorious  party  might  have  a  dis- 
quieting effect  upon  the  government  at  Washington.  Pease 
denied  that  there  was  any  truth  in  the  rumor,  but  a  number 
of  anxious  dispatches  were  sent  by  Throckmorton  and  his 
friends  to  assure  Mr.  Johnson  that  the  newly-elected  offi- 
cials were  "  alike  the  friends  of  the  President's  policy  and 
lovers  of  the  Union  of  the  states."  x 

1  Throckmorton,  John  Hancock,  Burford,  Buckley  to  Johnson,  MSS. 
in  Johnson  Papers.  See  also  Tri-Weekly  Telegraph,  July  12,  1866; 
Southern  Intelligencer,  July  19,  1866. 


!  !  3  ]  RESTORA  TION  OF  STA  TE  GO  VERNMENT          1 1 3 

The  Eleventh  Legislature  assembled  at  Austin  on  August 
6th.  The  votes  for  governor  were  counted  and  Throck- 
morton  was  declared  duly  elected;  and,  although  no  word 
had  come  from  Washington,  arrangements  were  made  for 
the  inauguration.  On  the  morning  of  August  Qth,  the  gov- 
ernor and  lieutenant-governor  were  inaugurated  in  the 
presence  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature,  the  officers  of 
the  provisional  government,  several  officers  of  the  United 
States  army,  and  a  large  concourse  of  citizens.  Four  days 
later  a  telegram  was  received  from  the  President  by  the  pro- 
visional secretary  of  state,  ordering  that  the  care  and  con- 
duct of  affairs  in  Texas  be  turned  over  to  the  constituted 
authorities  chosen  by  the  people.  Governor  Throckmorton 
and  his  subordinates  at  once  took  possession  unopposed  and 
entered  upon  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  The  military 
authorities  in  the  state  received  orders  to  render  the  same 
support  to  the  newly-organized  authorities  as  had  been  af- 
forded to  the  provisional  government.  On  August  2Oth 
President  Johnson  issued  a  proclamation  declaring  that  the 
insurrection  in  Texas  was  at  an  end,  and  that  peace,  order, 
tranquillity,  and  civil  authority  existed  throughout  the  whole 
of  the  United  States.1 

Nevertheless,  the  outlook  for  the  new  state  government 
was  not  auspicious.  In  his  inaugural  address  the  governor 
described  the  situation  in  graphic  language : 

At  a  time  like  the  present,  when  we  have  just  emerged  from 
the  most  terrible  conflict  known  to  modern  times,  with  homes 
made  dreary  and  desolate  by  the  heavy  hand  of  war;  the 
people  impoverished,  and  groaning  under  public  and  private 
debts;  the  great  industrial  energies  of  our  country  sadly  de- 
pressed; occupying  in  some  respects  the  position  of  a  state 
of  the  Federal  Union,  and  in  others  the  condition  of  a  con- 
1  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  VI,  434-438. 


114  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [II4 

quered  province  exercising  only  such  privileges  as  the  con- 
queror in  his  wisdom  and  mercy  may  allow ;  the  loyalty  of  the 
people  to  the  general  government  doubted;  their  integrity 
questioned;  their  holiest  aspirations  for  peace  and  restoration 
disbelieved,  maligned  and  traduced;  with  a  constant  misappre- 
hension of  their  most  innocent  actions  and  intentions;  with  a 
frontier  many  hundreds  of  miles  in  extent  being  desolated  by 
a  murderous  and  powerful  enemy,  our  devoted  frontiersmen 
filling  bloody  graves,  their  property  given  to  the  flames  or 
carried  off  as  booty,  their  little  ones  murdered,  their  wives 
and  daughters  carried  into  a  captivity  more  terrible  than 
death,  and  reserved  for  tortures  such  as  savage  cruelty  and 
lust  alone  can  inflict;  unprotected  by  the  government  we  sup- 
port, with  troops  quartered  in  the  interior  where  there  is  peace 
and  quiet;  unwilling  to  send  armed  citizens  to  defend  the 
suffering  border,  for  fear  of  arousing  unjust  suspicions  as  to 
the  motive ;  with  a  heavy  debt  created  before  the  late  war,  and 
an  empty  treasury;  with  an  absolute  necessity  for  a  change 
in  the  laws  to  adapt  ourselves  to  the  new  order  of  things,  and 
embarrassments  in  every  part  of  our  internal  affairs,  .  .  .  the 
surroundings  are  uninviting,  the  future  appears  inauspicious.1 

3.  The  Eleventh  Legislature 

Comparatively  few  members  of  the  convention  returned 
to  the  legislature.  Many  of  the  conservatives  from  the 
earlier  body  had  been  elected  to  various  state  offices,  while 
the  radicals  had  been  retired  to  private  life.  Only  a  few  of 
the  latter,  chiefly  from  the  German  counties  in  the  south- 
west, were  successful  in  the  elections,  and  the  membership 
of  the  legislature,  therefore,  was  overwhelmingly  conser- 
vative. But  now  that  the  power  of  the  radicals  was  re- 
moved, the  discord  in  the  conservative  ranks  at  once  became 
apparent.  The  recent  alliance  between  the  "  conservative 

1  House  Journal,  Eleventh  Legislature,  19. 


II5J  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

Unionists,"  headed  by  the  governor,  and  the  secessionists 
had  never  been  more  than  a  mariage  de  convenance,  and 
neither  party  was  willing  to  yield  to  the  other  the  control 
of  the  state.  In  the  organization  of  the  House  the  seces- 
sionists were  defeated  in  the  selection  of  the  Speaker,  Nat 
M.  Burford,  of  Dallas  county,  being  elected  over  Ashbel 
Smith,  of  Harris  county,  by  39  to  30  votes. 

Of  the  many  tasks  which  confronted  the  legislature,  the 
one  which  demanded  the  most  careful  handling  was  the 
selection  of  two  United  States  senators,  and  it  was  precisely 
in  this  that  the  conservative  party  laid  itself  open  to  the 
attack  of  its  enemies.  Of  the  eight  or  ten  candidates  whose 
names  were  submitted,  four  were  clearly  in  the  lead.  These 
were  O.  M.  Roberts,  David  G.  Burnet,  B.  H.  Epperson, 
and  John  Hancock.  According  to  agreement  one  was  to  be 
chosen  from  eastern  Texas,  the  other  from  the  western  part 
of  the  state.  Hancock  and  Epperson  had  both  been  Union 
men  throughout  the  war,1  but  since  the  adjournment  of  the 
convention  they  had  acted  with  the  conservatives.  Roberts 
had  been  one  of  the  most  prominent  secession  leaders  in  the 
state  and  was  universally  regarded  as  the  candidate  of  that 
element.  Judge  Burnet,  formerly  president  of  the  Republic 
of  Texas,  had  also  been  a  secessionist,  but  because  of  his 
advanced  age  had  for  many  years  taken  no  active  part  in 
political  affairs.  The  two  houses  met  in  joint  session  on 
August  2ist  for  the  election  of  senators.  There  had  been 
some  rumors  of  an  alliance  between  the  forces  of  John  Han- 
cock and  Roberts,  but  if  such  an  arrangement  was  ever 
made  it  had  broken  down.2  The  candidates  from  the  west- 

1  Epperson,  however,  had  served  in  the  Confederate  Congress,  while 
Hancock  had  remained  in  retirement. 

2D.  M.  Short  to  O.  M.  Roberts,  August  24,  1866,  MS.  in  Roberts 
Papers. 


1 1 6  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [  i  1 5 

ern  district  were  Judge  Burnet,  John  Hancock,  and  ex-Gov- 
ernor Pease,  lately  defeated  for  the  governorship.  Burnet 
was  elected  on  the  first  ballot,  the  vote  standing  65  for 
Burnet,  43  for  Hancock,  and  7  for  Pease.1 

Angered  at  the  attitude  of  the  secessionists,  Hancock's 
followers  went  in  a  body  to  the  support  of  Epperson  against 
Roberts.  The  next  ballot  stood,  Roberts  30,  Epperson  43, 
with  41  more  votes  scattered  among  five  other  candidates. 
It  was  not  until  the  thirteenth  ballot  two  days  later  that 
Roberts  received  a  majority,  61  to  49,  and  was  declared 
elected.2  The  contest  was  not  fought  out  entirely  upon 
factional  lines,  but  sufficiently  so  as  to  emphasize  the  strained 
relations  between  the  "  Union  conservatives  "  and  the  orig- 
inal secessionists.8  Thanks,  however,  to  the  common  fear 
of  the  Northern  radicals,  they  never  came  to  the  breaking- 
point. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  election  of  two  uncom- 
promising secessionists,  neither  of  whom  was  able  to  take 
the  test  oath,4  only  confirmed  the  Northern  mind  in  its  sus- 

1  House  Journal,  Eleventh  Legislature,  119. 

2  Ibid.,  119-139. 

3  Short  to  Roberts,  Roberts  Papers. 

4  The  "  test  oath "  or  "  iron-clad  oath  "  was  required  of  all  officials 
of  the  United  States  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  July  2,  1862.    It 
was  as  follows: 

"I,  (A.  B.),  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  have  never 
voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  United  States  since  I  have  been  a 
citizen  thereof;  that  I  have  voluntarily  given  no  aid,  countenance, 
counsel,  or  encouragement  to  persons  engaged  in  armed  hostility 
thereto;  that  I  have  neither  sought  nor  accepted  nor  attempted  to 
exercise  the  functions  of  any  office  whatever,  under  any  authority. or 
pretended  authority  in  hostility  to  the  United  States;  that  I  have  not 
yielded  a  voluntary  support  to  any  pretended  government,  authority, 
power,  or  constitution  within  the  United  States,  hostile  or  inimical 
thereto.  And  I  do  further  swear  (or  affirm)  that,  to  the  best  of  my 


I ! 7]  RESTORA  TION  OF  STA  TE  GO  VERNMENT  i  x  7 

picions  of  Texas  "  loyalty  ".  Flake's  Bulletin  expressed  the 
opinion  that  Hancock's  defeat  was  due  to  "  his  ability  to 
take  the  test  oath,"  and  added :  "  It  is  clear  that  the  legis-' 
lature  does  not  want  its  senators  admitted.  ...  It  has 
closed  the  doors  of  Congress  against  the  representatives  of 
Texas."  The  Houston  Telegraph  confessed  that  "  this  elec- 
tion will  be  a  tremendous  weapon  in  the  hands  of  A.  J. 
Hamilton  and  the  radicals  in  the  coming  fall  elections.  It 
is  an  awkward  response  to  the  utterances  and  actions  of  the 
Philadelphia  convention."  *  However,  the  Houston  Journal 
boldly  declared  that  it  was  "  a  simple  indication  that  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Union  the  test  oath  must  be  repealed. 
The  South  loves  its  soldiers  and  will  not  forget  them  or  ad- 
mit that  the  *  lost  cause '  had  in  it  any  element  of  treason." 
The  senators-elect  proceeded  to  Washington,  where  they 
were  joined  later  by  three  of  the  four  representatives  elected 
in  the  fall,  Geo.  W.  Chilton,  B.  H.  Epperson,  and  A.  M. 
Branch.2  Not  only  were  their  seats  refused  to  them,  but 
their  credentials  were  ignored  and  they  were  not  welcome 
even  in  the  lobbies.  Thus  the  "  accredited  representatives  of 
a  sovereign  state  "  were  reduced  to  watch  the  doings  of  Con- 
knowledge  and  ability,  I  will  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic;  that  I 
will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same ;  that  I  take  this  obliga- 
tion freely,  without  any  mental  reservation  or  purpose  of  evasion,  and 
that  I  will  well  and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  on 
which  I  am  about  to  enter,  so  help  me  God."  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large, 
XII,  p.  502. 

1  The    National    Union    Convention,    composed    of    supporters    of 
President    Johnson's    reconstruction    policy,    had    demanded    the    ad- 
mission   of    the    Southern    representatives    to    Congress    and    had    in- 
dignantly denied  that  the  South  was  still  disloyal. 

2  C.  C  Herbert,   from  the  Fourth  Congressional  District,  remained 
in  Texas. 


Il8  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

gress  from  the  galleries.1  They  found  that  they  had  been 
preceded  at  Washington  by  Hamilton,  Pease,  and  other 
Texas  radicals,  who,  in  close  alliance  with  the  opponents  of 
the  President,  were  doing  all  in  their  power  to  defeat  the 
recognition  of  the  new  state  government  and  to  substitute 
some  form  of  Congressional  control.2  After  attending  to 
such  business  for  their  state  as  was  possible  in  the  executive 
departments,  and  after  futile  efforts  to  come  to  a  definite  un- 
derstanding with  the  President  and  his  supporters  upon  a 
program  to  be  pursued,  the  Texan  delegation  issued  an  ad- 
dress "  to  the  Congress  and  People  of  the  United  States," 
setting  forth  their  view  of  the  rights  of  Texas  in  the  Union 
and  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  state,3  and  then,  with  the 
exception  of  Epperson,  returned  home. 

In  his  first  message  to  the  legislature  the  governor  sub- 
mitted the  joint  resolutions  of  Congress  proposing  a  thir- 
teenth and  a  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  In  regard  to  the  first  he  offered  no 
recommendation,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  already  been 
adopted  by  the  requisite  number  of  states  and  had  been  em- 
bodied in  the  constitution  of  Texas  by  the  convention. 
With  respect  to  the  second,  he  expressed  "  unqualified  dis- 
approval "  of  it  as  "  impolitic,  unwise,  and  unjust,"  and 
recommended  its  rejection.  The  two  resolutions  were  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  on  federal  relations,  but  no  action 
was  taken  until  two  months  later.  The  House  committee 
in  reporting  on  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  stated  that,  in- 
asmuch as  the  people  of  Texas  through  their  convention 

1  Roberts  to  Throckmorton,  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence.    See 
also  "  The  Experiences  of  an  Unrecognized  Senator "  in   The   Texas 
Historical  Association  Quarterly,  XII,   145. 

2  "  The  Experiences  of  an  Unrecognized  Senator,"  op.  cit.,  XII,  100, 
102-103. 

8  Ibid.,   106-119. 


II9]  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

I 

had  already  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  of  which  the  said  amendment  was 
an  integral  part,  the  legislature  had  no  authority  in  the 
matter  and  any  action  on  its  part  "  would  be  surplusage  if 
not  intrusive."  The  committee  asked  and  was  allowed  to 
be  relieved  of  any  further  consideration  of  the  measure.1 
The  Senate  committee  seems  to  have  made  no  report  on 
this  subject. 

The  report  made  on  Article  XIV  by  the  House  com- 
mittee through  its  chairman,  Ashbel  Smith,  was  an  able 
and  interesting  document.  It  expressed  very  clearly  the 
fears  aroused  by  the  program  of  the  radicals,  and  stated 
succinctly  the  practical  and  constitutional  grounds  of  South- 
ern opposition.  In  the  first  place,  so  the  committee  de- 
clared, the  submission  of  the  article  was  in  itself  a  nullity, 
because,  contrary  to  the  plain  intent  of  the  constitution,  the 
representatives  of  the  states  most  concerned  were  denied 
participation  in  the  Congress  proposing  it.  Moreover,  the 
article  as  submitted  was  clearly  intended  to  deprive  the 
states  of  certain  rights  and  powers  over  their  citizens  that 
they  had  held  without  question  since  1776,  and  to  give  to 
the  Federal  government  authority  that  would  be  dan- 
gerous alike  to  the  constitutional  autonomy  of  the  states 
and  to  the  liberties  of  the  people.  Furthermore,  it  would 
degrade  the  governments  and  social  institutions  of  the 
Southern  states  by  enforcing  wholesale  negro  suffrage  along 
with  a  practical  disfranchisement  of  the  whites.  It  was 
dictated  not  by  statesmanship,  but  by  "  passion  and  malig- 
nancy," and  it  required  that  the  members  of  the  legislature 
be  the  instruments  of  their  own  and  of  their  people's  de- 
gradation. The  committee  admitted  that  it  was  thoroughly 
aware  of  the  dangers  involved  in  rejecting  the  amendment : 

1  House  Journal,  Eleventh  Legislature,  219,  493. 


120  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I2O 

I 

for  the  radical  leaders  had  threatened  the  complete  prostra- 
tion of  the  state  through  the  abrogation  of  its  government, 
the  establishment  of  martial  law  with  a  military  governor, 
the  confiscation  of  property  and  the  granting  of  negro  free- 
hold homesteads  therefrom,  the  abrogation  of  Presidential 
pardons  to  be  followed  by  trials  before  military  commis- 
sions, the  impeachment  of  the  President  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  negro  government  for  bringing  Texas  back  into 
the  Union.  Yet  refusing  to  yield  to  mere  expediency  when 
it  meant  the  abandonment  of  principle,  the  committee  would 
recommend  the  rejection  of  the  article  proposed.  The  rec- 
ommendation was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  70  to  5.1  The 
Senate  committee  made  a  similarly  adverse  report  and  was 
also  sustained.2 

The  most  interesting  and  important  of  the  purely  legis- 
lative work  of  the  session  was  that  dealing  with  the  f reed- 
men  and  labor.  Reagan,  from  his  home  near  Palestine, 
again  issued  a  public  letter,  to  the  governor  this  time,8  call- 
ing attention  to  the  prospective  fulfilment  of  his  prophecies 
in  the  Fort  Warren  letter,4  and  again  urging  a  qualified 
suffrage  and  wider  privileges  in  the  courts  for  the  freedmen, 
in  order  to  ward  off  the  attacks  and  forestall  the  plans  of 
the  Northern  radicals.  For  the  present,  however,  he  had 
no  following  in  his  own  party,  and  this  letter  only  increased 
the  irritation  produced  by  the  former  one.  Laws  were 
passed  on  the  subjects  of  apprenticeship,  vagrancy,  labor 
contracts,  and  the  enticing  away  of  laborers;  and  although 

1  For  full  report  of  the  committee  and  the  vote,  see  House  Journal, 
Eleventh  Legislature,  577-583. 

2  Senate  Journal,  Eleventh  Legislature,  417. 

8  Reagan's    Memoirs,    301.    The    original    is    in    Executive    Corres- 
pondence. 
*  Supra,   p.   83. 


I2i]  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT  I2i 

no  apparent  distinction  was  made  in  their  application  as  to 
whites  and  blacks,  it  is  clear  enough  that  they  were  intended 
solely  for  the  regulation  of  negroes  and  negro  labor. 

The  labor  situation  had  not  cleared  entirely,  despite  the 
energetic  work  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  during  the  winter 
and  spring  and  the  efforts  of  its  officials  to  keep  the  freed- 
men  at  work  during  the  crop-growing  season.  When  paid 
a  monthly  cash  wage,  the  negro  usually  preferred  to  spend 
it  before  going  back  to  work;  and,  when  offered  better 
wages  elsewhere,  he  had  no  hesitation  in  breaking  a  contract 
in  order  to  accept.  On  May  I5th,  General  Kiddoo,  who 
had  just  succeeded  General  Gregory  as  assistant  commis- 
sioner for  Texas,  found  it  necessary  to  issue  a  circular  order 
forbidding  the  enticing  of  contract  laborers  from  one  em- 
ployer to  another.  The  person  thus  inducing  a  freedman 
to  leave  his  contract  was  to  be  fined  from  $100  to  $500  and 
the  laborer  from  $5  to  $25.  A  fine  of  $50,  moreover,  could 
be  assessed  against  a  freedman  for  voluntarily  leaving  his 
employer  without  just  cause  before  the  expiration  of  the  con- 
tract.1 General  Kiddoo  seems  to  have  appreciated  the  needs 
of  the  planters  better  than  did  his  predecessor,  and  he  en- 
joyed a  corresponding  share  of  their  confidence.  In  June, 
when  the  crops  had  got  into  a  "  precarious  condition  by 
reason  of  the  excessive  rains  and  grass,"  all  Bureau  agents 
were  instructed  to  advise  the  negroes  to  work  early  and  late 
and  to  stand  by  their  contracts  in  order  to  save  the  crops, 
because  they  had  therein  a  common  interest  with  the 
planters.2 

The  Texas  Republican,  August  nth,  published  an  order 
from  the  Bureau  agent  at  Marshall  containing  a  list  of 

1  Circular  Order  no.  14,  from  file  in  Executive  Correspondence. 
a  Circular  Order  no.  17,  ibid. 


122  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I22 

twelve  freedmen  who  had  left  their  employers,  also  named, 
and  notifying  other  employers  not  to  hire  them.  Notice 
was  given  that  a  weekly  list  of  delinquent  laborers  would 
be  published.  These  lists  appeared  in  the  paper  from  time 
to  time.  Evidently  the  Bureau  officials  were  being  driven 
to  the  adoption  of  measures  they  had  formerly  condemned. 
Again,  it  was  found  necessary,  when  the  cotton  picking 
season  came  on,  to  instruct  agents  everywhere  to  see  to  it 
that  the  negroes  employed  the  utmost  diligence  in  gathering 
the  crop,  which  was  short  on  account  of  excessive  rains, 
grass,  and  the  ravages  of  the  army  worm.1 

When  it  was  possible  for  an  arm  of  the  national  govern- 
ment itself,  organized  and  operated  in  the  interest  of  the 
freedman  and  enjoying  his  full  confidence,  to  keep  him  at 
work  and  out  of  mischief  only  by  constant  watchfulness  and 
semi-coercion,  it  must  have  seemed  urgently  necessary  that 
the  state  adopt  a  system  of  regulation  more  permanent  than 
that  of  the  Bureau  professed  to  be.  The  legislature  had 
before  it,  as  a  warning,  evidences  of  the  deep  resentment 
of  the  North  at  the  "  black  codes  "  enacted  by  the  states 
reorganized  during  the  previous  year,  and  was  able  there- 
fore so  to  frame  its  laws  as  to  offend  in  a  less  degree  the 
watchful  prejudices  of  Northern  voters. 

The  general  apprenticeship  law  did  not  differ  materially 
from  those  in  force  elsewhere.  It  provided  that  any  minor, 
with  the  consent  of  parent  or  guardian,  could  be  bound  out 
by  the  county  judge  until  twenty-one  years  of  age  unless 
sooner  married.  The  master,  or  mistress,  was  to  enter  into 
bond  to  treat  him  humanely,  teach  him  a  trade,  furnish 
medical  attendance  and  schooling,  and  was  allowed  to  in- 
flict moderate  corporal  punishment.  A  runaway  could  be 
recovered  and  brought  before  a  justice  and  punished,  or 
1  Circular  Order  no.  21,  in  Executive  Correspondence. 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

freed  if  he  could  prove  he  had  good  cause  to  run  away. 
The  apprentice  could  not  be  removed  from  the  county  with- 
out an  order  from  the  county  judge.  Any  one  enticing 
away  an  apprentice  was  subject  to  fine  and  suit  for  dam- 
ages.1 The  vagrancy  law  defined  a  vagrant  as  "  any  idle 
person  living  without  any  means  of  support  and  making  no 
exertion  to  earn  a  livelihood  by  any  honest  employment," 
and  comprehended  the  usual  assorted  list  of  undesirables.2 
Neither  of  these  acts  made  any  mention  of  race  or  color 
and  neither  seems  to  have  given  enough  offense  to  call  for 
annulment  by  the  Bureau. 

It  was  otherwise,  however,  with  the  labor  law.  The 
original  Senate  bill  provided  that  every  laborer  should  enter 
into  a  written  contract  for  the  whole  year  on  or  before  the 
loth  day  of  January.  Its  authors  undoubtedly  had  in  mind 
negro  labor  only,  and  intended  to  provide  against  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  troubles  of  the  previous  winter.  Nevertheless, 
a  severer  blow  to  the  best  interests  of  the  state  could  hardly 
be  imagined,  especially  since  no  distinction  was  made  be- 
tween white  and  black  laborers  and  efforts  were  being  made 
at  the  time  to  induce  white  immigration.  In  effect  the  bill 
prescribed  that  any  laborer  who  failed  to  make  a  contract  by 
January  loth,  no  matter  what  wages  were  offered,  should  be 
liable  to  punishment  under  the  vagrancy  law.  The  Southern 
Intelligencer  furiously  attacked  the  bill,  denominating  it  "  a 
legislative  monster,"  and  declaring  "  its  practical  effect 
would  be  to  make  labor  synonymous  with  crime  and  to  de- 
grade the  free  laborer  to  the  condition  of  a  slave."  The 
House,  however,  so  amended  the  bill  as  to  allow  contracts 
to  be  made  at  any  time  for  any  length  of  time.  The  Senate 
rejected  the  amendments  and  a  joint  conference  committee 

1Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V,  979. 
*lbid.,  V,  1020. 


124  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I24 

was  appointed.  The  committee  extended  the  time  limit  to 
January  2Oth,  "  or  as  soon  as  practicable  thereafter,"  and 
made  the  law  applicable  only  to  "  common  laborers."  *  In 
this  form  the  bill  passed  both  House  and  Senate,  but  was 
later  reconsidered  in  the  House  and  cast  into  a  more  liberal 
form.  As  finally  passed  and  approved,  the  act  provided 
that  all  contracts  for  labor  for  periods  longer  than  one 
month  should  be  made  in  writing  before  a  magistrate  or 
two  disinterested  witnesses,  signed  in  triplicate,  and  re- 
corded. Laborers  had  full  liberty  to  choose  employers,  but 
could  not  leave  them  afterwards,  except  for  just  cause  or 
by  permission,  on  pain  of  forfeiture  of  all  wages  earned. 
Employers  had  the  right  to  make  deductions  from  wages 
for  time  lost,  bad  work,  or  for  any  injury  done  to  tools  or 
stock,  but  the  laborer  had  a  right  of  appeal  to  a  magistrate. 
Laborers  were  not  allowed  to  leave  home  without  permis- 
sion or  to  have  visitors  during  working  hours,  and  were 
required  to  be  obedient  and  respectful.  They  were  given  a 
lien  on  one-half  the  crop  as  security  for  their  wages;  the 
employer  was  subject  to  a  fine  for  cruelty  or  non-fulfilment 
of  contract,  and  the  fine  was  to  be  paid  to  the  laborer.2  The 
supporters  of  the  measure  held  that  something  of  the  kind 
was  necessary  for  the  proper  regulation  of  the  labor  of  an 
ignorant,  improvident,  and  irresponsible  people,  still  under 
the  influence  and  traditions  of  recent  slavery.  Their  oppo- 
nents very  sensibly  urged  that  the  act  was  ruinous  to  white 
labor  and  would  keep  it  out  of  the  state.  But  the  law  was 
not  long  in  force;  for  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  year 
General  Kiddoo  issued  an  order  to  the  effect  that  it  would 

1  House  Journal  Eleventh  Legislature,  442,  446,  456,  515,   562,  718. 
Also  Southern  Intelligencer,  October  4  and  n,  1866. 
2Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V,  994- 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

be  disregarded,  and  that  the  contracts  made  in  accordance 
with  its  provisions  would  not  be  approved.1 

Minor  measures  were  passed,  one  to  punish  persons  en- 
ticing away  contracted  laborers,  another  explicitly  granting 
to  freedmen  all  rights  not  prohibited  by  the  constitution, 
except  intermarriage  with  whites,  voting,  holding  public 
office,  serving  on  juries,  and  testifying  in  cases  in  which 
negroes  were  not  concerned.  The  governor  was  directed  to 
examine  into  the  affairs  of  the  late  military  board  and  to 
take  measures  to  recover  for  the  state  the  United  States 
bonds  alleged  to  have  been  fraudulently  paid  out  during 
the  war;  state  troops  were  provided  for  the  protection  of 
the  frontier,  and  President  Johnson  was  petitioned  to  have 
the  interior  garrisons  also  removed  thither.  In  the  last 
days  of  the  session  the  governor  informed  the  President 
of  the  chief  results  accomplished  and  asked  for  suggestions. 
Mr.  Johnson's  only  reply  was  to  urge  that  the  legislature 
"  make  all  laws  involving  civil  rights  as  complete  as  possible, 
so  as  to  extend  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  persons  with- 
out regard  to  color,"  if  it  had  not  already  been  done;  and  to 
express  a  firm  confidence  in  the  ultimate  complete  restora- 
tion of  the  Union.1 

The  legislature  adjourned  November  I3th.  All  in  all, 
its  members  had  taken  the  course  they  might  most  reason- 
ably have  been  expected  to  take.  If  their  selection  of  United 
States  Senators  was  an  unnecessary  act  of  defiance,  the  re- 
jection of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  may  be  ascribed  to 
a  higher  motive,  the  desire  to  maintain  at  any  cost  the  fun- 
damentals of  their  political  philosophy,  the  cherished  insti- 
tutions which  alone  in  their  eyes  made  for  free  government. 
Even  the  labor  law,  harsh  and  stringent  as  it  seems,  was 

1  General  Orders  no.  2,  January  3,  1867,  in  Executive  Correspondence. 
*  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1866,  p.  743. 


OF 


126  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I26 

almost  universally  regarded  as  necessary  both  for  the  good 
conduct  and  for  the  protection  of  the  negroes  for  whom 
alone  it  was  intended.  Keenly  conscious  only  of  local  needs, 
the  lawmakers  had  neglected  to  take  sufficiently  into  account 
the  forces  preparing  for  their  destruction  in  the  North. 

4.  Problems  and  Policies  of  Throckmorton' s  Admin- 
istration 

Governor  Throckmorton  regarded  Mr.  Johnson's  peace 
proclamation  of  August  20,  1866,  as  legally  and  definitely 
terminating  the  war  and  clearly  establishing  the  supremacy 
of  the  civil  over  the  military  authority.1  To  secure  the 
recognition  of  this  supremacy  as  an  accomplished  fact  be- 
came the  chief  aim  of  his  administration.  It  was  a  course 
which,  because  of  the  hostility  of  a  powerful  party  to  the 
restoration  policy  of  the  President  and  because  of  the  jealous 
suspicion  of  the  local  radicals  and  many  of  the  military  offi- 
cials with  whom  he  had  to  deal,  was  beset  with  many  ob- 
stacles. But  a  definite  and  clear-cut  plan  is  discernible 
throughout  his  term  of  office  and  one  who  follows  its  history 
closely  must  be  impressed  with  the  unfailing  honesty  and  the 
strong  common  sense  of  the  governor. 

His  purpose  was,  first,  by  the  vigilance  of  peace  officers 
and  the  regular  and  unhampered  operation  of  the  courts  to 
secure  the  restoration  of  order  and  a  just  and  more  complete 
enforcement  of  the  laws;  second,  in  this  way  to  eliminate 
the  necessity  of  military  courts,  particularly  those  of  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  to  induce  them  to  yield  to  the 
state  courts  full  jurisdiction  of  cases  properly  belonging  to 
the  latter;  and,  third,  to  secure  the  removal  of  the  military 
garrisons  from  the  interior  to  the  unprotected  frontier  now 
devastated  by  the  Indians. 

1  Throckmorton  to  Shropshire,  Executive  Correspondence. 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT  12>J 

During  the  spring  and  summer  of  1866  the  violence  and 
lawlessness  which  had  characterized  the  previous  year  had 
been  steadily  decreasing;  yet  conditions  were  still  unsettled 
and  only  relatively  quiet.  To  travelers  from  the  older  states 
there  doubtless  seemed  to  be  very  little  of  personal  securitv 
still,  for  bloody  encounters  were  common,  and  in  some 
localities  the  offenders  were  unpunished.  It  should  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  not  only  in  Texas  but  in  the 
Southwest  generally  sharp  disagreements  between  man  and 
man  were  settled  as  often  by  personal  conflict  as  by  legal 
adjustment,  and  where  it  had  been  "  a  fair  fight "  peace 
officers  were  likely  to  be  negligent  and  juries  lenient.  It 
was  the  rough  way  of  the  frontier,  and  Texas  was  pre-emi- 
nently a  frontier  state.  But  so  long  as  frontier  methods 
should  prevail  to  the  neglect  of  the  duly  organized  judiciary, 
it  would  be  useless  to  expect  that  the  military  officials  would 
report  Texas  as  peaceful,  or  the  freedmen  and  "  loyalists  " 
as  safe;  and,  therefore,  the  governor  exerted  his  influence 
to  the  utmost  to  secure  energetic  action  from  the  sheriffs 
and  promptness  and  impartial  justice  on  the  part  of  the 
courts.  To  this  end  he  was  in  constant  correspondence  with 
influential  citizens  in  all  parts  of  the  state  and  systematically 
urged  upon  the  military  confidence  in  the  civil  authorities. 

Had  the  governor -and  the  army  been  in  complete  accord 
in  regard  to  their  respective  jurisdictions,  clashes  between 
citizens  and  soldiers  would  nevertheless  have  been  unavoid- 
able, for  there  was  no  way  of  foreseeing  and  preventing  pri- 
vate quarrels.  Far  more  serious  than  these,  however,  were 
several  outbreaks  which  assumed  a  dangerous  character 
because  of  reckless  official  participation  in  them.  Of  these 
the  most  notorious  was  the  burning  of  Brenham,  where  a 
battalion  of  the  I7th  Infantry  was  stationed  under  the  com- 
mand of  Major  G.  W.  Smith.  On  the  night  of  September 
7,  1866,  a  crowd  of  drunken  soldiers  forced  their  way  into 


128  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I28 

and  broke  up  a  negro  ball.  Then,  pursuing  some  negroes 
who  fled  for  protection  to  a  social  gathering  of  some  of  the 
white  people,  they  made  their  way  thither  and  attempted 
to  break  up  that.  They  were  resisted,  a  fight  ensued,  and 
two  soldiers  were  shot,  but  not  seriously  hurt.  They  went 
back  to  their  camp  and  the  whole  force  turned  out  and  went 
to  town,  their  commander  with  them.  He  arrested  two 
citizens  and  threatened  the  town  if  others  did  not  surrender 
themselves.  Then,  by  his  orders,  two  stores  were  broken 
into  under  pretense  of  searching  for  the  citizens  wanted, 
and  were  rifled  of  their  contents.  Shortly  afterwards  sol- 
diers were  discovered  setting  one  of  these  stores  on  fire. 
An  entire  block  of  buildings  was  destroyed  with  a  loss  of 
over  $130,000.  The  citizens  appealed  to  the  governor,  and 
at  his  request  an  investigation  of  the  affair  was  made  by 
the  regimental  commander,  Colonel  Mason,  then  on  duty 
at  Galveston.  Mason's  report  disclosed  practically  nothing 
and  was  a  palpable  "  white-wash  ". x  A  special  committee 
of  the  legislature,  after  an  extensive  investigation,  made  a 
report  identifying  certain  soldiers  as  guilty  and  implicating 
Major  Smith,  who  had  allowed  the  accused  soldiers  to  de- 
sert and  had  refused  to  assist  the  committee.2  A  grand  jury 
indicted  Smith  on  a  charge  of  burglary  and  arson;  but  al- 
though Throckmorton  appealed  to  the  President  on  behalf 
of  the  civil  courts,8  it  proved  impossible  to  bring  the  officer 
to  trial  in  defiance  of  his  military  superiors.4  A  judgment 

1  It  is  given  in  The  Southern  Intelligencer,  September  27,  1866 

2  The  report  of  the  committee,  with  the  testimony  of  all  witnesses 
examined  by  it,  is  given  in  the  appendix  to  House  Journal,  Eleventh 
Legislature. 

8  Throckmorton   to    Stanbery,    October   12,    1866,   copy  in  Executive 
Records,  Register  Book,  no.  84,  p.  120. 

4  Sheridan  accepted  imquestioningly  the  statements  made  by   Mason 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT          129 

for  damages  was  rendered  against  him  in  favor  of  a  firm 
whose  store  had  been  burned;  but  in  July,  1867,  when  mar- 
tial law  was  again  supreme,  General  Griffin  issued  a  special 
order  reversing  this  judgment  and  dismissing  all  proceed- 
ings against  the  officer,  because  "  the  acts  [of  Smith]  were 
committed  in  discharge  of  his  duty  as  an  officer,  and  the 
action  of  the  court  was  dictated  by  a  spirit  of  malicious  per- 
secution, fostered  by  vindictive  and  disloyal  sentiments."  * 

In  Bosque  County  occurred  an  incident  that  does  much  to 
explain  the  bitter  hostility  frequently  shown  to  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau  agents.  A  negro,  charged  with  the  rape  of 
a  young  white  woman,  had  been  arrested,  jailed,  and  duly 
indicted,  when  a  Bureau  agent,  living  twenty  miles  away, 
came  in  and  demanded  the  negro  of  the  sheriff,  threatening 
that  officer  with  arrest  and  trial  before  a  military  commis- 
sion at  Houston  if  he  refused  to  surrender  the  prisoner, 
and  showing  an  order  from  his  superior  officer  in  justifica- 
tion of  his  action.  The  negro  was  turned  over  to  him,  only 
to  be  released  shortly  afterward.2  A  negro  cook  on  a  vessel 
entering  Galveston  was,  at  the  request  of  the  captain,  ar- 
rested by  the  civil  authorities  on  a  charge  of  mutinous  and 
disobedient  conduct,  but  was  released  by  order  of  General 
Kiddoo.3 

In  Matagorda  County  a  freedman  indicted  for  murderous 
assault  was  forcibly  taken  from  the  custody  of  the  sheriff 

and  Smith,  and  in  his  report  to  Washington,  said:  "At  Brenham  two 
unarmed  soldiers  were  shot.  The  grand  jury  found  no  bill  against  the 
would-be  assassins,  but  indicted  Major  Smith  for  burglary  because  he 
broke  into  the  house  of  some  citizen  in  order  to  arrest  these  men." 
Official  Records,  War  of  Rebellion,  Ser.  I,  vol.  xlviii,  part  i,  301. 

1  Special  Order  no.  133,  July  10,  1867. 

2  J.  K.  Helton  to  Throckmorton,  August  21,  1866,  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence. 

3  Alvan  Reed  to  Throckmorton,  ibid. 


130  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

by  the  local  Bureau  agent.  The  governor,  seeing  that  his 
belief  in  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  authority  was  not  shared 
by  the  Bureau  officials,  endeavored  to  come  to  some  under- 
standing with  them.  He  wrote  to  General  Kiddoo  concern- 
ing the  affair  at  Matagorda : 

I  desire  to  know  if  the  action  of  the  agent  of  the  Bureau  in 
thus  interfering  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law  is  by  your 
order  and  if  he  is  sustained  by  you  in  so  doing.  I  would  re- 
spectfully desire  of  you,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  informa- 
tion of  the  extent  of  your  power  and  authority,  and  how  far 
you  expect  to  exercise  it  to  interfere  with  the  civil  authorities 
in  the  exercise  of  their  duty  in  bringing  freedmen  to  trial  for 
offenses  committed  against  the  laws  of  the  state.  ...  I 
would  also  inquire  if  you  recognize  the  President's  peace  pro- 
clamation as  making  the  military  subordinate  to  the  civil  au- 
thority.1 

On  the  same  date  Throckmorton  wrote  Judge  Shropshire 
at  Matagorda  that  he  had  received  information  from  Gen- 
eral Heintzelman,  commanding  the  forces  in  western 
Texas,  that  General  Grant  had  issued  an  order  declaring 
the  President's  peace  proclamation  had  superseded  military 
orders  previously  issued  requiring  the  military  to  interfere 
with  the  civil  authority  in  certain  cases.  "  In  other  words/' 
added  the  governor  with  evident  satisfaction,  "  the  procla- 
mation restores  the  supremacy  of  civil  over  military  au- 
thority." 2 

A  serious  situation  existed  at  Victoria.  The  negro  troops 
stationed  there  under  the  lax  command  of  a  Captain  Spauld- 
ing  had  taken  control  of  the  county  jail  and  rendered  it 

1  Throckmorton  to  Kiddoo,   November   7,   1866;   copy   in   Executive 
Records,  Register  Book,  no.  84,  p.  125. 
a  Copy,  ibid.,  p.   152. 


I3I]  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT  l^i 

impossible  for  the  civil  authorities  to  keep  a  negro  or  North- 
ern man  confined  there,  no  matter  what  his  offense  had  been. 
It  was  alleged  by  the  county  judge  that  these  soldiers  had 
forcibly  released  two  negroes  convicted  of  horse-theft  and 
an  ex-federal  soldier  convicted  of  robbery.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  had  taken  out  and  hanged  a  white  man  who 
was  awaiting  trial  for  the  murder  of  a  negro,  and  had  ar- 
bitrarily imprisoned  various  citizens  until  the  latter  were 
willing  to  bribe  their  tormentors  for  their  release.1  The 
town  was  terrorized.  No  writ  could  be  executed  against 
any  negro  or  friend  of  the  soldiers.  Throckmorton  pro- 
tested vigorously  to  General  Heintzelman  and  insisted  that 
Spaulding  be  court-martialed  and  that  the  troops  be  re- 
moved from  Victoria  altogether.  When  the  case  finally 
came  before  General  Sheridan,  three  months  later,  he  or- 
dered that  one  of  the  soldiers  be  turned  over  to  the  civil 
authorities  for  trial,  a  concession  that  the  governor  found 
"  very  gratifying,"  in  that  "  the  military  were  disposed  to 
recognize  the  civil  authority  of  the  state."  * 

A  peculiar  and  yet  in  some  ways  a  characteristic  case 
came  to  notice  in  Bell  County.  In  Collin  County  before  the 
war  a  man  named  Lindley,  who  was  a  violent  secessionist, 
was  found  to  be  connected  with  a  gang  of  horse-thieves 
and  was  driven  out.  After  the  close  of  the  war  he  turned 
up  in  Lampasas  County  engaged  in  the  same  business.8 
Threatened  with  arrest  and  fearing  the  testimony  of  two 
citizens  of  Bell  County  named  Daws  and  Duncan,  he  pro- 

1 C.  Carson  and  others  to  Throckmorton,  MSS.  in  Executive  Cor- 
respondence. Also  Throckmorton  to  Heintzelman,  September  25,  1866; 
copy  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  Throckmorton  to  Shropshire,  copy,  ibid. 

*  Throckmorton  to  Sheridan,  Executive  Records,  Register  Book,  no. 
84,  p.  246;  also  Throckmorton  to  Stanbery,  ibid.,  p.  122. 


132  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

cured  their  arrest  by  the  military  authorities  on  the  plea  that 
he  was  a  "  Union  "  man  and  that  his  son  had  been  hanged 
during  the  war  by  the  said  Daws  and  Duncan  because  of  his 
Union  sentiments.  While  these  men  were  in  charge  of  a 
military  escort  they  were  shot  down  by  Lindley  in  cold 
blood,  with  no  effort  at  interference  by  the  officers  in  charge, 
who  even  attempted  to  protect  Lindley  from  punishment. 
Both  Lindley  and  the  officer  were  indicted  by  the  grand  jury 
of  Bell  County,  but  the  military  authorities  insisted  that  they 
be  tried  before  a  military  commission  and  refused  to  allow 
any  attorney  to  represent  the  state  or  even  to  submit  written 
questions  to  the  witnesses.1  Whatever  the  reason  for  so 
doing,  the  military  court  acquitted  both  the  accused;  but 
later  Lindley  was  arrested  by  the  civil  authorities  and  jailed 
at  Belton.  He  loudly  demanded  a  guard  of  troops;  but, 
backed  by  the  promises  of  the  citizens,  the  governor  assured 
the  military  that  the  prisoner  was  safe.  Nevertheless,  a 
mob  broke  into  the  jail  and  hanged  him.  Heralded  to  the 
world  as  the  martyrdom  of  a  "  Union  man  ",  his  death  fur- 
nished political  capital  to  the  radicals,  while  the  failure  of 
the  citizens  of  Bell  County  to  merit  theconfidence  and  to 
sustain  the  promises  of  the  governor  seriously  weakened 
his  efforts  to  get  rid  of  the  military  and  caused  him  both 
anxiety  and  chagrin. 

Numbers  of  instances  could  be  cited  wherein  military 
officials  over-rode  the  civil  authority  in  true  cavalier  fashion. 
At  Lockhart  and  at  Seguin  court  records  and  papers  were 
seized  and  destroyed  or  mutilated.  In  Houston  a  negro 
indicted  and  confined  for  an  attempted  murder  escaped,  and 
the  Bureau  agent  resisted  his  rearrest  by  the  sheriff.  The 
county  judge  of  Grimes  County  was  placed  under  military 

1  Throckmorton  to  Heintzelman,  September  24,  1886,  MS.  copy  in 
Executive  Correspondence. 


RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

arrest.  At  Brenham  the  Bureau  agent  seized  and  made 
use  of  the  jail  and  imprisoned  the  editor  of  a  local  paper 
for  publicly  criticising  the  conduct  of  certain  teachers  of 
freedmen.  The  editor  was  released  after  three  weeks 
through  the  intervention  of  the  governor,  who  sent  a  protest 
to  General  Kiddoo.  In  Grayson  County  a  government  agent 
who  had  been  arrested  for  offenses  committed  before  enter- 
ing upon  his  office  was  forcibly  released  by  the  military.  To 
lay  all  the  blame  for  these  troubles  upon  the  military  would 
manifestly  be  unjust;  in  many  cases  they  were  provoked  by 
the  dilatoriness  of  the  civil  courts  or  by  the  prejudices  oc- 
casionally manifested  against  those  new  rights  claimed  for 
the  negro  but  not  clearly  granted  him  by  the  state  code. 
Moreover,  as  the  peace  proclamation  of  the  President  could 
not  abolish  a  jurisdiction  established  by  Congress,  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  were  still  in  duty  bound  to 
interfere  in  behalf  of  the  negro  whenever  they  believed  he 
was  being  unjustly  treated. 

It  was  in  obedience  to  this  obligation  that  General  Griffin, 
the  new  assistant  commissioner  for  Texas,  in  a  circular 
order  issued  January  26,  1867,  directed  his  subordinates  to 
"  enforce  the  rights  of  freedmen  according  to  the  laws  of 
Congress  whenever  injustice  is  done  them  or  whenever  the 
civil  authorities  neglect  to  render  them  justice."  l  A  week 
later,  however,  relations  with  the  civil  authority  were  more 
carefully  defined  and  the  force  of  the  above  order  somewhat 
modified  by  instructions  that  all  criminal  cases  in  which 
freedmen  were  concerned  should  be  left  to  the  civil  authori- 
ties; but  that  unpunished  or  unnoticed  outrages  upon  freed- 
men and  all  cases  arising  under  the  Civil  Rights  Act  should 
be  reported  to  military  headquarters;  that  in  civil  suits  the 
agents  were  merely  to  act  as  the  advisers  of  the  freedmen 

1  See  Flake's  Weekly  Bulletin,  February  6,  1867. 


I34  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I34 

before  the  courts  and  to  report  the  action  of  the  courts  to 
headquarters;  and  that  the  enforcement  of  the  state  va- 
grancy and  apprenticeship  laws  should  not  be  interfered 
with  it  fairly  administered.1  Though  inclined  at  times  to 
allow  the  civil  authorities  opportunity  to  prove  their  desire 
to  administer  real  justice,  it  is,  nevertheless,  pretty  clear 
that  the  man  of  arms  was  too  often  skeptical  of  their  justice, 
too  frequently  disposed  to  bully,  to  resort  to  force  when  his 
jurisdiction  was  questioned,  and  to  protect  one  of  his  own 
faith  and  party  against  the  law  of  the  "  rebel  "  without 
inquiring  very  carefully  into  the  merits  of  the  case  or  into 
the  right  of  the  civil  authorities  to  be  respected. 

More  harmful,  however,  to  the  new  state  government 
than  the  troubles  indicated  above  were  the  statements  sent 
to  Washington  by  high  federal  officials.  In  his  final  report 
of  inspection  of  Bureau  affairs  in  Texas,  made  in  June, 
1866,  General  Gregory  had  stated  that  Union  men  and 
freedmen  were  "  trembling  for  their  lives  and  preparing  to 
leave  the  state,"  that  murders  and  outrages  upon  freedmen 
had  been  on  the  increase  since  March  (i.  e.,  since  the  ad- 
journment of  the  convention)  and  that  the  criminals  were 
always  acquitted  in  the  civil  courts.2  In  his  zeal  to  aid  his 
radical  friends  the  commissioner  had  forgotten  that  the 
civil  officials  of  whom  he  complained  were  those  appointed 
by  Hamilton,  since  the  recently  elected  conservatives  were 
not  installed  until  August.  Sheridan,  in  his  official  report, 
declared  that  conditions  in  Texas  were  such  that  the  trial 
of  a  white  man  for  killing  a  negro  would  be  a  farce,3  and 
in  a  letter  to  Throckmorton,  January  16,  1867,  asserted 

1  See  Southern  Intelligencer,  February  2,  1867. 

2  Gregory  to  Howard,  printed  in  Flake's  Weekly  Bulletin,  August  I, 
1866. 

8  See  Official  Records,  War  of  Rebellion,  Ser.  I,  vol.  xlviii,  pt.  i, 
p.  301. 


X35]  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

that  "  there  are  more  casualties  occurring  from  outrages 
perpetrated  upon  Union  men  and  freedmen  in  the  interior 
of  the  state  than  occur  from  Indian  depredations  on  the 
frontier.  The  former  greatly  exceed  the  latter  and  are 
induced  by  the  old  rebellious  sentiment."  *  To  this  Throck- 
morton  entered  a  prompt  and  vigorous  denial.  He  told 
Sheridan  that  the  latter  and  his  officers  had  for  the  most 
part  been  imposed  upon  by  men  who  proclaimed  themselves 
"  outraged  Union  men,"  but  who  had  really  never  been 
Union  men  at  all ;  more  often  they  were  rogues  and  horse- 
thieves  who  set  up  that  cry  in  order  to  get  protection  of  the 
military.  He  himself  had  been  a  Union  man  before  the 
war,  had  had  extensive  correspondence  with  Union  men.  all 
over  the  state,  and  knew  that  some  of  these  men  who  were 
now  being  outraged  "  for  their  Union  sentiment  "  had  for- 
merly been  "  brawling,  blatant  secessionists  "  and  notorious 
for  their  bad  character.2  Not  content  with  this,  the  gov- 
ernor, on  February  9th,  sent  out  circular  inquiries  to  the 
civil  officers  throughout  the  state,  chiefly  to  the  justices  of 
the  county  courts,  regarding  the  treatment  of  Union  men 
and  freedmen  in  the  courts  and  at  the  hands  of  the  people 
in  general,  and  making  specific  inquiries  concerning  such 
cases  as  had  been  brought  to  his  attention.  In  the  answers 
to  this  circular  it  was  claimed  without  exception  that  the 
law  was  impartially  enforced  upon  all  classes  without  dis- 
tinction of  color  or  politics.  Some  writers  complained  of 
the  Bureau  officials,  some  of  the  soldiers,  while  some  were 
on  the  best  of  terms  with  the  military,  to  whom  they  re- 
ferred for  endorsement  of  their  statements.  Although  one 
is  tempted  to  suspect  that  many  of  the  civil  officials  en- 

1  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  Throckmorton  to  Sheridan,  Executive  Records,  Register  Books,  no. 
p.  246. 


136  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

deavored  to  make  out  as  cheerful  a  picture  of  conditions  as 
possible,  a  careful  examination  of  the  records  of  the  execu- 
tive office  goes  far  to  bear  out  their  statements  so  far  as  the 
courts  were  concerned.  In  trials  of  homicide  of  freedmen 
the  defendants  were  often  acquitted,  but  numerous  cases 
are  found  in  which  white  men  were  convicted  on  this  charge. 
On  the  other  hand,  numbers  of  negroes  convicted  of  petty 
crimes,  such  as  theft,  were  pardoned  by  the  governor  upon 
petition  of  judge  and  jurors.  The  longest  and  most  inter- 
esting of  the  reports  above  mentioned  is  from  Robert  Wil- 
son, county  judge  of  Grayson  County,  who  confessed  that 
many  foul  murders  had  been  committed  in  his  county, 
but  insisted  that  they  were  the  work  of  a  band  of  outlaws 
from  across  Red  River  in  the  Indian  Territory.  The  freed- 
men, he  said,  suffered  from  no  injustice  in  the  courts,  and 
the  instances  of  their  mistreatment  by  the  people  were  rare. 
Union  men  were  not  persecuted:  he  himself  had  always 
been  a  Union  man  and  had  been  elected  over  a  secessionist 
of  unimpeachable  character.  A  "  refugee "  had  recently 
gained  a  law  suit,  though  several  times  beaten  before  the 
war.  The  cry  of  persecution  had  always  come  from  some 
person  who,  having  transgressed  the  law,  wished  to  enlist 
for  his  defense  the  sympathies  of  the  military  and  of  the 
general  government.1 

On  the  whole,  Throckmorton's  confidence  in  the  ability  of 
the  state  and  local  officials  to  maintain  justice  and  order 
seems  to  have  justified  itself,  though  a  few  localities  still 
retained  an  undesirable  reputation  for  violence  and  out- 
rage.2 The  governor,  however,  had  not  been  content  to 
wait  for  conditions  in  the  interior  to  become  thoroughly 

1  For  this  and  other  reports  see  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  For   alleged   outrages   upon   freedmen   at    Prairie  Lea,    see    W.   C 
Philips  to  Throckmorfon,  MS.,  ibid. 


I37]  RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

settled  before  trying  to  relieve  the  situation  on  the  frontier. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Hamilton  had  spent  some  effort 
in  that  direction  but  had  finally  acquiesced  in  Sheridan's 
claim  that  the  troops  were  needed  more  in  the  interior. 
Perhaps  Throckmorton's  previous  experience  on  the  fron- 
tier and  as  commissioner  to  the  Indians  under  the  Confed- 
eracy made  him  peculiarly  alive  to  the  situation  in  that  re- 
gion. Certain  it  is  that  the  harrowing  tales  of  cruelty  and 
suffering  and  the  constant  appeals  for  protection  that  came 
to  him  weighed  heavily  upon  his  mind.  Hardly  was  he 
seated  in  the  governor's  chair  when  he  urgently  requested 
General  Wright  to  send  troops  to  the  desolated  border,1  and 
he  gave  the  subject  of  frontier  relief  a  prominent  place  in 
his  message  to  the  legislature.2  Wright,  keeping  in  line 
with  Sheridan's  former  attitude,  replied  that  he  had  no 
authority  to  establish  new  posts;  that  it  was  wholly  within 
the  power  of  General  Sheridan ;  and  that,  besides,  there  was 
not  sufficient  force  in  Texas  for  the  work  without  breaking 
up  the  interior  posts.  Seeing  that  it  was  useless  to  wait 
upon  the  military  commander,  the  governor  wrote  on  Au- 
gust 25th  to  President  Johnson,  as  commander-in-chief, 
describing  the  conditions  on  the  frontier  and  urgently  re- 
peating his  request  that  troops  from  the  interior  go  to  its 
protection  since  they  were  not  needed  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  law.3  Mr.  Johnson  referred  the  matter  to  Stanton, 
Secretary  of  War,  who  referred  it  to  Grant  and  told  Throck- 
morton  to  confer  with  Sheridan.4  Thrown  back  upon  the 
mercies  of  Sheridan,  he  next  appealed  to  General  Heintzel- 

1  See  Executive  Records,  Register  Book,  no.  84,  p.  37. 

2  House  Journal,  Eleventh  Legislature,  80. 

3  Copy  in  Executive  Records,  Register  Book,  no.  84,  p.  60 ;  also  MS. 
in  Johnson  Papers. 

4  MS.  in  Johnson  Papers. 


138  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

man,  in  command  of  the  western  division  of  Texas,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  persuading  him  to  send  two  regiments  of  cavalry 
to  the  lower  frontier.1  The  legislature  authorized  the  rais- 
ing of  one  thousand  state  troops,2  which  were  tendered 
Sheridan,  but  were  refused  by  him  on  the  ground  that  the 
United  States  could  furnish  all  the  soldiers  necessary.8  In 
his  annual  report  to  the  war  department,  Sheridan  de- 
clared that  justice  was  not  done  freedmen,  Union  men,  and 
soldiers  in  the  interior,  and  that  troops  were  still  needed 
there;  and  expressed  the  belief  that  the  reports  of  Indian 
depredations  on  the  frontier  were  "  probably  exaggerated  " 
and  that  conditions  were  "  not  alarming."  However,  he 
stated  that  frontier  posts  would  be  established  in  the  spring.4 
When  a  measure  of  protection  was  finally  afforded,  Texas 
had  passed  again  into  a  "  provisional  organization." 

5.  The  Work  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau 
The  chief  activities  of  the  Bureau  from  the  spring  of 
1866  to  March,  1867,  may  be  indicated  in  brief  space.  The 
measure  of  relief  work  carried  on  in  Texas  had  never  been 
very  great.5  Such  indigent  negroes  as  were  not  cared  for 
by  their  former  masters  were  transferred  to  the  charge  of 
the  counties  on  the  ground  that  they  were  citizens  and  en- 
titled to  poor  relief,  as  clearly  as  were  indigent  whites.6 
During  the  fifteen  months  ending  September  i,  1866,  the 

1  Throckmorton  to  Heintzelman,  and  Heintzelman  to  Throckmorton, 
MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  V,  928,  942,  1035. 
8  See  MS.  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

4  Official  Records,  War  of  Rebellion,  Ser.  I,  vol.  xlviii,  pt.  i,  p.  301. 
Sheridan  seemed  to  believe  that  the  whole  affair  was  a  mere  ruse  to  get 
the  military  out  of  the  way  in  order  that  the  freedmen  and  unionists 
might  be  left  defenceless  against  "  rebel "  hostility. 

5  Supra,  p.  71  et  seq. 

«  Kiddoo,  Circular  Order,  no.  16,  June  18,  1866. 


I39]          RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT 

average  number  of  rations  issued  daily  in  the  whole  state 
was  only  twenty-nine.1  The  number  of  pupils  enrolled  in 
the  schools  for  freedmen  was  over  four  thousand  five  hun- 
dred, with  forty-three  teachers.* 

The  most  constant  watchfulness  had  not  been  sufficient 
to  hold  the  negro  to  his  contract,  and,  in  his  own  interest 
as  well  as  that  of  the  planter,  appropriate  measures  had 
been  taken  from  time  to  time  to  keep  him  in  the  fields  until 
the  crop  was  gathered.  On  this  account  Kiddoo  became 
convinced  that  contracts  for  labor  should  be  made  for  the 
entire  year  instead  of  by  months,  especially  in  the  cotton- 
growing  districts.8  In  order  to  protect  those  who  were  em- 
ployed by  the  month  he  ordered  that  all  unpaid  wages  were 
to  be  held  as  a  first  lien  on  the  crop,  regardless  of  sales, 
rents,  or  other  claims  whatsoever;  and  that,  where  so  spe- 
cified in  the  contract,  payments  should  be  made  in  specie  or 
its  equivalent  in  currency  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made.4 
Later,  in  the  cotton-picking  season,  the  officials  of  the 
Bureau  were  instructed  to  see  that  the  freedmen  who  had 
worked  on  shares  got  their  just  portion  of  the  crop  and  the 
market  price  for  it.  When  necessary  the  agents  were  to 
arbitrate  differences  arising  out  of  claims  for  supplies  fur- 
nished the  freedmen  during  the  summer;  but,  except  in  ex- 
treme cases,  this  was  to  be  avoided,  and  the  agents  were  to 
confine  themselves  to  the  arbitration  of  differences  arising 
out  of  written  contracts  for  labor.8  By  a  later  order,  he 

1  Howard,  Annual  Report,  House  Exec.  Docs.,  3pth  Cong.,  2  sess., 
I.  745- 

*Ibid. 

*  Kiddoo  to  Howard,  in  Flake's  Weekly  Bulletin,  August  22,  1866. 

4  Circular  Order,  no.  19,  August  20,  1866,  in  Executive  Correspon- 
dence. Paper  money  was  at  a  discount  at  this  time. 

8  Circular  Order,  no.  21,  October  I,  1866,  in  Executive  Corres- 
pondence. 


140  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I4O 

insisted  that  no  contract  for  labor  to  which  a  freedman  was 
a  party  could  be  regarded  as  finally  settled  until  arbitrated 
and  fulfilment  certified  to  by  an  officer  of  the  Bureau.1  In 
order  to  avoid  misunderstanding  growing  out  of  indefinite 
terms  in  the  contracts,  all  agents  were  instructed  to  take 
care  that  in  the  contracts  for  the  next  year  every  detail  of 
the  agreement  should  be  specified  and  that  nothing  be  left 
to  be  "  understood  " ;  and  they  were  also  required  to  urge 
the  freedmen  to  take  a  portion  of  the  crop  rather  than 
monthly  wages.2  The  labor  law  devised  by  the  legislature 
was  repudiated  by  Kiddoo  and  contracts  made  in  accord- 
ance therewith  were  disapproved;  but  General  Griffin,  who 
succeeded  Kiddoo  on  January  24,  1867,  uniting  the  mili- 
tary command  of  the  state  with  the  control  of  the  Bureau, 
adopted  some  of  its  provisions.  Contracts  for  labor  could 
be  drawn  up  before  and  ratified  by  a  civil  magistrate  or  any 
two  disinterested  witnesses,  provided  that  a  copy  was  sent 
to  Bureau  headquarters ;  a  copy  was  also  to  be  filed  with  the 
county  clerk.3  Within  a  few  weeks  Texas  was  again  under 
military  rule,  when  there  was  no  question  of  the  relative 
status  of  the  civil  and  the  military  authority ;  but  the  Bureau 
had  never  been  in  doubt  of  its  own  authority  and  the  pro- 
tests of  the  state  officials  had  made  little  impression  upon  its 
policies. 

Hampered  as  he  was  on  all  sides  by  the  open  hostility  of 
the  radicals,  the  suspicion  of  the  military  officials,  and  the 
thinly  veiled  antagonism  of  the  old  secession  wing  of  his 
own  party,  Throckmorton  had  maintained  his  difficult  posi- 

1  Circular   Order,  no.   23,   November   I,    1866,   in  Executive   Corres- 
pondence; also  in  Southern  Intelligencer,  November  15,  1866. 

2  Circular  Order,  no.  21,  December  25,  1866,  in  Southern  Intelligencer, 
January  3,  1867. 

8  See  Flake's  Weekly  Bulletin,  February  6,  1867 ;  also  Southern  In- 
telligencer, February  14,  1867. 


I4I]          RESTORATION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENT  I4I 

tion  with  dignity  and  a  large  measure  of  success.  Although 
prevented  from  affording  relief  to  the  suffering  frontier, 
and  unable  to  eliminate  entirely  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bureau,  he  was,  nevertheless,  making  steady  progress  in  re- 
storing the  state  to  order  and  in  inculcating  a  respect  for 
legal  processes.  Much  still  remained  to  be  done;  but  as 
lawlessness  and  violence  gradually  became  less  prevalent, 
the  military  had  shown  a  tendency  to  acquiesce  more  and 
more  in  the  extension  of  civil  jurisdiction,  and  one  can  not 
escape  the  conclusion  that,  had  Congress  kept  hands  off, 
Texas  would  have  been  fully  restored  in  a  short  while  to 
that  condition  of  real  peace  which  it  was  the  professed  aim 
of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  to  bring  about 


PART    II 
CONGRESSIONAL  RECONSTRUCTION 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

i.   The  Reconstruction  Acts 

ALTHOUGH  neither  in  its  form  nor  in  its  content  could  it 
have  been  accurately  anticipated,  the  Reconstruction  Act 
that  became  law  March  2,  1867,  was  not  wholly  unexpected 
by  well-informed  people  in  any  part  of  the  South.  The  in- 
creasing strength  and  activity  of  the  Radicals  during  the 
previous  year,  the  general  resentment  of  the  North  at  the 
rejection  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  southern 
legislatures,  the  widening  breach  between  the  moderate 
Republicans  and  the  President,  and  the  overwhelming  sup- 
port given  to  his  opponents  in  the  fall  elections,  had  made 
it  plain  enough  that  Mr.  Johnson's  plan  for  the  restoration 
of  the  southern  states  was  already  defeated  when  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Congress  met  for  its  last  session.  The  question  now 
was  as  to  the  plan  that  would  be  substituted  for  his.1 

Although  they  had  been  slow  to  formulate  any  program 
of  their  own,  the  majority  in  Congress  felt  that  something 
must  be  done  towards  settling  affairs  in  the  South  before 
the  close  of  the  session  on  March  4th.  Thaddeus  Stevens 
had  endeavored  to  force  through  a  purely  military  bill,  de- 
stroying the  existing  state  governments,  establishing  mar- 
tial law,  and  leaving  the  whole  matter  of  re-admission  to  be 
arranged  by  the  incoming  and  more  radical  Fortieth  Con- 
gress ;  but  the  moderates  were  unwilling  to  become  respon- 

1  See  Texas  Republican,  January  5  and  12,  1867;  San  Antonio  Daily 
Herald,  Jan.  9,  10,  and  14,  1867;  other  papers,  passim. 

M5]  US 


146  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

sible  for  a  scheme  so  drastic  and  so  fraught  with  perilous 
precedents,  and  they  succeeded  in  engrafting  upon  the  bill  a 
plan  for  the  resuscitation  of  civil  government. 

In  brief,  the  first  Reconstruction  Act *  declared  that  no 
legal  state  governments  or  adequate  protection  for  life  or 
property  existed  in  the  "  rebel  "  states ;  that  they  should  be 
divided  into  military  districts,  of  which  Louisiana  and 
Texas  should  constitute  the  fifth;  that  to  the  command  of 
each  district  the  President  should  appoint  a  general  officer 
of  the  army,  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  protect  all  persons 
in  their  rights  of  person  and  property,  to  suppress  insurrec- 
tion, disorder,  and  violence,  and  to  punish  disturbers  of  the 
peace  and  criminals.  At  the  discretion  of  the  commander, 
local  civil  tribunals  could  be  allowed  to  try  offenders  or  they 
could  be  tried  before  military  commissions ;  and  there  should 
be  no  interference,  under  color  of  state  law,  with  the  exer- 
cise of  military  authority.  However,  no  sentence  of  a  mili- 
tary commission,  affecting  the  life  or  liberty  of  any  person, 
should  be  executed  until  approved  by  the  district  com- 
mander. It  was  further  provided  that  whenever  the  people 
of  any  state,  through  a  convention  chosen  by  universal 
manhood  suffrage  (excluding  such  persons  as  were  disfran- 
chised for  participation  in  the  rebellion  or  for  felony,  or 
were  debarred  from  holding  office  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment),  had  framed  a  constitution  in  conformity  to 
that  of  the  United  States,  and  when  such  constitution  had 
been  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  persons  voting  thereon 
and  had  been  approved  by  Congress,  and  when  the  state 
legislature  had  adopted  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  the 
state  should  be  readmitted  to  the  Union  and  its  senators  and 
representatives  to  Congress.  Finally,  it  was  declared  that 
the  existing  state  (Johnson)  governments  should  be  deemed 

1  Acts  and  Resolutions,  39  C,  2  s.,  p.  608.     Also  in  Fleming,  Docu- 
mentary History  of  Reconstruction,  I,  401. 


I47]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

provisional  only,  "  and  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  para- 
mount authority  of  the  United  States  at  any  time  to  abolish, 
modify  or  control,  or  supersede  " ;  and  that  in  elections  held 
under  them  the  same  rules  as  to  suffrage  should  apply  as 
in  voting  for  the  constitutional  convention,  and  the  same 
disqualifications  for  holding  office  as  were  provided  by  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment. 

This  act,  however,  failed  to  provide  the  initiative  ma- 
chinery for  calling  the  constitutional  conventions;  and  one 
of  the  first  measures  of  the  Fortieth  Congress  was  the  Sup- 
plementary Reconstruction  Act  of  March  23rd,1  designed 
to  remedy  this  defect.  It  provided  that  the  commanding 
general  in  each  district  should,  before  September  ist,  cause 
a  registration  to  be  made  of  all  qualified  citizens  in  each 
county,  and  that  each  citizen  so  registering  should  take  an 
oath  that  he  was  not  disqualified  by  law;  that,  at  an  elec- 
tion subsequently  to  be  held  at  a  time  designated  by  the  dis- 
trict commander,  the  voters  should  vote  for  or  against  a 
convention  and  choose  delegates  to  the  same ;  but  no  conven- 
tion should  be  held  unless  a  majority  of  the  registered  voters 
should  have  participated  in  the  election  and  a  majority  of 
those  actually  voting  should  have  favored  the  convention. 
If  declared  for  by  a  majority  of  voters,  the  convention 
should  be  called  at  a  time  and  place  designated  by  the  mili- 
tary commander;  and  the  constitution  framed  by  it  should 
be  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  for  ratification;  and,  if 
ratified  by  one-half  of  those  actually  voting — provided  that 
the  total  number  of  actual  voters  equaled  half  of  the  regis- 
tered voters — and  approved  by  Congress,  the  state  should 
be  declared  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress. 

The  purpose  and  effect  of  these  two  acts  was  to  paralyze 
the  state  governments  that  had  been  restored  since  the  war, 

1  Acts  and  Resolutions,  40  C,  i  s.,  p.  260.  Also  in  Fleming,  op.  cit., 
I,  p.  407- 


148  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

to  place  the  whole  South  under  potential  martial  law,  to 
disfranchise  the  leading  whites,  and  to  enfranchise  the 
blacks.  It  was  expected  by  the  framers  and  advocates  of 
these  measures  that  the  negroes  and  their  white  radical 
friends  would  control  the  states,  thereby  insuring  "  loyal  " 
governments.  The  authors  of  these  acts  had  insisted  that 
the  South  was  in  a  condition  bordering  upon  anarchy  and 
that  this  was  due  to  the  rebellious  and  disloyal  disposition 
of  its  people,  that  everywhere  unionists  and  loyal  freedmen 
were  unsafe,  were  being  outraged  and  murdered.  Never, 
perhaps,  was  punitive  legislation  founded  upon  a  more  dis- 
torted array  of  evidence,  upon  a  worse  misrepresentation 
as  to  facts.  Some  few  select  witnesses  had  been  examined, 
a  great  number  of  anonymous  complaints  of  persecuted 
loyalists  had  been  aired,  but  in  the  case  of  no  state  had  there 
been  an  honest  effort  to  gain  an  impartial  knowledge  of  the 
whole  truth,  certainly  not  in  Texas.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  accused  were  given  no  opportunity  to  state 
their  own  case,  or  to  answer  the  allegations  against  them; 
at  best,  their  protests  were  simply  ignored.  The  only  state- 
ments that  gained  credence  were  those  of  military  officials, 
usually  not  unprejudiced  and  frequently  imposed  upon  by 
designing  persons,  and  of  local  radical  politicians  who  were 
laboriously  striving  to  excite  feeling  against  the  state  gov- 
ernment in  order  to  serve  their  own  ambitious  purposes. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  a  number  of  Texas  radicals 
spent  the  winter  of  1866-67  m  Washington  in  close  attend- 
ance upon  the  radical  leaders  in  Congress. 

The  people  of  Texas  were  not  wholly  surprised  at  the 
sentence  pronounced  upon  their  government  by  Congress, 
but  they  were  not  prepared  to  receive  it  with  perfect  equa- 
nimity. However,  after  the  first  bitterness  had  spent  itself 
somewhat,  the  press,  influenced  perhaps  by  the  governor, 
began  to  advise  quiet  submission  to  the  will  of  Congress  as 


149]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

the  less  of  two  evils — since  delay  would  bring  only  harsher 
conditions — and  to  urge  all  who  could  to  register  as  voters.1 
But  neither  press  nor  people  were  at  heart  reconciled  to 
their  political  degradation,  and  while  the  latter  for  the  most 
part  relapsed  into  sullen  despair,  the  former  could  not  re- 
frain from  indignant  and  bitter  comment. 

2.  The  Provisional  State  Government  and  the  Military 
Commanders 

On  March  iQth,  General  Sheridan,  who  was  already  sta- 
tioned at  New  Orleans  as  commander  of  the  Department 
of  the  Gulf,  was  made  commander  of  the  new  Fifth  Military 
District,  consisting  of  Louisiana  and  Texas.  General 
Charles  Griffin,  already  at  Galveston,  remained  as  com- 
mander of  the  District  of  Texas.  As  a  soldier  Sheridan 
had  shown  abilities  that  approximated  to  genius  and  he  was 
justly  popular  in  the  North;  but  he  was  now  called  upon  to 
perform  duties  and  to  carry  out  a  task  that  demanded  other 
qualities  than  those  requisite  for  a  military  campaign,  and 
his  arbitrary  methods  as  well  as  the  harshness  and  sus- 
picion which  he  had  always  manifested  towards  the  people 
of  the  South,  particularly  of  Texas,  were  not  reassuring  to 
those  who  had  to  live  under  his  heavy  hand. 

Throckmorton,  however,  firm  in  the  belief  that  every  law 
should  be  honestly  obeyed  as  long  as  it  was  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  desirous  of  maintaining  the  most  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  military  commanders,  in  order  that  some  de- 
gree of  civil  government  might  be  preserved  in  Texas,  on 
March  27th  telegraphed  Sheridan  requesting  an  opportunity 
to  confer  with  him  in  order  that  the  civil  authorities  of  the 
state  might  co-operate  to  the  best  advantage  with  the  mili- 
tary in  executing  the  recent  legislation  of  Congress.2  He 

1  San  Antonio  Daily  Herald,  March  13,  17,  21,  26,  1867;  Texas  Repub- 
lican, June  29,  1867. 

2  See  Throckmorton,  Address  to  the  People  of  Texas,  pamphlet  in 
Texas  State  Library;  also  printed  in  the  Dallas  Herald,  September,  1867. 


1 50  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

received  the  curt  reply  that  the  civil  authorities  of  Texas 
could  assist  in  the  reorganization  of  the  state  only  by  strongly 
supporting  the  military  commander  and  by  advising  the 
people  to  participate  with  good  feeling  in  the  reorganiza- 
tion under  the  law ;  and  that  the  details  of  the  work  in  Texas 
had  been  entrusted  to  General  Griffin.1  To  this  the  gov- 
ernor replied  that  the  people  of  Texas  would  co-operate  in 
carrying  out  the  congressional  plan,  though  they  regarded 
the  terms  as  onerous  and  oppressive.2 

Despite  the  ungracious  attitude  of  Sheridan,  due  perhaps 
to  their  earlier  controversies,  Throckmorton  was  hopeful 
of  maintaining  cordial  relations  with  Griffin.  But  though 
he  seemed  to  succeed  for  a  time,  he  never  really  enjoyed 
the  confidence  of  this  officer,  who  was  unable  to  comprehend 
his  real  unionism,  but,  like  Sheridan,  lumped  all  ex-Con- 
federates together  and  hastily  identified  anti-radicalism  with 
disloyalty.  The  governor's  moderation,  his  efforts  to  follow 
a  middle  policy  removed  from  the  radicals  on  the  one  hand 
and  from  the  secession  leaders  on  the  other,  was  lost  upon 
the  general  as  it  was  upon  the  secessionist  extremists,  who 
never  had  forgiven  and  never  afterward  forgave  Throck- 
morton for  his  stand  against  them  in  1861.  On  March 
28th,  Griffin  had  written  to  Sheridan  that  none  of  the  civil 
officers  of  Texas  could  be  trusted;  for,  though  they  would 
submit  to  the  laws  because  they  could  not  do  otherwise, 
they  nevertheless  thought  them  unjust  and  oppressive;  and 
"  the  laws  ought  to  be  executed  in  spirit ".  He  charged 
that  the  governor  had  allowed  outrages  upon  loyal  whites 
and  blacks  to  go  unpunished,  and  advised  his  removal  as 
"  absolutely  necessary  ",  together  with  that  of  the  lieuten- 
ant-governor, G.  W.  Jones.  Judge  C.  Caldwell,  an  ultra- 

1  Telegram  from  Sheridan,  in  Executive  Correspondence. 

2  Copy  in  Executive  Records,  Register  Book   84;   also   in  Throck- 
morton's  Address. 


I5I]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  I$i 

radical,  was  recommended  in  the  place  of  Throckmorton. 
Sheridan  sent  the  letter  with  a  favorable  endorsement  to 
Grant,  who  advised  against  the  removals  until  it  should 
become  clear  that  the  authority  for  such  action  belonged  to 
the  military.1 

The  acts  of  Congress  had  left  the  civil  government  of  the 
state  "  provisional  only,  and  in  all  respects  subject  to  the 
paramount  authority  of  the  United  States  to  abolish,  modify 
or  control,  or  supersede  " ;  but  the  extent  to  which  inter- 
ference should  be  undertaken  was  apparently  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  military  commander  of  the  district,  subject, 
of  course,  to  the  approval  of  the  President  as  commander- 
in-chief.  Because,  therefore,  so  much  depended  upon  the 
course  the  commander  would  take,  Throckmorton  endeav- 
ored, as  soon  as  possible,  to  come  to  a  general  understand- 
ing with  him.  On  April  3rd,  he  wrote  to  General  Griffin, 
asking  how  vacancies  in  state  and  county  offices  should  be 
filled — whether  by  the  governor's  appointment,  or  by  elec- 
tions ordered  by  him,  the  persons  so  appointed  or  elected 
not  being  disqualified  by  the  third  section  of  the  proposed 
Fourteenth  Amendment.  With  reference  to  the  disquali- 
fication of  persons  who,  after  taking  an  oath  to  support 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  had  taken  part  in  in- 

1  Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  40  C,  I  s.,  no.  14,  pp.  194- 195.  It  may  be  that  the 
governor  had  given  Griffin  some  offense  just  before  this  by  refusing 
to  comply  with  the  remarkable  request  that  he  pardon  the  two  hundred 
and  twenty-seven  negro  convicts  then  in  the  Huntsville  penitentiary.  A 
Bureau  inspector,  W.  H.  Sinclair,  later  to  become  a  prominent  radical 
politician  under  the  carpet-bag  regime,  had  interested  himself  in  their 
behalf,  and  had  readily  accepted  the  statements  of  the  negroes  them- 
selves that  their  offenses  were  wholly  trivial.  The  governor  easily  dis- 
proved this,  and  went  into  a  patient  argument  to  show  the  fairness  of 
the  trial  of  freedmen,  their  frequent  pardons  at  his  hands,  and  the 
danger  to  society  and  to  the  freedmen  themselves  of  granting  the  re- 
quest for  such  a  wholesale  pardon.  Executive  Records,  Register  Book 
84,  p.  284. 


152  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

surrection  or  rebellion,  he  also  requested  that  the  general 
give  his  construction  of  the  term  "  executive  or  judicial 
officer  of  a  state  ",  as  to  whether  it  should  be  extended  to 
include  clerks  of  courts,  sheriffs,  constables,  coroners,  no- 
taries public,  and  so  on.  The  governor,  naturally,  inclined 
to  a  narrower  construction.1  Griffin,  not  inclined  to  pass 
on  the  troublesome  point  himself,  referred  the  query  to 
Sheridan,  who,  on  April  I3th,  answered  Throckmorton  as 
follows : 

You  can  appoint  to  all  vacancies  which  occur  among  your  own 
appointees.  You  cannot  appoint  to  any  elective  position.  You 
are  not  authorized  to  call  elections;  and  no  elections  will  be 
permitted  in  your  state  until  they  are  ordered,  under  the  law, 
by  the  military  commander.  Any  vacancies  which  occur  by 
elections  being  forbidden  will  be  filled  by  the  military  com- 
mander. The  other  questions  in  your  letter  will  be  settled 
authoritatively  before  the  elections  are  ordered.2 

In  conformity  with  instructions  sent  at  the  same  time  to 
Griffin,  the  latter  embodied  the  above  pronouncement  in  a 
special  order,  which  further  required  the  governor  to  report 
to  military  headquarters  all  appointments  made  by  him.3 
Throckmorton,  thereupon,  sent  to  Griffin  a  list  of  all  officers 
that  were  appointed  under  the  state  law.  The  whole  sub- 
ject, then,  of  appointments  to  office  in  the  civil  government, 
with  trifling  exceptions,  was  summarily  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  governor,  and  he  was  given  no  satisfaction 
as  to  the  last  part  of  his  question.  Beyond  doubt,  Sheridan, 
in  this  extensive  assertion  of  authority,  was  taking  the 
course  that  the  majority  in  Congress  desired;  but  he  seems 

1  Executive  Records,  loc.  cit.,  p.  296;  also  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 

2  MS.,  in  Exec.  Corres.;  copy  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 
8  Special  Orders,  no.  66,  copy  in  Exec.  Corres. 


J53]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

to  have  been  actuated  as  much  by  his  old  suspicions  of  the 
people  and  authorities  of  Texas,  as  by  his  regard  for  the 
wishes  of  Congress. 

On  April  4th,  Griffin  wrote  to  Throckmorton,  soliciting 
his  aid  in  registering  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state — ask- 
ing for  the  probable  white  and  black  vote  of  each  county, 
and  for  the  names  of  persons,  irrespective  of  color,  who 
could  act  as  registrars  and  take  the  test  oath,  i.  e.,  the  "  iron- 
clad oath  ".  The  governor  immediately  issued  a  circular 
address  to  all  county  judges  requesting  them  to  forward  the 
required  information  without  delay.  He  concluded  by 
urging  upon  them  and  the  people  of  their  respective  counties 
"  the  propriety  and  absolute  necessity,  at  this  juncture  of 
our  affairs,  of  contributing  to  the  fullest  extent  every  aid 
possible  in  order  that  the  military  authorities  may  be  enabled 
to  execute  the  acts  of  Congress  properly  and  fairly  'V  The 
replies  came  in  promptly  and  rapidly,  and  were  forwarded 
to  General  Griffin  with  the  assurance  that  the  state  officials 
were  anxious  to  observe  the  law  and  aid  in  its  execution.2 

Although  he  knew  nothing  of  Griffin's  request  for  his 
removal,  the  governor  soon  found  himself  deprived  of  the 
hope  of  maintaining  amicable  relations  with  the  military. 
The  fact  that  each  approached  the  delicate  problems  in- 
volved in  the  situation  from  a  different  point  of  view  would 
alone  have  made  a  working  agreement  difficult  enough  to 
keep ;  but  there  was  added  the  other  factor  of  radical  politi- 
cal opposition  to  the  governor.  Hardly  had  Congress  pro- 
nounced its  anathema  against  the  state  government,  when 
the  radical  papers  began  a  systematic  attack  upon  the  whole 
force  of  state  officials,  and  radical  politicians  and  office- 
seekers  began  to  file  complaints  against  "  rebels  in  author- 

1  Executive   Records,   loc.   cit.,   p.    302.     Published   in    Southern   In- 
telligencer, April  II,  1867. 

2  Executive  Records,  loc.  cit.,  p.  307. 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I54 

ity "  with  both  Griffin  and  Sheridan.1  On  April  I5th, 
Throckmorton  had  complained  to  Griffin  of  the  "  lying  and 
slanderous  attacks  "  of  certain  newspapers,  and  insisted  that 
he  was  exceedingly  desirous  to  have  the  laws  executed  and 
peace  and  good  feeling  restored ;  that  he  advocated  compli- 
ance with  the  law,  not  because  he  approved  it,  but  because 
it  was  better  to  act  under  it  than  longer  delay  restoration.2 
Griffin  replied  politely,  expressing  his  gratification  at  these 
assurances  and  adding  that  when  such  a  favorable  dispo- 
sition should  become  "  both  sincere  and  prevalent  in  Texas  " 
the  work  of  reconstruction  would  present  no  difficulties.3 
The  retort  courteous  was,  on  the  occasion  of  transmitting 
the  lists  from  the  county  judges  of  persons  qualified  as  regis- 
trars, that  these  promptly  furnished  lists  were  the  evidence 
of  a  desire,  "  both  sincere  and  prevalent  ",  to  aid  in  exe- 
cuting the  law  of  Congress. 

There  seems  no  room  to  doubt  that  Throckmorton  was 
acting  entirely  in  good  faith.  When  a  complaint  came  from 
a  group  of  unionists  at  Prairie  Lee  that  freedmen  and  Union 
men  were  being  outraged  and  murdered  by  "  reconstructed 
rebels  ",  he  immediately  had  a  military  force  sent  to  main- 
tain order.  By  his  request  soldiers  were  sent  also  to  Lam- 
pasas  County  to  assist  the  courts  and  the  peace  officers. 
About  the  last  of  April  he  received  notice  from  Griffin  that 
the  latter  was  in  receipt  of  a  petition  from  sixty  citizens  of 
Parker  and  Jack  counties  charging  that  in  that  district 
Union  men  were  being  robbed  and  murdered  with  impunity, 
that  the  guilty  were  never  punished  in  the  courts,  that  cer- 
tain Union  men  acquitted  of  charges  in  Hamilton's  admin- 
istration were  about  to  be  tried  again,  and  that  the  judges 
of  the  courts  were  inciting  rebellious  sentiments.  At  once, 

1  See  Reconstruction  Correspondence  of  General  Grflin,  MSS.,  filed 
with  Exec.  Corres. 

2  Executive  Records,  loc.  cit.,  p.  300. 

8  MS.  in  Exec.  Corres. ;  quoted  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 


THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

April  29th,  he  wrote  to  County  Judge  Hunter  of  Parker 
County  and  Judges  Good  and  Weaver  of  the  fifth  and 
seventh  judicial  districts,  reciting  in  each  case  the  substance 
of  the  complaints  and  asking  for  statements  and  sworn  evi- 
dence as  to  the  facts  alleged.  Urging  upon  them  that  the 
laws  must  be  impartially  enforced  and  every  person  pro- 
tected in  life  and  property,  particularly  that  Union  men 
should  be  protected  and  all  excitement  and  prejudice  allayed, 
he  informed  them  that  troops  would  have  to  be  sent  there, 
and  that  he  intended  to  request  that  a  discreet  officer  of  the 
army  be  detailed  to  examine  into  the  procedure  of  their 
courts.  Writing  the  next  day  to  General  Griffin,  he  assured 
the  commander  from  his  personal  knowledge  of  that  region 
that  both  sides  had  been  guilty  of  outrages,  but  that  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  any  civil  officer  was  guilty  as  charged 
he  should  be  removed  and  punished.  "  I  shall  by  no  act  of 
mine  seek  to  smother  investigation,  screen  guilt,  or  avert 
the  blow  when  justice  demands  that  it  fall."  In  conclusion, 
he  defended  the  character  of  the  judges  in  question,  but  re- 
quested that  troops  under  discreet  officers  be  sent  to  the  seat 
of  trouble  and  that  another  discreet  officer  be  detailed  to 
watch  the  work  of  the  courts.1 

So  many  complaints  had  gone  into  headquarters,  how- 
ever, that  the  commander  was  still  suspicious,  if  not  of  the 
governor,  at  least  of  the  courts.  On  April  I5th  he  had 
ordered  that  such  criminal  cases  as  could  not  be  tried  impar- 
tially in  civil  courts  should  be  carried  to  his  headquarters 
for  trial  before  a  military  commission.2  On  April  27th 
he  issued  from  Galveston  the  famous  Circular  no.  13,  gen- 
erally known  as  the  "  Jury  Order  ".*  It  ran  as  follows : 

1  Letters  from  Griffin,  Good  and  others  in  MSS.,  Exec.  Corres.; 
copies  of  Throckmorton's  letters  in  Executive  Records,  he.  cit.,  pp. 
317-321.  2  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1867,  p.  714. 

*  Printed  in  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  40  C.t  I  s.,  no.  14,  pp.  208-209 ;  Texa* 
Republican,  May  u,  1867,  and  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 


156  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I56 

The  attention  of  the  Commanding  General  of  the  District 
having  been  directed  to  the  fact  that  persons  disqualified  by 
law  are  drawn  to  serve  as  jurors  in  the  civil  courts  of  the  State 
of  Texas,  it  is  hereby  ordered  that  hereafter  no  person  shall 
be  held  as  eligible  to  serve  or  to  be  sworn  in  as  a  juryman  until 
he  shall  have  taken  the  following  oath : 

Here  followed  the  text  of  the  iron-clad  oath,1  after  which 
the  order  continued : 

To  prevent  the  exclusion  of  loyal  citizens  from  the  jury  box 
on  account  of  race  or  color,  and  for  the  guidance  of  officials 
authorized  to  impanel  juries  in  the  State  of  Texas,  the  follow- 
ing section  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  is  published : 

Then  followed  the  second  section  of  that  act.2 

Just  what  General  Griffin  meant  by  the  assertion  that  per- 
sons "  disqualified  by  law  "  were  being  drawn  to  serve  as 
jurors  is  not  easy  to  determine.  It  could  not  have  been  the 
state  law  that  was  being  violated,  for  the  courts  were 
anxious  to  observe  that.  The  Reconstruction  Acts  under 
which  he  was  professedly  acting  had  stipulated  nothing  as 
to  jurors,  unless  jurors  were  to  be  regarded  as  officers  of 
the  state;  and  even  in  that  case  the  only  qualification  de- 

1  Supra,  p.  116,  note  4. 

2  "Any  person  who,  under  cover  of  any  law,  statute,  ordinance,  regu- 
lation, or  custom,  shall  subject,  or  cause  to  be  subjected,  any  inhabitant 
of  any  state  or  territory  to  the  deprivation  of  any  right  secured  or 
protected  by  this  act,  or  to  different  punishment,  pains,  or  penalties  on 
account  of  such  person  having  at  any  time  been  held  in  a  condition 
of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime 
where-of  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  or  by  reason  of  his 
color  or  race,  than  is  prescribed  for  the  punishment  of  white  persons, 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  on  conviction,  shall  be 
punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  or  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  one  year,  or  both,  in  the  direction  of  the  court." 
— £7.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xiv,  p.  27. 


I57]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

manded  was  innocence  of  felony  and  the  ability  to  take  the 
oath  prescribed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment — one  not 
so  stringent  as  the  iron-clad  oath.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to 
find  any  legal  warrant  for  an  order  prescribing  the  test  oath 
except  by  construing  jurors  in  this  case  to  be  "  officers  of 
the  United  States  " — at  best  a  strained  construction — nor 
is  it  easy  to  see  any  point  in  the  reference  to  the  second  sec- 
tion of  the  civil  rights  act;  for  nowhere  in  that  act  was  jury 
service  named  as  one  of  the  civil  rights  to  be  secured  to  all 
citizens  "  of  every  race  and  color  " ;  and  debarring  negroes 
from  the  jury  could  not  be  a  violation  of  the  act. 

Copies  of  the  order  were  sent  the  governor  with  direc- 
tions that  he  distribute  them  to  the  judicial  officers  of  the 
state  and  see  that  the  order  was  "  rigidly  enforced  ".l 
Throckmorton  sent  it  out  as  required,  and,  in  the  circular 
letter  accompanying  it,  admonished  all  officers  that  they 
should  earnestly  and  diligently  discharge  their  duties  in 
order  to  secure  a  faithful  and  efficient  administration  of  the 
laws.  However,  he  stated  that  in  view  of  the  difficulties 
that  must  result  from  an  observance  of  the  order  he  would 
transmit  a  copy  of  it  to  the  President  for  his  consideration. 
In  his  letter  to  the  President,  May  2d,  he  stated  that  if  the 
law  should  prove  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  it  should  be  complied  with  without  question ; 
but,  if  otherwise,  it  was  in  the  interest  of  justice  that  proper 
orders  be  issued  for  its  discontinuance.  He  also  pointed  out 
that  the  federal  judges  in  Texas  had  ruled  that  the  petit 
jurors  of  their  courts  were  not  required  to  take  the  iron- 
clad test  oath;  and  he  stated  the  qualifications  of  jurors 
under  the  Texas  law.2  Finally,  he  insisted  that  the  enforce- 

1  Griffin  to  Throckmorton,  Exec.  Carres.,  quoted  in  full  in  Throck- 
morton's  Address. 

2  The  juror  must  be  over  twenty-one  years  of  age;  a  white  citizen, 
—of  the  state  twelve  months,  of  the  county  six  months ;  a  householder 


158  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [^g 

ment  of  the  order  would  necessarily  stop  the  operation  of 
the  courts  in  many  sections  of  the  state.1 

As  might  have  been  expected,  this  order  threw  the  courts 
into  the  greatest  confusion.  The  governor's  office  was 
flooded  with  letters  from  the  county  and  district  judges  re- 
citing their  difficulties  and  asking  for  further  information 
and  advice.  One  question  that  arose  immediately  was 
whether  the  order  set  aside  the  qualifications  required  by 
state  law  or  whether  it  was  cumulative  in  effect — that  is, 
whether  taking  the  test  oath  was  to  be  only  an  additional 
qualification,  so  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  go  back 
of  the  county  jury  list  already  provided.  Several  judges 
were  inclined  to  act  upon  this  latter  interpretation,  which 
was  supported  by  the  governor,  and  which,  as  it  developed, 
General  Griffin  himself  had  expected  to  be  followed.2 

This  view,  however,  resulted  practically  in  disqualifying 
most  of  the  white  population  by  requiring  the  test  oath; 
and  in  disqualifying  nearly  all  of  the  negroes  and  most  of 
the  remaining  whites  by  the  demands  of  the  state  law.  In 
consequence  judge  after  judge  reported  that  he  had  been 
unable  to  find  full  juries,  and  that  except  for  such  business 
as  could  be  transacted  without  a  jury,  the  work  of  the  court 
had  stopped.3  Some  few  were  able  to  get  juries  in  certain 

in  the  county,  a  freeholder  in  the  state;  and  eligible  to  vote  for  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature.  Negroes  it  will  be  seen,  were  debarred.  This 
was  by  an  act  of  1858. — See  Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  IV,  p.  1076. 

1  Executive  Records,  loc.  cit.,  p.  323;  also  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 

2  R.  A.  Reeves  to  Throckmorton,  May  8 ;  John  G.  Good  to  Throck- 
morton,  May  n;  J.  J.  Holt  to  Throckmorton,  May  13;  Whitmore  to 
Throckmorton,  May  14;  MSS.  in  Exec.  Corres.;  excerpt  from  Flake's 
Bulletin  in  Weekly  Austin  Republican,  July  4,  1867;  Throckmorton  to 
Whitmore,  Executive  Records,  Register  Book  85,  p.   115;   Griffin  to 
Sheridan,  Sen.  Exec.  Doc.  40  C,  I  s.,  no.  14,  p.  210. 

8  Various  communications,  Reeves,  Templeton,  Ector,  Holt,  Harri- 
son, Good,  Whitmore,  Storey,  Perkins,  et  al.  to  Throckmorton,  MSS. 
in  Exec.  Corres. 


I59]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

counties  of  their  districts,  but  not  in  others.  Some  sug- 
gested that  the  right  to  serve  be  extended  to  all  registered 
persons,  though  this  involved  a  departure  from  the  state 
law.1  Others,  however,  refused  to  do  this  because,  in  sub- 
stituting disqualified  for  qualified  jurors,  they  must  disre- 
gard their  oath  of  office,  and,  ceasing  to  be  officers  of  the 
state,  become  mere  agents  of  the  military  power,  thrusting 
upon  the  citizens  jurors  who  were  irresponsible,  ignorant, 
and  incompetent,  in  cases  affecting  rights  of  property,  life, 
and  liberty.2  The  conservative  newspapers  denounced  the 
order  as  full  of  mischief  and  danger.  The  Texas  Repub- 
lican, May  n,  1867,  claimed  that  forty-nine-fiftieths  of  the 
white  men  of  the  state  would  be  disqualified  for  jury  service, 
and  that  the  result  would  be  to  throw  "  the  lives  and  liberty, 
as  well  as  the  property  of  the  people  into  the  hands  of  the 
negroes,  who  were  themselves  considered  so  imbecile  as  to 
require  especial  guardians  in  the  shape  of  Bureau  officers 
and  supervising  agents  ".  Flake's  Bulletin,  on  the  other 
hand,  asserted  that  under  the  old  system  it  had  proved  im- 
possible to  secure  convictions  for  murder,  especially  of 
unionists,  and  that  it  had  been  decided  by  the  commanding 
general,  "  after  consultation  with  the  highest  jurists  of  the 
state  ",  that  "  the  most  simple,  prompt,  and  direct  remedy 
would  be  to  compose  juries  of  loyal  men  ".3  This  state- 
ment was  evidently  inspired  by  Griffin,  who  wrote  Sheridan 
that  the  jury  order  was  only  "  an  attempt  to  open  the  courts 
of  Texas  to  loyal  jurors  for  the  protection  of  all  good  citi- 


iThos.    Harrison    to    Throckmorton,    May    14,    Jas.    G.    Storey    to 
Throckmorton,  May  18,  1867,  MSS.  ibid. 

2  S.  W.  Perkins  to  Throckmorton,  May  22,  1867,  MS.  ibid. 

3  Excerpt  in  Weekly  Austin  Republican,  July  4,   1867. 

4  Sen.  Exec.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  209-210. 


100  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

But  whatever  the  motive  or  the  justification,  it  is  certain 
that  the  confusion  and  demoralization  wrought  in  the  court 
system  by  this  "  Jury  Order  "  was  responsible  in  a  large 
degree  for  the  undoubted  increase  of  lawlessness  in  the  latter 
part  of  1867;  although  other  causes,  to  be  mentioned  later, 
contributed  to  that  end.  The  order  seems  to  have  remained 
in  force  until  September  28th,  when  Sheridan's  successor, 
General  Mower,  ordered  that  only  persons  registered  as 
voters  under  the  reconstruction  laws  should  be  eligible  as 
jurors.  The  test  oath  was  no  longer  required.1  This 
greatly  widened  the  class  of  persons  from  which  jurors 
could  be  drawn;  and  though  it  included  all  negroes,  it  ad- 
mitted most  of  the  whites  also,  and  was  less  dangerous  than 
Griffin's  order. 

Whatever  the  part  they  played  in  launching  the  Jury 
Order,  it  is  not  difficult  to  detect  the  hand  of  the  local  radi- 
cal leaders  in  the  series  of  controversies  into  which  the  gov- 
ernor and  the  military  officials  were  now  plunged.  One 
of  these  disagreements  arose  out  of  an  act  of  the  recent 
legislature.  The  constitutional  convention  of  1866  had 
provided  for  reducing  the  number  of  judicial  districts  and 
redistricting  the  state,  for  the  sake  of  economy,  and  because 
the  populated  area  of  most  of  the  western  counties  had 
shrunk  before  the  continuous  attacks  of  Indians.  In  pur- 
suance of  the  plan  there  outlined,  the  legislature  had  abol- 
ished five  districts — namely,  the  fourth,  fifth,  seventh, 
eleventh,  and  seventeenth — and  had  enlarged  and  renum- 
bered the  rest.  It  so  happened  that,  in  two  of  the  districts 
abolished,  the  judges  and  attorneys  were  Union  men,  in 
the  other  three  the  officials  were  ex-Confederates.2  Three 

1  Special  Orders  no.  151,  copy  in  Exec.  Corres. 

2  See  statement  of  J.  L.  Haynes  to  Griffin,  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.,  loc.  cit., 

pp.   221-222. 


Z6i]  THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  X6i 

other  Union  men  were  left  untouched,  but  the  radical  press 
seized  upon  the  fact  that  "  loyalists  "  had  been  deprived  of 
office,  and  protests  were  lodged  with  Griffin  and  Sheridan. 
On  June  loth,  the  latter  issued  an  order  annulling  the  act 
which  had  abolished  the  fourth  and  eleventh  districts,  and 
reinstating  Judges  Thomas  H.  Stribling  and  W.  P.  Bacon, 
who,  being  "  strong  Union  men  ",  had  been  set  aside  solely 
"  on  account  of  their  political  opinions,  regardless  of  the 
public  interest  ".l  Throckmorton  immediately  called  the  at- 
tention of  the  President  to  all  the  facts  in  the  history  of  the 
case,  pointed  out  that  Sheridan's  order  did  not  restore  the 
three  other  districts  or  the  judges  who  had  been  elected  in 
them,  and  showed  how  great  would  be  the  confusion  re- 
sulting from  such  action.  He  took  advantage  of  the  oppor- 
tunity further  to  show,  by  orders  and  communications  which 
he  enclosed,  how  the  military  of  all  ranks  were  constantly 
interfering  with  the  action  of  the  civil  courts,  requiring 
judges  and  attorneys  to  dismiss  prosecutions  for  criminal 
offenses,  and  in  some  cases  destroying  court  records  and 
papers.  He  was  careful  to  admit  the  power  of  the  military 
commanders  under  the  acts  of  Congress  to  withdraw  cases 
from  the  civil  courts,  but  questioned  their  right  to  dismiss 
cases  without  trial.2  In  this  particular  the  governor 
stated  his  contention  with  skill  and  discrimination,  and  per- 
haps a  close  and  narrow  construction  of  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress would  sustain  him;  but  the  intention  of  that  body  to 
give  the  military  supreme  control  over  all  civil  processes 
was  too  clear  to  leave  hope  of  effective  support  to  Throck- 
morton from  the  President. 

By  this  time  the  process  of  registration  of  voters  for  the 
future  elections  was  in  full  swing.     The  state  had  been 

1  Special  Orders  no.  65,  ibid.     Also  printed  in  Throckmorton's  Ad- 
dress. 

2  Executive  Records,  loc.  cit.,  p.  340;  also  in  Throckmorton's  Address. 


162  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

divided  into  fifteen  registration  districts,  comprising  from 
six  to  eleven  counties  each;  and  over  each  district  were 
placed  two  supervisors.  In  each  sub-district,  generally  a 
county,  was  a  board  of  three  registrars,  which  was  to  move 
from  place  to  place  in  the  county  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
registration  of  voters.  Upon  completion  of  registration 
within  the  sub-district  the  registrars  were  to  make  out  lists 
showing  the  total  number  of  voters  registered,  the  number 
of  colored  voters,  the  number  of  rejected  applications  for 
registration,  and  the  reasons  for  the  rejection;  and  finally 
to  state  whether  they  had  reason  to  believe  that  all  the  legal 
voters  in  the  sub-district  had  been  registered,  and,  if  not, 
the  reasons  for  the  belief.1  In  many  counties  considerable 
difficulty  was  experienced  in  securing  for  supervisors,  regis- 
trars, and  clerks,  whites  who  could  take  the  test  oath  re- 
quired of  all  officials,  and  it  was  generally  necessary  to  place 
negroes  upon  the  boards;  but  the  latter  were  in  no  way 
discriminated  against,  and  quite  frequently,  it  seems,  they 
were  appointed  when  whites  were  available.  The  work  pro- 
ceeded slowly,  for  although  the  freedmen  were  generally 
eager  to  exercise  their  new  prerogative,  many  of  the  eligible 
white  conservatives  held  back,  sometimes  because  of  indif- 
ference, sometimes  because  of  repugnance  to  the  policy  of 
Congress,  sometimes  because  they  disliked  to  appear  before 
a  board  of  negroes.  The  governor  and  the  conservative 
press  generally  urged  upon  all  white  citizens  the  "  solemn 
duty  "  of  registering  in  order  that  they  might  still  have 
some  share  in  the  affairs  of  the  state,  which  would  otherwise 
fall  entirely  into  the  hands  of  the  radicals  and  negroes.2 

Soon,  however,  arose  complaints  that  many  persons  ap- 
parently eligible  under  the  laws  were  denied  the  privilege 

1  Circular  no.  16,  May  16,  1867,  in  Exec.  Carres. 

*Galveston   Tri-Weekly  News,  June  9,   1867 1    Texas  State   Gazette, 
July  13,  1867. 


THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

of  registration.  At  Galveston,  for  instance,  the  board  was 
accused  of  denying  registration  to  persons  who  had  sup- 
ported the  Confederacy  but  had  never  previously  taken  an 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.1 
The  editor  of  the  Galveston  News  was  rejected  because  he 
had  once  been  mayor  of  Galveston,  the  only  office  he  ever 
held,  and  had  later  given  aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebellion. 
When  he  insisted  that  he  was  not  disfranchised  by  the  law, 
the  board  replied  that  he  was  by  their  instructions ;  "  nor 
did  they  refer  to  the  law  but  to  their  instructions  for  their 
authority  ".2  It  developed  upon  inquiry  that  every  one  who 
had  held  an  office  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  was  thereby 
disqualified,  if  he  had  later  supported  the  Confederacy. 
This  was  directly  ignoring  the  construction  of  the  law 
enunciated  by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States, 
and  in  defiance  of  the  instructions  given  the  military  com- 
manders by  the  President  on  June  2Oth.s 

In  fact,  Sheridan  had  been  acting  upon  his  own  construc- 
tion of  the  law,  and  distrusting  Johnson  and  Stanbery, 
continued,  with  Grant's  connivance,  so  to  do.  Early  in 
April,  when  about  to  begin  registration  in  Louisiana,  he 
had  asked  Grant  for  instructions  as  to  who  were  eligible  for 
registration.  The  question  was  submitted  to  the  Attorney- 
General  and  Grant  told  Sheridan  to  go  on  giving  his  own 
interpretation  of  the  law  in  the  meantime.  The  latter  im- 
mediately drew  up  instructions  for  his  registrars,  employ- 
ing the  most  stringent  interpretation  by  applying  the  widest 
possible  construction  of  the  term  "  executive  or  judicial 
officer  of  a  state  ".*  When  he  had  received  the  Attorney 

1  Communication  from  "J.  S."  in  Galveston  News,  June  9,  1867. 

2  Ibid.,  July  14,  1867. 

8  See  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  262-287.    Richardson,  Messages  and 
Papers,  vol.  vi,  p.  552. 
4  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  196,  199-200. 


164  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

General's  opinion,  Sheridan  complained  to  Grant  of  its 
embarrassing  effects  upon  his  "just  course",  and  asked  if 
he  should  regard  it  as  an  order.  He  received  the  reply  that 
it  had  not  been  issued  in  the  manner  of  an  order  and  that 
he  should  enforce  his  own  construction  of  the  law  until 
ordered  to  do  otherwise.1 

These  instructions  or  memoranda  were  not  published  and 
were  evidently  intended  for  secret  use.  Later,  when  Griffin 
began  the  work  of  registration  in  Texas,  they  were  trans- 
mitted to  his  registrars  also.  It  was  impossible,  however, 
to  keep  them  secret,  and  as  soon  as  Throckmorton  discov- 
ered that  the  registrars  were  making  use  of  them,  he  wrote 
General  Griffin  asking  for  copies  of  his  instructions  for 
guidance  of  registration.  The  commander  disingenuously 
sent  copies  of  other  orders,  none  of  them  in  the  remotest 
degree  related  to  the  memoranda  in  actual  use.  Thereupon 
the  governor  sent  a  copy  of  the  memoranda  which  had  come 
into  his  possession,  and  asked  if  they  met  with  his  approba- 
tion.2 Griffin  made  no  reply,  and  to  that  extent  displayed 

1  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  236-237. 

2  Throckmorton's     Address. — The     memoranda     ran     as      follows : 
"  Memoranda  of  disqualifications  for  the  guidance  of  the  boards  of  reg- 
istration under  the  military  bill  passed  March  2,  1867,  and  the  act  of 
Congress  supplementary  thereto,  passed  March  23,   1867 : 

1.  Every  person  who  has  acted  as   United   States   Senator  or  Rep- 
resentative. 

2.  All  who  have  acted  as  electors  of  President  or  Vice-President. 

3.  Every  person  who  has  held  any  position  in  the  army  or  navy  of 
the  United  States. 

4.  All  persons   who   held  any  position  under   the  United   States  in 
which  they  were  required  to  take  an  oath  before  they  entered  upon  the 
duties  of  office ;  such  as  officers  in  the  custom  houses,  post  offices,  mint, 
judges,    and    all   officers    of    the   United    States    court,    United    States 
marshals,  and  deputies. 

5.  All  who  have  held  any  office  in  any  state  under  the  constitution 
and  laws  in  force  prior  to  February  I,  1861,  such  as  governor,   state 
senator   or    representative,    secretary   of    state,   treasurer,   comptroller, 


THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

discretion ;  for  it  would  have  been  difficult  even  for  a  lawyer 
to  have  argued  for  the  construction  which  he  and  Sheridan 
placed  upon  these  acts  of  Congress,  and  Griffin  had  the  dis- 
advantage of  not  being  a  lawyer.  This,  be  it  remembered, 
was  before  the  second  Supplementary  Act  of  July  igth, 
which  was  designed  to  relieve  the  military  commanders, 
particularly  those  of  the  Fifth  District,  of  any  embarrass- 
ment from  excess  of  radical  zeal. 

It  was  daily  becoming  more  and  more  difficult  for  the 
governor  and  other  civil  officials  to  continue  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  military  authorities;  and  the  Texas  Radicals 
were  doing  their  full  share  towards  widening  the  breach. 

auditor,  commissioner  of  land  office,  surveyors  and  deputy  survey- 
ors, judges  of  courts,  county  commissioners,  county  treasurers,  justices 
of  peace,  clerks  of  courts  and  deputies,  sheriffs  and  deputies,  constables 
and  deputies,  tax  collectors,  assessors,  coroners,  police  jurors,  auctioneers, 
pilots,  harbor  masters,  recorders  of  conveyances  and  mortgages,  county 
recorders,  notaries  public,  and  all  commissioned  officers  in  state 
militia ;  any  person  who  has  acted  as  mayor  of  any  town  or  city,  treas- 
urer, comptroller,  recorder,  alderman,  assessor,  tax  collector,  admin- 
istrator of  the  charity  hospital,  member  of  the  board  of  health,  com- 
missioner of  elections  and  his  clerks,  chief  of  police,  lieutenant  of 
police,  town  or  city  marshal,  and  all  who  have  served  on  the  police 
force,  wardens  and  underwardens  of  county  prisons  or  work  houses; 
board  of  school  directors,  city  surveyors  and  deputies,  city  attorney 
and  assistant  attorneys,  superintendent  of  public  schools,  inspectors 
of  tobacco,  flour,  beef,  and  pork,  weighers  and  measurers,  managers 
and  superintendents  or  directors  of  asylums  for  deaf,  dumb,  blind,  and 
lunatic,  and  sextons  of  cemeteries. 

6.  All  who  in  1862  or  1864  registered  themselves  as  aliens,  or  who 
obtained  protection  papers  from  representatives  of  foreign  powers. 

Any  person  who  at  any  time  held  any  of  the  above  offices  and  who 
afterward  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  gave  aid 
and  encouragement  to  the  enemies  thereof,  is  disqualified  from  voting." 

There  followed  a  series  of  questions  to  be  asked  applicants  for  re- 
gistration as  to  whether  they  had  held  any  of  the  above  named  offices 
and  had  afterward  been  in  any  branch  of  the  Confederate  service.  A 
slightly  variant  form  of  the  above,  designed  for  Louisiana,  is  printed 
in  Sen.  Exec.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  and  in  Fleming,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  433-435. 


166  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

The  invalidation  of  the  state  government  and  the  provision 
for  registering  the  negroes  as  voters  had  been  the  signal  for 
active  reorganization  in  the  Radical  camp  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  colored  brethren  into  line  and  teaching  them 
their  duties  and  obligations  to  the  party  that  had  done  so 
much  for  them.  Organizations  of  the  Union  League,1  de- 
voted to  this  lofty  purpose,  sprang  up  wherever  there  were 
negroes  to  vote  and  "  loyalists  "  to  lead  them.  Throughout 
the  latter  half  of  April,  May,  and  June  loyal  mass  meetings 
were  held  everywhere  for  the  purposes  of  effecting  local 
organizations,  arousing  enthusiasm,  and  choosing  delegates 
to  a  state  convention  at  Houston.  In  practically  all  of  them 
resolutions  were  passed  pledging  support  to  the  recent  legis- 
lation of  Congress  and  the  military  officials,  and  declaring 
for  full  equality  for  all  persons  in  civil  and  political  rights. 
The  freedmen  greatly  predominated  in  all  of  these  meetings 
and  exercised  their  new  privileges  with  the  greatest  enthu- 
siasm.2 The  state  convention  assembled  at  Houston  early 
in  July,  with  representatives  from  twenty-seven  counties 
present.  Ex-Governor  E.  M.  Pease,  who  had  recently  re- 
turned from  the  North,  presided.  Like  many  others  of  his 
party,  he  had  greatly  changed  his  views  since  twelve  months 
before  when  he  had  declared  his  opposition  to  negro  suf- 
frage. A  state  Republican  party  was  organized ;  but  the  res- 
olutions adopted  were  fairly  moderate  in  tone.  They  ad- 

1  The  first  reference  to  the  Union  League  in  Texas  that  the  author 
has  seen  is  in  a  letter,  dated  April  26,   1867,  from  A.  M.  Boatright, 
who  signs  as  "  correspondent  of  the  Union  League  of  Goliad  County," 
to  General  Griffin,  complaining  that  there  were  "  rebbles  "  in  authority 
who  should  be  replaced  at  once  with  good  Union  men. — MS.  in  Exec- 
Corres     There  are  numerous  references  to  the  League  thereafter. 

2  For  accounts  of  these  mass  meetings  see  Flake's  Bulletin,  South- 
ern Intelligencer,  and  Austin  Republican,   for  April,  May,  June,  and 
July,    1867.     The    party    name    adopted    varied, — Unionists,    Unionist 
Republicans,  Republicans  and  Radicals. 


THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT 

vocated  free  common  schools  and  free  homesteads  out  of 
the  public  lands  to  all  without  distinction  of  color,  thanked 
the  military  for  protection  afforded  to  the  people,  declared 
the  Conservatives  to  be  disloyal  and  to  have  manifested  a 
"  contumacious  spirit  of  hostility  "  in  the  opposition  shown 
to  the  measures  of  Congress  but  denied  that  the  Republicans 
had  ever  sought  to  have  the  Federal  government  deal 
harshly  with  them.1 

During  all  this  time  the  Conservatives  had  done  nothing, 
for  there  was  nothing  that  they  could  do  but  await  the  issue. 
It  was  not  long  in  coming.  The  Radicals  were  not  con- 
tent with  perfecting  their  organization  and  registering  their 
followers  in  preparation  for  the  elections  to  the  convention. 
Insisting  that  the  safety  of  loyal  citizens  and  the  proper 
carrying-out  of  the  laws  of  Congress  necessitated  putting 
the  control  of  the  state  into  the  hands  of  loyalists,  and  that 
the  rewards  of  office  should  be  reserved  only  for  the  faith- 
ful, they  began  a  systematic  attack  upon  the  whole  line  of 
the  state's  officials,  but  concentrated  chiefly  against  Throck- 
morton.  A  group  of  Radical  leaders  established  at  Austin 
a  paper  which  speedily  became  the  party  organ,  the  Austin 
Republican.  From  its  first  issue  on  June  i,  1867,  ft  leveled 
its  guns  against  the  governor.  Through  the  Radical  press 
and  letters  which  poured  into  military  headquarters  from 
Union  Leagues,  his  administration  was  accused  of  incom- 
petency,  inefficiency,  and  rank  disloyalty.  It  was  asserted, 
and  Griffin  eagerly  reiterated  the  charge,  that  Throck- 
morton  encouraged  the  oppression  and  murder  of  Union 
men  and  refused  to  do  anything  toward  having  the  crimi- 
nals punished.1  It  is  but  justice  here  to  say  that  a  careful 
examination  and  review  of  all  the  evidence  accessible  does 

1  See    account    of    the    convention    in    Weekly    Austin    Republican, 
July  ii,   1867. 

2  Ibid.,  July  25 ;  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.,  loc.  cit.,  p.  194. 


168  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

not  in  any  way  justify  these  accusations.  Many  cases  cited 
and  complained  of  had  not  even  come  to  the  governor's 
attention  until  brought  up  by  the  military,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  complaints  had  been  filed  not  with  the  civil 
officials  but  with  the  military  instead.  In  all  other  cases 
which  came  to  him  he  showed  the  most  evident  anxiety  to 
have  the  law  enforced.1 

By  the  middle  of  July  it  had  become  evident  that  the  gov- 
ernor would  soon  be  set  aside.  Griffin  and  Sheridan  both 
wished  it  and  only  awaited  full  authority  to  take  the  step. 
Some  small  officials  had  gone  already.2  On  July  iQth  the 
second  supplementary  Reconstruction  Act  became  a  law 
and  bestowed  full  power  of  removal  and  appointment 
upon  the  military  commanders,  freeing  them  at  the  same 
time  from  any  obligation  to  respect  the  opinions  of  the  At- 
torney-General in  construing  the  law.3  The  Radical  press 
confidently  prophesied  the  sweeping  out  of  the  whole  ad- 
ministration.4 One  of  his  own  party,  a  Conservative-Union- 
ist, B.  H.  Epperson,  who  had  remained  at  Washington 
since  winter,  wrote  Throckmorton  with  regard  to  the  effect 
of  the  new  act  of  Congress : 

1  Exec.  Records,  Register  Book  85,  pp.  9,  17,  24,  35,  37  and  passim. 
Subsequent  to  March  2  Throckmorton  issued  twenty-six  proclamations 
for  the  arrest  of  murderers,  of  whom  twenty-four  were  whites;  during 
the   same  time   he   issued  seven  pardons    for   homicide,   six  being  to 
whites,  five  of  whom,  however,  were  convicted  before  1861,  and  eigh- 
teen pardons  for  theft,  etc.,  seven  being  to  negroes.     See  Exec.  Records, 
Register  Book  281.     It  may  be  that  this  list  is  not  complete,  but  the 
proportion  will  hold. 

2  On  June  8,  the  entire  police  and  detective  force  of  Galveston  was 
discharged  by  order  of  General  Griffin.     Several  of  the  new  appointees 
were  freedmen.    Flake's  Daily  Bulletin,  June  9,  1867. 

3  U.   S.   Statutes  at  Large,  vol.   xv,  p.    14;    Fleming,   op.   cit.,   I,  pp. 
415-418. 

4  See  San  Antonio  Express,  July  25,   1867;  Austin  Republican,  July 
25,  1867. 


THE  UNDOING  OF  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  ^ 

I  consider  it  a  settled  fact  that  your  head  goes  off ;  perhaps 
your  decapitation  will  be  completed  before  you  read  this  letter. 
At  all  events  it  is  but  a  question  of  time  and  the  time  is  short. 
Pease  has  gone  down  to  be  at  the  proper  place  to  supersede 
you.  The  program  has  been  fixed  up  here,  and  a  most  desper- 
ate effort  is  to  be  made  to  radicalize  the  state.  .  .  .  The 
judiciary  will  go  overboard,  and  in  fact  every  office  worth 
having  in  the  state  has  to  go  into  Radical  hands.1 

On  July  30th  Sheridan  issued  the  following  order : 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  reports  of  Brevet  Major  Gen- 
eral Charles  Griffin,  U.  S.  Army,  shows  that  J.  W.  Throck- 
morton,  Governor  of  Texas,  is  an  impediment  to  the  recon- 
struction of  that  state  under  the  law ;  he  is  therefore  removed 
from  that  office.  E.  M.  Pease  is  hereby  appointed  Governor 
of  Texas  in  place  of  J.  W.  Throckmorton,  removed.  He  will 
be  obeyed  and  respected  accordingly.2 

No  official  notification  of  the  governor's  removal  was 
received  at  Austin  for  about  a  week;  but  the  news  had 
traveled  rapidly  and  the  State  Gazette  disgustedly  chron- 
icled the  "  noisy  demonstrations  of  joy  made  on  Wednesday 
last  [August  ist]  by  the  negroes  and  a  few  Radicals,  over 
the  shameful  degradation  of  the  state  ".  On  the  7th,  Pease 
sent  a  polite  note  to  Throckmorton,  whose  personal  friend 
he  was,  enclosing  the  order,  and  asking  if  it  would  be  con- 
venient for  him  to  deliver  the  office  and  its  records  at  ten 
o'clock  next  day.  An  equally  polite  answer  was  sent  that 
this  arrangement  would  be  perfectly  convenient,  and  on 
July  8th,  therefore,  Pease  formally  took  possession  and 
notified  General  Griffin  that  he  had  begun  the  discharge  of 
his  duties.3 

1  July  14,  1867.    MS.  in  private  correspondence  of  Governor  Throck- 
morton. 

2  Extract  from  Special  Orders  no.  105,  copy  in  Exec.  Carres. 

8  MSS.  in  private  correspondence  of  Throckmorton  and  in  Exec. 
Corres. 


170  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

The  deposed  governor  immediately  prepared  an  Address 
to  the  People  of  Texas,  in  the  form  of  an  elaborate  review 
of  his  relations  with  the  military  officials,  in  refutation  of 
the  charge  that  he  had  been  "  an  impediment  to  reconstruc- 
tion ".  By  quoting  almost  the  entire  correspondence,  he 
made  clear  his  own  efforts  to  follow  out  the  laws,  aid  the 
commanding  general,  and  maintain  the  peace;  and  placed 
the  onus  of  all  the  difficulties  upon  the  military,  whose  harsh- 
ness in  the  matter  of  appointments  and  interference  with 
courts  and  juries  had  thrown  the  whole  civil  administration 
into  disorder  and  had  aroused  bitterness  and  apprehension 
in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Finally,  he  urged  the  people 
to  abide  by  the  laws,  however  unjust  they  might  regard 
them,  to  be  kind  to  the  negroes,  to  refute  by  their  conduct 
the  Radical  charges  of  disloyalty,  to  register  if  allowed  to 
do  so,  and  to  elect  good  Union  men  to  the  convention.1  The 
Address  was  widely  and  favorably  commented  upon  at  the 
time,  and  was,  in  fact,  more  than  a  refutation  of  the  charge 
made  by  Sheridan. 

1  The  Address  was  printed  by  the  Weekly  State  Gazette,  Aug.   10, 
1867;  by  the  Dallas  Herald,  Sept.  7,  1867;  and  as  a  pamphlet  in  1873. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

i.  Radical  Politics  and  Factions 

IT  was,  beyond  question,  exceedingly  fortunate  for  Texas 
that,  if  Throckmorton  must  be  removed,  E.  M.  Pease  should 
be  his  successor;  for  no  other  man  among  the  Radicals, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  A.  J.  Hamilton,  combined  to 
the  same  high  degree  his  qualities  of  firmness,  wisdom,  and 
moderation.  A  native  of  Connecticut,  but  a  citizen  of  Texas 
since  1835,  he  had  taken  an  active  part  in  public  affairs  for 
many  years,  and  up  to  the  eve  of  the  war  had  been  very 
popular,  for  his  two  administrations  as  governor,  1853- 
1857,  were  both  progressive  and  successful;  but  in  the 
stormy  years  that  followed  he  cut  himself  off  from  public 
favor  by  an  uncompromising  opposition  to  secession  and  a 
constant  adhesion  to  the  Union  throughout  the  war.  How- 
ever, unlike  most  prominent  Unionists,  he  remained  quietly 
at  his  home  in  Austin  during  the  struggle.  The  course  of 
events  since  the  war  had  not  restored  him  to  popular  favor. 
From  the  first  he  had  been  identified  with  the  party  led  by 
Governor  Hamilton,  and  had  gradually  come  into  opposi- 
tion to  President  Johnson  and  into  affiliation  with  the  Radi- 
cals. Badly  defeated  by  Throckmorton  in  1866,  he  had 
joined  the  group  of  southern  Radicals  at  Washington  in  the 
fight  against  the  Johnsonian  state  governments.  Now  he 
returned  in  the  guise,  whether  he  desired  it  or  no,  of  an  ex- 
ultant victor  over  his  own  people,  to  supplant  by  military 
power  the  man  whom  they  had  preferred  over  him.  He 
171]  171 


1 72  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

was  made  to  appear  as  the  willing  tool  of  a  hated  military 
despot,  bartering  the  honor  of  the  state  for  political  power, 
and  suspected  in  every  action  of  the  most  unworthy  motives. 
Truly,  his  position  was  in  no  way  an  enviable  one. 

As  was  natural,  Pease  was  judged  more  harshly  by  far 
than  he  deserved.  He  always  insisted  afterwards  that  he 
did  not  seek  and  did  not  want  the  provisional  governorship, 
but  that  he  could  not  refuse  it  when  it  was  tendered  without 
subjecting  himself  to  the  charge  of  being  unwilling  to  give 
his  aid  to  the  state  in  a  time  of  disorder  and  crisis.1  It  was 
well  for  Texas  that  he  gave  his  aid  even  at  the  cost  of  his 
own  political  future,  for  he  was  the  most  moderate  of  all 
those  who  had  the  confidence  of  the  military  authorities; 
and,  though  he  obediently  followed  out  the  measures  of  his 
superiors,  his  advice  carried  weight  as  Throckmorton's 
could  not  and  saved  the  state  from  some  of  the  worst  con- 
sequences of  a  bitter  and  often  mistaken  partisanship. 

One  of  the  first  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  troublesome 
questions  with  which  he  had  to  deal  was  that  of  recommend- 
ing to  vacancies  in  the  various  state  and  county  offices.  For 
one  reason  or  another  a  great  many  vacancies  in  elective 
offices  had  occurred  during  the  last  five  months  of  Throck- 
morton's administration  and  many  of  them  had  remained 
unfilled,  partly  because  of  Griffin's  distrust  of  the  governor 
and  the  persons  recommended  by  him,  partly  because  of 
the  scarcity  of  persons  eligible  according  to  Griffin's  re- 
quirements and  at  the  same  time  willing  to  accept  office  and 
its  accompanying  unpopularity.  It  was  now  the  duty  of 
Pease  to  find  and  recommend  to  Griffin,  for  he  could  not 
make  the  appointments  himself,  suitable  persons  to  fill  these 
vacancies,  that  is  to  say,  Radicals  who  could  take  the  test 

1  Message  to  Constitutional  Convention  of  1868,  Convention  Journal, 
p.  12.  Also,  his  speech  at  Galveston,  July  12,  1880  (printed  by  Mc- 
Kenna  and  Company,  Galveston). 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

oath.  In  consequence,  he  was  immediately  overwhelmed 
with  petitions,  not  always  for  offices  already  vacant,  but 
more  frequently  for  the  removal  of  officials  of  "  rebel  "  or 
anti-Congressional  proclivities;  for  now  it  had  become 
axiomatic  with  the  Radicals  that  any  person  who  opposed 
the  Congressional  plan  of  reconstruction  was  perforce  a 
"  rebel  ",  perhaps  a  traitor,  no  matter  what  had  been  his 
previous  attitude  toward  secession  or  the  Confederacy. 
General  Griffin  at  once  began  the  removal  of  county  and 
district  judges,  in  order  to  finish  the  work,  begun  by 
his  jury  order,  of  putting  the  courts  into  the  hands  of 
"  loyal  "  men.  The  Conservative  heads  of  the  various  de- 
partments of  state  administration — the  attorney-general,  the 
treasurer,  the  comptroller,  and  the  land  commissioner,  all 
elective — had  been  allowed  to  remain  in  their  offices,  but 
they  too  went  out  within  a  month.1  In  every  part  of  the 
state  the  local  Radicals,  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 
or  correspondents  of  the  Loyal  Union  League,  were  busily 
forwarding  petitions  for  the  removal  of  local  officers  and 
recommending  suitable  successors.2  In  many  cases,  how- 
ever, it  proved  impossible  to  fill  the  vacancies  thus  created, 

1  By   Special  Orders,   no.   160,   August  27,  General   Griffin   removed 
S.   Crosby,   land  commissioner;   W.   L.   Robards,   comptroller;   M.   H. 
Royston,    treasurer ;    and    W.    M.    Walton,    attorney-general,    "  on    ac- 
count of  their  known  hostility  to  the  general  government " ;   and  re- 
placed them  with  Joseph  Spence  as  land  commissioner,  M.  C.  Hamilton 
as  comptroller,   Jno.   T.   Allen   as  treasurer,   and   Wm.   Alexander  as 
attorney-general.     Order    in    Exec.    Corres.;    printed    in    Texas    State 
Gazette,  Sept.  7,  1867. 

2  Some  of  these  petitions  from  the  Union  League  associations  are 
curious  documents.    One  from  Dallas  County,  asking  for  the  removal 
of  district  and  county  officers,  has  about  eighty  signatures,  practically 
all  in  the  same  handwriting  as  that  of  the  petition.     It  meant  of  course, 
that  the  petitioners  were  nearly  all  negroes  taking  the  first  steps  of 
their  political  tutelage,  if  indeed  they  had  even  authorized  the  use  of 
their  names.    MS.  in  Exec.  Corres. 


174  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

sometimes  because  there  were  not  enough  competent  Radi- 
cals to  go  around,  sometimes  because  those  who  were  com- 
petent would  not  accept  the  positions.  A.  H.  Latimer,  a 
prominent  unionist  of  Red  River  County,  could  find  "  only 
one  true  loyal  man  "  in  Bowie  County.1  Another  union- 
ist, Judge  M.  D.  Ector,  declared  to  Governor  Pease  that 
there  were  numerous  vacancies  in  Shelby,  San  Augustine, 
and  Harrison  counties  and  that  it  was  "  practically  impos- 
sible to  find  Union  men  to  fill  them,  for  the  few  who  are 
qualified  decline  the  positions  ".2  "  There  are  not  a  dozen 
outspoken  white  Radicals  in  the  whole  Eighth  Judicial  Dis- 
trict," wrote  Judge  C.  Caldwell.3  An  agent  of  the  Bureau 
admitted  that  it  was  "  impossible  to  find  enough  loyal  men 
qualified  to  fill  the  offices  "  in  Robertson  and  Milam  counties; 
and  for  that  reason  recommended  that  of  the  twenty-one 
officials  in  the  former  county,  fourteen  be  retained,  and  of 
a  like  number  in  Milam,  eight  be  retained.4  A  dozen 
similar  statements,  all  from  Radical  sources,  could  be  cited. 
Yet  removals  went  on  almost  daily.  The  governor  re- 
quested the  removal  of  Judge  J.  J.  Holt  because,  when  ser- 
ious disturbances  in  Goliad  and  Victoria  counties,  both  in 
his  district,  required  action,  the  judge  insisted  that  his  court 
had  been  closed  by  the  jury  order.5  The  death  of  General 
Griffin,  September  I5th,  in  the  midst  of  the  scourge  of 

1  A.  H.  Latimer  to  Lt.  Kirkman,  A.A.A.  General,  Aug.  15,  1867,  ibid. 

2  Ector  to  Pease,  Sept.  13,  1867;  ibid. 

8  Caldwell  to  Pease,  Aug.  20,  1867 ;  ibid. 

4J.  L.  Randall,  Sub.  Ass't.  Comnr.,  to  General  Griffin,  Aug.  26,  and 
Sept.  4,  1867.  Ibid. 

6  Pease  to  Griffin,  Sept.  5,  1867,  ibid.  Pease  refused  to  believe  that 
Holt  could  not  get  juries,  because  there  had  been  a  large  registration 
in  those  counties.  Not  all  qualified  voters,  however,  could  serve  on 
juries,  for  the  iron  clad  test  oath  was  at  that  time  required  of  the 
juror  but  not  of  the  voter;  and  moreover,  the  requirements  of  the 
state  law  as  to  jurors  was  still  in  force.  See  supra,  p.  157. 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

yellow  fever  that  swept  over  the  coast  and  far  up  into  the 
interior  of  Texas  that  summer,  did  not  stop  the  work  of 
"  purifying  "  the  state.  He  was  succeeded  by  General  J.  J. 
Reynolds,  a  less  able  and  also  a  less  scrupulous  man,  who 
was  soon  credited  by  the  Radical  organ,  the  Austin  Repub- 
lican, with  having  swept  out  the  "  rebel  "  officials  in  over 
sixty  counties.1 

It  was  to  be  expected,  doubtless,  that  these  removals 
would  take  place.  Both  the  governor  and  the  military  offi- 
cials felt  that  the  progress  of  reconstruction  would  be  facili- 
tated by  putting  the  administration  of  the  country,  even  in 
local  matters,  in  the  hands  of  those  who  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  Reconstruction  Acts.  Then,  too,  they  were  con- 
stantly urged  on  by  many  who  were  either  solicitous  for 
preferment  or  actuated  by  rancor  against  political  or  private 
enemies.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  old  prejudice 
against  unionists  and  the  new  prejudice  against  Radicals 
was  too  often  manifested  in  the  acts  of  civil  officials,  and 
gave  color  to  the  charge  that  better  protection  was  needed 
for  "  loyal  "  citizens.  Nevertheless,  it  was  not  a  good  thing 
for  society,  at  a  time  when  a  recent  political  upheaval  made 
it  necessary  that  every  facility  possible  should  be  offered  for 
the  preservation  of  order,  that  nearly  one-third  of  the  county 
offices  should  be  vacant,  and  that  some  districts  should  be 
entirely  without  any  peace  officers.  Texas  in  those  days 
suffered  greatly  from  violence  even  under  normal  condi- 
tions, and  indeed  retained  some  of  the  turbulence  of  frontier 
society  for  two  decades  longer ;  but  it  is  pretty  clear  that  the 
crime  and  disorder  that  reached  such  an  alarming  state 
during  the  administration  of  Pease,  was  due  in  a  large 
measure  to  the  mistaken  policy  of  the  military  authorities. 

Conditions  had  been  improving  up  to  April,  1867. 
Throckmorton  had  made  earnest  efforts  to  suppress  lawless- 
1  Issue  of  Nov.  13,  1867. 


176  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

ness,  and  had  accomplished  much;  but  with  the  issuance 
of  the  jury  order  which  crippled  the  courts;  with  the  con- 
stant interference,  more  frequent  now,  of  the  military  in 
civil  matters ;  and  with  the  growth  of  party  rancor,  the  law- 
less element  seized  upon  its  opportunity  and  an  increase 
of  crime  was  noticeable  nearly  everywhere.  Then  came, 
after  the  change  of  governors,  the  further  crippling  of  the 
state's  authority  by  the  bestowal  of  vacated  offices  upon  un- 
popular men,  who  were  viewed  not  as  representatives  of  the 
state  but  as  the  minions  of  an  arbitrary  military  power,  and 
by  allowing  to  remain  vacant  many  positions  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  the  peaceful  ordering  of  society.  Another 
complication  in  the  southern  and  eastern  sections  was  the 
confusion  and  demoralization  wrought  by  the  yellow  fever 
scourge.  Under  all  these  conditions  it  was  next  to  impos- 
sible for  the  officials  to  maintain  order,  not  because  the  peo- 
ple were  "  disloyal  "  to  the  United  States  government,  as 
the  Radicals  asserted,  but  because  the  very  foundations  of 
order  had  been  taken  away. 

Hardly  had  the  Radicals  got  control  of  the  state  adminis- 
tration when  they  fell  out  among  themselves  over  the  ques- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  constitution  and  legislation  of 
1866.  Governor  Pease  had  assumed  that  all  state  laws  not 
in  contravention  of  the  acts  of  Congress  or  the  Federal 
constitution,  and  not  specifically  annulled  by  order  of  the 
military  commander,  were,  though  provisional  in  character, 
actually  in  force  and  binding  upon  all  state  officials  and  citi- 
zens. In  this  he  followed  the  example  of  Governor  Ham- 
ilton in  1865,  and  had  the  express  sanction  of  the  military 
officials  themselves.1  It  was  clearly  the  only  course  that 
could  have  been  taken  in  view  of  expediency,  common  sense, 
and  custom.  However,  it  soon  developed  that  a  small  group 
of  ultra  Radicals  at  Austin,  some  of  them  members  of  the 
1  Sheridan,  General  Orders,  no.  i,  March  19,  1867. 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

governor's  own  official  family,  had  conceived  the  notion  that 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress  not  only  had  destroyed 
the  existing  state  government  but  also  had  rendered  its  acts 
null  and  void  from  their  inception.  According  to  this 
strange  theory  all  legislation  of  whatever  character  since 
March  i,  1861,  was  swept  away,  every  public  or  private 
relation  based  upon  any  law  enacted  during  this  period  was 
invalidated.  The  consequences  of  such  a  condition,  the 
doctrinaire  authors  of  the  theory  themselves,  perhaps,  did 
not  clearly  see;  but,  even  granting  the  saving  application 
of  the  constitution  of  1845,  society  must  have  been  thrown 
into  the  greatest  confusion  and  uncertainty  without  advanc- 
ing any  necessary  purpose  of  state  policy. 

The  first  intimation  of  the  existence  of  such  a  body  of 
doctrine  is  in  a  scathing  editorial  in  the  Austin  Republican, 
October  23,  1867,  denouncing  the  state  supreme  court  for 
rendering  a  decision  to  the  effect  that  the  state  constitution 
of  1866  and  the  laws  passed  under  the  authority  thereof,  in 
so  far  as  not  abolished,  modified,  or  superseded  by  the 
United  States  or  its  officers,  were  valid  and  binding.1  The 
Republican  at  this  time  was  owned  chiefly  by  local  poli- 
ticians, of  whom  Morgan  C.  Hamilton,  a  brother  of  Gov- 
ernor A.  J.  Hamilton,  was  one.  Soon  afterwards  control 
of  the  paper  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  moderates  sup- 
porting Pease.  It  was  not  long  before  the  actual  breach 
came.  Just  before  this,  M.  C.  Hamilton,  as  comptroller, 
had  refused  to  issue  to  certain  state  officials  salary  warrants 
on  the  treasury  in  accordance  with  an  act  of  the  recent 
legislature  appropriating  money  for  the  support  of  the  state 
government  for  the  years  1867  and  1868.  The  opinion  of 
the  attorney-general,  Alexander,  was  invoked  and  he  sus- 

1  This  seems  to  have  been  the  case  of  L.  S.  Shrader  vs.  The  State 
of  Texas,  3Oth  Texas  Reports,  386.  See  alsc  Smith  vs.  Harbert,  and 
Luter  vs.  Hunter,  ibid.,  pp.  669  and  688. 


178  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

tained  Hamilton.1  Thereupon,  the  governor,  in  order  to 
fix  the  law,  issued,  on  October  25th,  with  the  consent  of 
General  Reynolds  but  against  the  protest  of  Hamilton. 
Alexander,  and  Allen,2  a  proclamation  declaring  the  con- 
stitution of  1866  and  the  statutes  passed  in  conformity 
thereto,  with  certain  exceptions,  to  be  "  rules  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  people  of  Texas  and  the  officers  of  the  civil  gov- 
ernment ".3  Alexander  promptly  resigned  and  sent  in  to 
General  Reynolds  a  lengthy  protest  against  the  proclama- 
tion, chiefly  to  the  effect  that  the  constitution  of  1866  had 
never  become  valid  because  it  had  never  been  accepted 
either  by  Congress  or  by  General  Sheridan,  and  that  the 
constitution  of  1845  should  be  held  as  the  real  one.4  Hamil- 
ton also  protested  to  General  Mower,  then  commanding  the 
Fifth  Military  District,  rehearsing  much  the  same  argu- 
ments used  by  Alexander;  but  he  did  not  resign,  for  which 
display  of  "  lack  of  taste  "  he  was  severely  criticised  by  his 
former  organ,  the  Republican*  Reynolds  transmitted  to 
Mower  a  copy  of  the  proclamation  and  Alexander's  pro- 
test against  it;  Mower  agreed  with  Pease  and  submitted  an 
opinion  from  J.  P.  Boyd,  his  attorney  for  civil  affairs,  who 
also  sustained  Pease.6 

1  D.  J.  Baldwin  to  Pease,  Oct.  23,  1867 ;  MS.  in  Exec.  Carres.    For 
Alexander's  opinion,   see  appendix  to  Convention  Journal,  1868-9,   Ist 
Session,   pp.   968-977. 

2  M.    C.    Hamilton    to    General    Mower,    Oct.    29,    1867;    in    Austin 
Republican,  Nov.   13,   1867. 

3  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1867,  p.  715. 

4  Austin   Republican,   Nov.    16,    1867;    also    appendix   to   Convention 
Journal,  1868,   ist  Session,  962-968. 

6  Issue  of  Nov.  13,  1867. 

«  Mower,  by  Col.  W.  T.  Gentry,  to  Reynolds,  Nov.  23,  1867 ;  MS. 
in  Exec.  Corres.  Boyd  held  that  only  laws  passed  in  hostility  to  the 
United  States  government  were  null  and  void  ab  initio.  The  others, 
as  the  one  in  question,  were  only  voidable  at  the  will  of  the  district 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

Though  defeated,  the  ab  initio  Radicals  did  not  give  up 
the  fight.  They  managed  to  get  control  of  the  local  branch 
of  the  Union  League  long  enough  to  formulate  resolutions 
demanding  of  the  state  Republican  party  that  new  planks 
be  added  to  the  Houston  platform : *  one,  declaring  that 
emancipation  of  all  slaves  should  date  from  January  i, 
1863;  one,  that  all  ex-rebels  should  be  disfranchised;  an- 
other, that  all  legislation  in  Texas  since  1861  had  been 
null  and  void  from  the  beginning  and  should  be  so  con- 
sidered.2 The  Austin  Republican  severely  arraigned  the 
"  pronunciamiento  "  of  the  "  misanthropic  old  bachelors  " 
who  were  "  attempting  the  formation  of  a  negro  party  ", 
and  declared  their  resolutions  "  infamous  ",  because  they 
proposed 

to  disfranchise  all  the  whites  of  the  state  except  a  few  of  the 
elect,  to  strip  them  of  their  property,  to  exact  back  hire  for 
negroes  for  the  years  1863  to  1865 ;  in  a  word  to  place  all 
political  power  in  the  hands  of  the  negroes  and  then  vote  them- 
selves all  the  property  in  the  state.  .  .  .  They  are  trying  to 
lead  the  colored  race  to  destruction.  We  do  not  believe  that 
fifty  whites  or  five  hundred  colored  men  in  the  state  will  en- 
dorse them,  even  with  this  stupendous  bribe.8 

Ex-Governor  A.  J.  Hamilton,  who  returned  to  Texas  at 
about  this  time  as  associate  justice  of  the  state  supreme 
court,  threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  influence  into  the 
scale  against  his  brother  and  on  the  side  of  Pease.4  These 
two  brothers,  so  unlike  in  so  many  ways,  soon  became  the 

commanders.  The  distinction  between  "  void  absolutely "  and  "  void- 
able" had  been  sanctioned  by  Congress  and  maintained  in  practice. 

1  Supra,  p.  166. 

2  Printed  in  Austin  Republican,  Dec.  18,  1867. 
8  Ibid.,  Dec.  25,  1867. 

4  See  speech  of  A.  J.  Hamilton,  ibid.,  Dec.  18,  1867. 


l8o  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

leaders  of  the  rival  factions  which  were  to  fight  two  years 
longer  for  the  control  of  the  state.  A.  J.  Hamilton  became 
in  a  short  time  the  candidate  of  the  Republicans  of  Travis 
County  to  the  coming  constitutional  convention.  The  ab 
initio  wing  bolted  and  nominated  Morgan  C.  Hamilton, 
but  he  afterwards  withdrew  from  the  race  in  Travis  and 
announced  himself  as  a  candidate  from  the  neighboring 
county  of  Bastrop.  The  two  came  face  to  face  again  in  the 
convention. 

2.  Removal  of  Sheridan  and  Reversal  of  Military  Policy 

by  Hancock 

Hardly  had  the  Radicals  got  firmly  in  control  of  the  state 
administration  through  the  sweeping  changes  effected  by 
Sheridan,  when  they  were  deprived  of  the  watchful  oversight 
of  that  zealous  partisan.  He  had  for  a  long  time  given 
offensive  evidence  of  his  sympathy  with  the  political  enemies 
of  the  President  and  had  exerted  all  his  influence  to  wreck 
Mr.  Johnson's  reconstruction  policy.  In  the  quarrels  which 
he  had  waged  with  the  governors  of  Louisiana  and  Texas 
the  latter  had  succeeded  in  enlisting  the  sympathy  of  the 
President,  who  was  convinced  that  neither  had  attempted 
to  thwart  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  Congress.  The  arbi- 
trary and  offensive  manner  in  which  Sheridan  had  exer- 
cised his  authority,  capped  by  the  removal  of  Governors 
Wells  and  Throckmorton,  further  convinced  Mr.  Johnson 
that  the  testy  general's  presence  in  the  South  was  itself  an 
impediment  to  a  peaceful  and  orderly  reconstruction.1  In 
spite,  therefore,  of  the  protests  of  Grant,  with  whom  Sheri- 
dan was  always  a  favorite,  the  President  on  August  I7th 
ordered  that  General  George  H.  Thomas  should  take  the 
command  of  the  Fifth  Military  District,  and  that  Sheridan 

1  Washington  correspondence  of  Boston  Post,  quoted  in  Houston 
Telegraph,  Sept.  3,  1867. 


l8i]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE  !§! 

should  be  sent  to  the  upper  Missouri.  Grant,  in  issuing  the 
order,  endeavored  to  maintain  Sheridan's  policies  by  in- 
structing General  Thomas  to  continue  to  execute  all  orders 
he  should  find  in  force  in  the  district,  unless  authorized 
by  the  General  of  the  Army  to  annul,  alter,  or  modify  them. 
Some  ten  days  later,  however,  General  Winfield  S.  Han- 
cock was  substituted  for  Thomas,  whose  health  was  bad, 
and  the  President  took  occasion  to  direct  that  the  new  com- 
mander should  exercise  any  and  all  powers  conferred  by 
Congress  upon  district  commanders,  thus  intimating  that 
he  should  have  a  free  hand.1 

Hancock  did  not  proceed  immediately  to  New  Orleans, 
and  the  command  devolved  for  the  time  upon  General  Grif- 
fin, who  continued  energetically  along  the  lines  that  he  and 
Sheridan  had  been  following.  Upon  Griffin's  death,  Sep- 
tember 1 5th,  he  was  succeeded  by  General  James  A.  Mower, 
then  in  immediate  command  of  Louisiana,  who  followed  a 
more  moderate  policy,  until  Hancock  assumed  command  at 
New  Orleans,  November  2Qth.  Hancock  had  done  bril- 
liant service  as  a  corps  commander  during  the  war,  and  was 
popular  in  the  North.  He  was,  however,  a  Democrat,  he 
disliked  the  Radical  program,  and  strongly  sympathized 
with  the  policies  of  the  President.  He  believed  that  the 
white  people  of  the  South  should  carry  through  the  pro- 
cess of  reconstruction  with  as  little  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  military  as  possible,  and  entertained  the  most  cheer- 
ful view  of  the  self-sustaining  powers  of  the  civil  authority. 
In  "  General  Orders,  no.  40  ",  announcing  his  assumption 
of  command,  he  gave  expression  to  this  optimism  and  to  his 
purpose  to  reverse  the  policies  which  Sheridan  had  followed. 

The  General  Commanding  is  gratified  to  learn  that  peace  and 
quiet  reign  in  this  Department.  It  will  be  his  purpose  to  preserve 

1  Report  of  Sec'y  of  War,  House  Ex.  Docs.,  40  C,  2  s.,  no.  I,  pp. 
26-27. 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [Xg2 

this  condition  of  things.  As  a  means  to  this  great  end  he 
regards  the  maintenance  of  the  civil  authorities  in  the  faithful 
execution  of  the  laws  as  the  most  efficient,  under  existing 
circumstances. 

In  war  it  is  indispensable  to  repel  force  by  force,  and  to  over- 
throw and  destroy  opposition  to  lawful  authority.  But  when 
insurrectionary  force  has  been  overthrown  and  peace  estab- 
lished, and  the  civil  authorities  are  ready  and  willing  to  per- 
form their  duties,  the  military  power  should  cease  to  lead, 
and  the  civil  administration  should  resume  its  natural  and 
rightful  dominion.  Solemnly  impressed  by  these  views  the 
General  announces  that  the  great  principles  of  American 
liberty  still  are  the  lawful  inheritance  of  this  people,  and 
ever  should  be.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  [right  of  the 
writ  of]  habeas  corpus,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  freedom  of 
speech,  and  the  natural  rights  of  persons  and  the  rights  of 
property  must  be  preserved. 

Free  institutions,  while  they  are  essential  to  the  prosperity 
and  happiness  of  the  people,  always  furnish  the  strongest  in- 
ducements to  peace  and  order.  Crimes  and  offences  com- 
mitted in  this  district  must  be  referred  to  the  consideration  and 
judgment  of  the  regular  civil  tribunals,  and  those  tribunals 
will  be  supported  in  their  lawful  jurisdiction.  Should  there 
be  violations  of  existing  laws  which  are  not  inquired  into  by 
the  civil  magistrates,  or  should  failures  in  the  administration 
of  the  courts  be  complained  of,  the  cases  will  be  reported  to 
these  headquarters,  when  such  orders  will  be  made  as  may 
be  deemed  necessary. 

While  the  General  thus  indicates  his  purpose  to  respect  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  he  wishes  all  to  understand  that  armed 
insurrections  or  forcible  resistance  to  the  law  will  be  instantly 
suppressed  by  arms.1 

This  generous  and  enlightened  policy  could  have  been 
more  successfully  applied  to  Texas  six  months  earlier  when 

^Report  of  Secretary  of  War  for  1868,  H.  Ex.  Docs.,  40  C,  3  s., 
vol.  i,  p.  210. 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

the  administration  of  the  civil  authority  was  more  unified 
and  harmonious ;  for  in  the  present  disorganization  and  con- 
fusion, when  there  was  a  total  lack  of  sympathy  and  of  con- 
fidence between  the  new  Radical  appointees  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  remaining  Conservative  officials,  backed  by  the 
great  mass  of  the  people,  on  the  other,  there  was  small 
chance  that  it  could  be  carried  out  in  the  spirit  in  which  it 
was  conceived.  Hancock's  determination  to  respect  the 
regular  civil  tribunals  seemed  to  threaten  the  powers  of  the 
new  state  administration  and  brought  him  at  once  into  con- 
flict with  Pease. 

The  occasion  was  this.  In  October,  1867,  a  Union  man, 
R.  W.  Black,  had  been  murdered  in  Uvalde  County,  west 
of  San  Antonio.  The  accused  parties  had  been  arrested  and 
confined  in  the  county  jail,  when  the  district  judge,  G.  H. 
Noonan,  a  Radical,  suggested  to  Pease  that  they  be  tried 
by  a  military  commission,  for  he  thought  it  extremely  doubt- 
ful whether  they  could  be  kept  in  confinement  long  enough 
to  be  tried  before  a  civil  court  in  this  thinly  populated  dis- 
trict. Pease  agreed  and  sent  Noonan's  letter  with  his  en- 
dorsement to  General  Reynolds,  who  naturally  referred  the 
whole  matter  to  his  commanding  officer.  The  governor 
had  failed  to  state  very  clearly  the  grounds  for  his  request, 
and  Hancock  replied  that  he  could  see  no  reason  for  violat- 
ing the  principle  laid  down  in  his  recent  proclamation,  more 
especially  as  it  had  not  fjeen  charged  that  there  was  any  in- 
disposition or  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  the  local  civil 
tribunals  to  try  the  case  fairly.  While  it  was  not  to  be 
denied  that  the  act  of  March  2d  conferred  upon  the  military 
commander  of  the  district  the  power  to  organize  military 
commissions  for  the  trial  of  criminals,  it  was  nevertheless 
an  extraordinary  power  and  from  its  nature  should  be  ex- 
ercised only  in  the  extraordinary  event  that  the  local  civil 
tribunals  were  unwilling  or  unable  to  enforce  the  laws. 
From  this,  Hancock  went  on  to  read  the  governor  a  lecture 
upon  the  subject  of  civil  liberties. 


184  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

At  this  time  the  country  is  in  a  state  of  profound  peace.  The 
state  government  of  Texas,  organized  in  subordination  to  the 
authority  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  is  in  full 
exercise  of  all  its  proper  powers.  The  courts,  duly  empowered 
.  .  .  are  in  existence.  .  .  .  That  the  intervention  of  this  power 
[the  military]  should  be  called  for  or  even  suggested  by  civil 
magistrates,  when  the  laws  are  no  longer  silent  and  the  civil 
magistrates  are  possessed,  in  their  respective  spheres,  of  all 
the  powers  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  laws,  excites  the 
surprise  of  the  Commander  of  the  Fifth  Military  District. 

In  his  opinion  it  is  of  evil  example  and  full  of  danger  to  the 
cause  of  freedom  and  good  government  that  the  exercise  of 
military  power  through  military  tribunals  .  .  .  should  ever  be 
permitted  when  the  ordinary  powers  of  the  existing  state 
governments  are  ample  enough  for  the  administration  of  the 
law  .  .  .  [and  the  officers]  are  faithful  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duties. 

If  the  state  authorities  were  not  able  to  secure  the  con- 
finement of  the  prisoners  until  trial,  Hancock  continued, 
sufficient  military  aid  would  be  furnished;  if  the  prisoners 
could  not  be  fairly  tried  in  that  county,  a  change  of  venue 
should  be  made,  as  provided  by  the  state  law.  The  state 
possessed  all  the  powers  necessary  for  a  proper  and  prompt 
trial  of  the  prisoners,  and  a  failure  to  exercise  them  must  be 
due  to  the  inefficiency  of  its  officers ;  and  in  the  case  of  any 
such  failure  it  would  become  his  duty  to  remove  the  officers 
in  question  and  to  appoint  others.  And  if  these  should  fail 
and  it  should  become  apparent  that  not  enough  could  be 
found  in  Texas  who  would  enforce  the  law,,  it  would  then 
become  necessary  for  him  to  employ  military  commissions; 
but  until  such  a  necessity  should  be  shown  to  exist,  it  was 
not  his  intention  to  have  recourse  to  them.1 

1  See  Report  of  Secretary  of  War  for  1868,  loc.  cit.t  pp.  244-246. 
A  printed  copy  of  the  letter  is  in  Exec.  Corres. 


185]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

On  January  17,  1868,  Pease  replied,  dissenting  on  purely 
legal  grounds  from  the  declaration  that  the  state  govern- 
ment of  Texas  was  "  in  full  exercise  of  all  its  proper 
powers  ",  citing  the  language  of  the  reconstruction  acts  of 
Congress  to  show  that  such  civil  government  as  Texas  had 
was  provisional  only.  He  also  dissented  from  the  state- 
ment that  the  country  was  "  in  a  state  of  profound  peace  ", 
insisting  that,  although  there  was  no  longer  any  organized 
resistance  to  the  authority  of  the  general  government,  the 
bitterness  aroused  in  a  large  majority  of  the  population  by 
defeat,  the  loss  of  slaves,  and  the  policy  of  Congress,  to- 
gether with  the  demoralization  wrought  by  civil  war,  had 
made  it  very  difficult  and  often  impossible  to  enforce  the 
criminal  laws.  The  greater  part  of  his  letter  was  an  elab- 
oration of  this  assertion.  Over  one  hundred  homicides, 
Pease  said,  had  occurred  in  Texas  during  the  past  twelve 
months,  but  less  than  one-tenth  of  the  offenders  had  been  ar- 
rested and  half  of  these  had  not  been  tried.  Even  the  mili- 
tary had  often  been  unable  to  arrest  the  guilty  parties, 
although  the  latter  were  well  known.  Often  the  civil  offi- 
cials failed  because  not  properly  sustained  by  the  citizens, 
and,  after  arrest,  the  criminals  often  escaped  from  custody 
because  the  jails  were  insecure  and  the  counties  were  unable 
to  furnish  proper  guards.  Moreover,  it  often  happened 
that  grand  juries  failed  to  indict  the  accused  and  petit  jurors 
to  convict  those  finally  brought  to  trial.  All  good  citizens 
acknowledged  there  was  but  little  security  for  life  in  Texas, 
and  many  of  the  loyal  citizens  had  expressed  the  belief  that 
it  would  have  a  good  effect  if  military  commissions  could 
be  employed  to  make  examples  in  a  few  cases.  In  fact,  the 
governor  continued,  the  fear  of  military  commissions  had 
had  a  markedly  deterrent  effect  upon  crime  until  the  publi- 
cation of  General  Hancock's  General  Order  no.  40,  Novem- 
ber 29th;  since  then  there  had  been  a  very  perceptible  in- 


186  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

crease  of  crime  and  manifestation  of  hostile  feeling  toward 
the  government. 

If  all  these  matters  had  been  known  to  the  Commanding  Gen- 
eral of  the  Fifth  Military  District,  his  surprise  might  not  have 
been  excited  that  a  civil  magistrate  of  Texas,  who  is  desirous 
of  preserving  peace  and  good  order  and  to  give  security  to 
person  and  life,  should  have  applied  to  him  as  the  chief 
officer  to  whom  the  government  of  Texas  is  entrusted  by  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  to  do  by  military  authority  what 
experience  has  proved  cannot  be  done  by  the  civil  officers  of 
Texas  with  the  limited  means  and  authority  with  which  they 
are  invested  by  law.1 

Evidently  nettled  at  the  tone  of  Pease's  reply,  which  had 
been  given  to  the  newspapers,  Hancock  immediately  tele- 
graphed Reynolds  to  ascertain  "  in  the  most  expeditious 
manner  "  how  many  cases  of  crime  were  known  to  have 
occurred  in  Texas  since  his  (Hancock's)  assumption  of 
command,  how  many  had  been  reported  by  the  civil  author- 
ities to  Reynolds,  how  many  by  Reynolds  to  Hancock, 
whose  fault  it  was  if  criminals  were  running  at  large,  and 
how  many  applications  had  been  made  by  the  governor 
upon  the  military  for  aid  in  arresting  these  criminals.2 
Reynolds  called  upon  Pease  for  such  information  as  was  in 
his  possession,  and  it  developed  that  only  eighteen  cases  of 
homicide  had  been  recorded  for  the  period  of  Hancock's 
incumbency,  that  in  no  case  had  the  governor  appealed  to 
the  military  to  make  an  arrest,  and  that  only  four  cases  had 
been  referred  to  the  district  headquarters;  furthermore  the 
eighteen  homicides  were  all  of  such  character  as  to  pre- 

1  Pease  to  Lt.   Col.  W.  G.  Mitchell,  in  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  29, 
1868.     Also   in    Report   of    Secretary  of   War    for    1868,   loc.   cit.,   pp. 
268-271. 

2  Hancock  to  Reynolds,  telegram,  Jan.  30,  1868,  in  Exec.  Carres. 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

elude  the  charge  that  they  were  attributable  to  General 
Orders  no.  40.  In  a  final  reply,  Hancock  pointed  out  these 
facts,  and  proceded  vigorously  to  deny  that  lack  of  respect 
for  the  government  and  prevalence  of  crime  constituted  a 
war  status  or  necessitated  military  courts,  and  to  criticise 
the  governor  for  his  implied  censure  of  the  civil  authorities, 
most  of  whom  were  now  his  own  political  friends,  and  for 
the  "  indications  of  temper  "  and  "  intolerance  of  the  opin- 
ions of  others  "  in  which  his  letter  abounded.1 

This  closed  the  correspondence  but  not  the  controversy. 
A  strong  backing  by  the  military  was  absolutely  essential 
to  the  efficiency  of  the  Radical  state  administration,  and, 
while  in  respect  to  most  matters  General  Hancock  stood 
ready  to  help,  all  possibility  of  sympathetic  co-operation  had 
been  destroyed  by  the  recent  unpleasantness,  in  which, 
moreover,  the  commander's  thinly-veiled  antagonism  to  the 
whole  Radical  program  had  become  sharply  revealed.  He 
became  at  once  the  object  of  a  most  bitter  attack.  The  charges 
of  Pease  that  he  was  responsible  for  the  general  increase  of 
lawlessness  were  violently  reiterated  by  the  Radical  papers, 
and  a  clamor,  echoed  in  the  North,  went  up  for  his  re- 
moval. However,  his  tenure  was  not  directly  affected  by 
this,  for  when  he  was  relieved  of  the  command  of  the  Fifth 
District,  March  28,  1868,  it  was  at  his  own  request.2 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  there  had  been  an  in- 
crease of  disorder  and  crime  during  the  winter;  but  that 
it  was  due  to  the  pacific  policy  of  Hancock  is  not  so  easily 
apparent.  By  far  the  greater  part  had  in  no  way  grown  out 
of  political  animosities  but  flourished  in  the  confusion  that 
Sheridan,  Griffin,  and  Reynolds  had  wrought  among  the 

1  Report  of  Secretary  of  War  for  1868,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  262-268. 

2  This  request  was  due  to  Grant's  revocation  of  his  orders  removing 
certain    members   of    the  board   of   aldermen   of   New    Orleans.     Sec 
Report  of  Sec'y.  of  War  for  1868,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  208,  222-232. 


188  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

courts  and  the  peace  officers.  For  this  much  the  Radicals 
themselves  were  more  directly  responsible  than  their  oppo- 
nents. It  is  true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  political  enmity 
had  increased,  that  conflicts,  riots,  and  outrages  were  not 
unusual,  and  that  the  Conservatives,  or  "  rebels  "  as  their 
opponents  uniformly  called  them,  were  more  often,  though 
by  no  means  always,  the  aggressors ;  but  it  is  still  to  be  re- 
membered that  the  sources  of  this  increase  of  bitterness  are 
to  be  found  in  the  humiliations  forced  upon  the  majority 
of  the  people  in  the  execution  of  the  Radical  policy,  and  for 
this  also  the  peculiar  harshness  of  the  military  officials  in 
the  Fifth  District  were  mainly  responsible. 

Long  before  Hancock's  assumption  of  command  the  State 
Gazette  had  complained  of  the  "  incendiary  publications  " 
of  certain  radical  papers  as  tending  to  inflame  the  minds  of 
the  negroes  and  "  to  disturb  the  friendly  relations  which 
ought  to  exist  between  the  races  "-1  Later,  reverting  to  the 
subject,  it  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  nearly  all  negroes 
were  carrying  arms,  especially  pistols  and  long  knives,  and 
were  displaying  them  on  all  occasions.2  To  this  the  Radi- 
cals replied  that  the  blacks  had  as  much  right  to  carry 
weapons  as  the  whites,  a  proposition  that  did  not  readily 
commend  itself  to  the  majority  of  the  latter,  who  beheld 
in  the  armed  negro,  insolent  and  swaggering,  puffed  up  with 
new  and  indigestible  theories  of  equality,  the  most  intoler- 
able of  created  beings.  The  appointment  of  negro  regis- 
trars, who  were  frequently  disposed  to  make  too  much  of 
their  new  authority,  increased  the  irritation.  Negro  politi- 
cal meetings,  generally  under  the  auspices  of  the  local  Union 
League,  harangued  by  fervid  orators  and  enlivened  by  par- 
ades and  "  Yankee  "  or  "  anti-rebel  "  songs,  never  failed 
to  stir  popular  wrath.  It  is  surprising,  not  that  these  de- 

1  September  28,   1867.  2  November  20,  1867. 


rg9]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE  jgg 

monstrations  sometimes  resulted  in  riots,  but  that  the  riots 
were  not  more  frequent.  Probably  the  disturbance  of  this 
sort  that  aroused  the  most  attention,  though  it  seems  to  have 
been  far  from  serious,  occurred  at  Marshall  on  December 
3Oth,  where  a  pistol  shot  fired  by  a  drunken  man  broke  up 
a  negro  gathering  at  the  court  house  just  after  a  radical 
speech  by  Judge  C.  Caldwell,  of  the  state  supreme  court. 
The  next  day  Caldwell,  a  man  of  excitable  temperament, 
quarreled  with  the  deputy  sheriff,  who  seems  to  have  been 
in  no  way  responsible  for  the  trouble,  and  obtained  the  ar- 
rest of  nearly  all  of  the  local  peace  officers  by  the  military. 
They  were  released,  pending  trial,  by  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
but  before  the  trial  came  off  they  were  again  arrested,  by 
orders  apparently  of  General  Reynolds.  Hancock  ordered 
that  the  writ  be  respected  and  that  they  should  be  tried  by 
the  civil  courts,  winning  for  himself  renewed  abuse  from 
the  Radical  press.1  Caldwell  wrote  wrathfully  to  Pease: 

None  but  a  Johnson  man  would  be  tolerated  here.  He  must 
cuss  Congress  and  damn  the  nigger.  .  .  .  General  Hancock  is 
with  the  President  politically  and  will  only  execute  the  letter 
of  the  law  to  escape  accountability.  .  .  .  There  is  not  an  in- 
telligent rebel  in  all  the  land  who  does  not  so  understand  him. 
.  .  .  He  might  regard  such  an  interpretation  of  his  course  as  an 
affront,  but  it  does  not  alter  the  fact.2 

Complaints  of  strong  anti-radical  sentiment  came  from 
various  quarters.  In  Fannin  County  the  numerous  execu- 
tions issued  for  the  public  sale  of  landed  property  were 
paralyzing  the  country,  the  secessionists  using  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  courts  "  to  come  down  upon  Union  men  with 

1  See  Report  of   Sec'y  of  War   for   1868,  loc.   cit.,  253,  254-258  for 
Hancock's   order  and  the   report  of  special  inspector,  W.   H.   Wood. 
See  accounts  in  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  8,  15,  1868. 

2  January  2,  1868,  MS.  in  Exec.  Corres. 


190  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [IOyo 

much  vim  and  apparent  satisfaction  'V  A  rather  panicky 
official  wrote  from  Palestine  of  petty  persecutions  he  suf- 
fered there  and  declared  his  belief  that  there  was  a  secret 
organization  of  "  rebels  "  there  to  murder  all  Radicals  and 
office-holders  of  Unionist  proclivities.2  The  Bureau  agent 
at  Sherman  asserted  that  the  people  in  that  region  had  been 
well  disposed  until  they  had  been  persuaded  by  General 
Orders  no.  40  that  the  civil  authorities  were  superior  to  the 
military.  Now  there  could  be  no  protection  or  justice  if 
the  troops  should  be  removed ;  more  cavalry  was,  in  fact,  de- 
sirable; and  the  Sherman  Courier  should  be  suppressed.8 
Another  Bureau  agent  in  Dallas  County  reported  that  the 
"  rebels  "  were  very  bitter  and  continually  making  threats.4 
A  more  measured  statement  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
executing  the  criminal  law  in  one  district,  was  that  of  Judge 
Thornton,  of  Seguin.  "  Where  the  black  man  alone  is  con- 
cerned, there  can  be  no  cause  of  complaint ;  if  guilty,  he  will 
probably  be  convicted,  if  innocent,  he  will  be  acquitted." 
Such,  however,  was  not  the  case  with  white  men  charged 
with  the  higher  crimes  of  violence  against  the  person. 

From  my  experience  I  regard  it  as  almost  an  impossibility 
under  existing  arrangements  to  convict  a  white  man  of  any 
crime,  the  punishment  for  which  involves  his  life  or  his  per- 
sonal liberty,  where  the  proof  or  any  material  part  of  the  proof 
depends  upon  the  testimony  of  a  black  man,  or  where  the 
violence  has  been  against  a  black  man ;  and  as  to  convicting  a 

1  Samuel  Galbraith  to  E.  M.  Pease,  Jan.  23,  1868,  ibid. 

2  Judge   Tunstall    to    Gen.    J.    J.    Reynolds,    March   26,    1868,    ibid. 
Tunstall  must  have  found  comfort  in  office,  nevertheless,  for  he  was 
both  county  judge  and  postmaster,  and  later  became  secretary  of  the 
constitutional  convention. 

8  Report  of  H.  E.  Scott,  Sub.  Ass't  Commissioner,  to  J.  J.  Reynolds, 
March  31,  1868,  ibid. 
«Wm.  H.  Horton  to  Reynolds,  Dec.  n,  1867,  ibid. 


I9I]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE  l^1 

white  man  of  the  crime  of  murder  in  the  first  degree  on  any 
kind  of  testimony,  it  is  almost  out  of  the  question.  ...  I  can 
suggest  no  means  by  which  I  think  the  civil  courts  can  remedy 
the  evil  without  a  change  in  the  public  sentiment  of  the 
country.1 

Much  of  the  evidence  presented  on  the  subject  of  lawless- 
ness is  of  a  most  partisan  and  untrustworthy  character.  A 
noteworthy  instance  of  the  way  in  which  facts  were  dis- 
torted for  political  purposes  is  to  be  found  in  what  purports 
to  be  the  report  of  the  district  clerk  for  Blanco  County- 
printed  in  the  Austin  Republican,  March  4th,  and  copied  by 
the  New  York  Times,  March  18,  1868 — of  the  state  of  the 
criminal  docket  of  that  county.  In  brief  the  statement  as 
printed  was  that  since  June,  1865,  tne  grand  juries  had 
issued  178  indictments,  of  which  83  were  for  murder  and 
6 1  for  theft  and  robbery,  while  the  registered  vote  was  only 
1 20,  due  to  the  number  of  murders.  The  clerk,  however, 
indignantly  declared  that  his  report  had  been  falsified,  that 
not  a  single  murder  had  been  committed  in  Blanco  since  the 
date  given,  but  that  all  of  the  83  indictments  had  been  re- 
turned by  "  loyal  "  juries  for  the  killing  of  seven  "  bush- 
whackers "  during  the  war,  and  that  most  of  the  other 
offences  charged  had  likewise  been  committed  before  June, 
1865.  The  small  number  of  registered  voters  was  due,  he 
declared,  to  the  ignorance  and  politics  of  the  registrars.2 

No  county  or  district  in  the  state,  however,  was  wholly 
free  from  these  disorders,  and  though  they  seem  to  have 
been  most  prevalent  in  the  north  and  east,  all  sources  of 
information  fully  attest  that  they  were  quite  too  numerous 
everywhere.  Yet  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  repeat  here  that  the 
evidence  fails  to  show  that  more  than  a  very  small  per- 

1  J.  J.  Thornton  to  Pease,  Feb.  10,  1868,  MS.  in  Exec.  Carres. 

2  San  Antonio  Daily  Herald,  June  10,  1868. 


192  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

centage  of  the  cases  of  actual  violence  at  this  time  originated 
in  differences  of  political  opinion.  The  continuous  and  pe- 
culiarly offensive  activity  of  branches  of  the  Union  League 
and  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  among  the  negroes 
with  the  view  of  securing  political  control  through  the  black 
vote,  had  brought  into  existence  the  counter  organization 
of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan.  This  last  had  but  recently  appeared 
in  Texas ;  it  could  not  have  been  very  extensive  as  yet,  nor 
did  it  deserve  the  sinister  reputation  that  it  later  acquired; 
but  it  grew  rapidly  both  in  membership  and  reputation 
during  the  following  summer.  Its  operations,  however, 
had  from  the  first  called  forth  the  bitterest  invectives  from 
its  enemies,  who  were  quick  to  see  its  dangerous  possibili- 
ties and  to  threaten  retaliation.  The  Austin  Republican  de- 
clared that 

the  Union  League  and  the  Grand  Army  have  learned  many 
valuable  lessons  from  the  Rebels  and  it  will  not  take  them 
long  to  learn  another.  Their  organization  is  as  perfect  as  that 
of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  and  if  driven  to  extremities  they  can  do 
as  effective  work. 

The  radical  papers  and  politicians  continued  to  charge  all 
their  troubles  to  Hancock's  encouragement  of  "  disloyal 
malignancy  ",  and  appealed  to  the  coming  convention  to  do 
something  to  stop  the  "  saturnalia  of  blood  'V  The  matter 
of  lawlessness  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the  first  things  taken  up 
by  the  convention,  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  revert  to  the 
subject  again  in  narrating  the  history  of  that  body.  We 
must  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  preparations  for  as- 
sembling this  convention,  which  was  to  carry  out  the  will  of 
Congress  and  of  the  "  loyalists  "  of  Texas. 

1  The  Austin  Republican,  April  I,  and  22,  May  13,  and  20,  1868; 
Exec.  Corres.,  passim,  for  spring  of  1868.  Unreasoning  partisanship 
could  go  no  further  than  to  call  a  man  with  Hancock's  record  a  "  cop- 
perhead "  and  "  rebel ",  yet  it  was  done  habitually. 


193]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  process  of  registration  of 
the  voters  had  been  begun  by  General  Griffin  early  in  the 
summer  of  1867,  and  that  the  registrars  had  been  governed 
by  secret  memoranda  which  rigidly  excluded  many  citizens 
who  believed  themselves  entitled  to  registration  under  the 
law.  The  work  went  on  slowly  from  May  to  the  end  of 
August,  generally  without  interruption,  though  disturbances 
and  threats  against  the  registrars  were  reported  from  sev- 
eral places.  By  order  of  Griffin,  the  offices  of  registration 
were  again  opened  in  each  district  from  September  23rd  to 
28th  to  enable  any  who  had  been  neglectful  of  the  privilege 
to  avail  themselves  of  a  last  opportunity.1  That  a  relatively 
small  number  of  conservatives  had  registered  was  due  in 
no  way,  therefore,  to  lack  of  time,  nor  was  it  wholly  be- 
cause of  the  zeal  of  radical  registrars,  although  the  latter 
was  no  inconsiderable  impediment.2 

Many  of  the  whites  were  at  first  plainly  indifferent.' 
Some  believed  that  it  was  the  settled  purpose  of  Congress 
to  shut  them  out  of  political  power  and  that  it  would  be  use- 
less to  try  to  participate  in  political  affairs.  Others  held 

1  Special  Orders,  no.  163,  Sept.  2,  1867,  copy  in  Exec.  Corres. 

2 "  The  boards  in  this  district  have  been  extremely  rigid,  and  the 
secessionists  have  been  excluded  almost  without  exception."  —  H.  C. 
Pedigo  (Radical)  to  Pease,  Oct.  I,  1868,  MS.  in  Exec.  Carres.  "In 
this  district  lawyers,  on  account  of  their  oaths  as  attorneys,  have  been 
refused  registration.  The  most  impertinent  questions  have  been  asked 
of  others — as  to  which  party  they  sympathized  with  during  the  war, 
— if  they  would  support  the  present  and  future  laws  of  Congress, — if 
they  think  negroes  their  equals,  etc. ;  and  if  the  answers  were  not  in 
accordance  with  the  notions  of  loyalty  of  these  petty  scoundrels,  the 
parties  were  refused  registration." — J.  W.  Throckmorton  to  Ashbel 
Smith,  Sept.  21,  1867,  printed  in  the  State  Gazette,  Oct  26,  1867. 

3  Tn  Titus  County  by  the  end  of  August  only  500  out  of  1200  had 
registered;  in  Fort  Bend  only  no  out  of  500;  and  in  Harris  the  total 
of  whites  was  between  500  and  600  short.  Other  counties  frequently 
made  as  bad  showing.  Houston  Daily  Telegraph,  Sept.  5,  1867. 


IQ4  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

that  participation  in  reorganization  under  the  recent  laws 
would  be  equivalent  to  consenting  to  them,  and  that  the 
congressional  radicals  would  be  encouraged  to  make  further 
demands  in  order  to  give  the  Texas  radicals  and  negroes 
the  full  control  of  the  state.  Some  seemed  to  think  at  first 
that  by  a  refusal  to  register  they  could  defeat  immediate 
reorganization  and  await  a  better  opportunity;  meantime, 
military  rule  would  be  preferable  to  the  radical-negro  rule 
they  would  be  subjected  to  under  the  Reconstruction  Acts.1 
It  was  soon  discovered,  however,  that  this  plan  would  avail 
nothing,  since  the  calling  of  a  constitutional  convention 
hinged  not  upon  the  number  registered,  but  upon  whether 
or  no  half  of  the  total  registration  voted  afterwards.  Should 
the  registration  be  left  wholly  to  the  radicals,  who  were  sure 
to  vote  afterwards,  there  would  be  no  doubt  whatever  that 
Texas  would  be  "  reconstructed  ".  Hence,  the  better  way 
to  defeat  it  would  be  to  register  all  the  voters  possible  and 
then  to  stay  away  from  the  election  in  the  hope  that  less 
than  half  of  the  votes  would  be  cast.  Conservative  papers 
unceasingly  urged  the  whites  to  follow  this  plan.2  The 
Houston  Telegraph  sounded  the  warning  that  unless  the 
full  strength  of  the  whites  should  be  enlisted  there  would 
be  no  reason  to  expect  that  Texas  would  not  be  completely 
in  the  hands  of  the  negroes,  who  had  as  keen  a  relish  for 
offices  as  had  the  whites,  and  who  would  satisfy  their  am- 
bition to  own  land  by  taxing  it  out  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
ent owners.3 

1  See  the   public  letter   of   J.   W.   Throckmorton   to   Ashbel    Smith, 
loc.  cit.,  in  which  opposition  to  immediate  reconstruction  is  urged  in 
the  hope  of  a  favorable  reaction  in  the  North.     Danger  of  suffering 
harsher  measures,  especially  confiscation,  is  declared  a  "phantom." 

2  The  State  Gazette,  Oct.  26,  1867,  gave  a  list  of  Conservative  papers 
that  advocated  this  plan,  including  all  those  of  prominence  except  two, 
—the  San  Antonio  Herald  and  the  Clarksville  Standard.    The  Austin 
Republican,  Nov.  5,  stated  practically  the  same  thing. 

«  Sept.  5,  1867. 


195]  RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

Probably  the  known  dislike  of  General  Hancock  for  the 
extreme  radical  program  and  the  news  of  the  slight  re- 
action against  the  radicals  in  the  northern  elections  during 
the  summer  and  fall  of  1867,  had  much  to  do  with  the  grow- 
ing opposition  to  reorganization  according  to  the  congres- 
sional program.  But  notwithstanding  the  accusations  of 
his  enemies,  the  commander  showed  no  disposition  to  play 
the  partisan.  He  refused  to  accede  to  a  request  of  the  con- 
servative leaders  that  he  set  aside  the  registration  in  Texas 
because  of  alleged  errors  of  the  boards  of  registrars.1  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  boards  of  registrars  were  left  un- 
changed, it  could  hardly  be  accounted  a  partisan  act  that  on 
January  nth  he  announced  his  dissent  from  the  construc- 
tion given  to  the  disqualifying  clauses  of  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Acts  by  Sheridan's  "  memoranda  "  and  "  questions  ", 
and  ordered  that  these  boards  should  no  longer  be  governed 
thereby,  but  should  "  look  to  the  laws  and  to  the  laws 
alone ",  which  they  were  to  interpret  for  themselves. 
Their  decisions  were  to  be  final,  except  in  cases  appealed 
to  the  commander  of  the  district.  It  is  not  probable  that 
a  very  great  number  of  cases  were  affected  by  this  order, 
for  in  a  considerable  number  of  those  that  were  appealed 
the  boards  were  sustained.  It  would  be  hard  to  find  fault 
with  the  reversal  of  their  decisions  in  the  other  cases.2 

On  December  18,  1867,  Hancock  ordered  an  election  to  be 
held  at  each  county  seat  from  February  loth  to  I4th  to  de- 
termine whether  a  constitutional  convention  should  be  called 
and  to  select  delegates  to  the  same;  and  in  accordance  with 
the  law  he  also  ordered  that  the  registry  lists  should  be 

1  See  his  answer  to  John  Hancock  of  Austin,  in  Report  of  Sec'y  of 
War  for  1868,  I,  243;  and  comment  on  both  letters  in  Austin  Republi- 
can, Jan.  22,  1868. 

2  See  for  example  a  list  of  Hancock's  decisions  in  Report  of  Sec'y 
of  War  for  1868,  I,  239-241. 


196  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I96 

reopened  and  revised  during  the  last  five  days  of  January.1 
Voters  of  both  parties  who  had  neglected  to  register  in  the 
previous  summer  now  hastened  to  add  their  names  to  the 
lists.  Nearly  five  thousand  were  registered  during  this 
time,  with  the  two  parties  about  equally  represented,  for 
two-fifths  were  negroes.  The  total  registration  as  stated  in 
April  by  General  Buchanan,  Hancock's  successor,  was 
1 09, 1 30. 2  The  number  of  those  disqualified  was  not  offi- 
cially estimated  but  was  variously  placed  from  7500  to 
I2,ooo.3  From  the  fact  that  the  total  white  registration 
was  very  close  to  the  total  vote  in  the  exciting  Throck- 
morton-Pease  campaign  of  1866,  it  is  evident  that  the 
number  actually  disfranchised  was  not  as  high  as  the  Con- 
servatives themselves  claimed.  The  proportion  of  negroes 
seems  excessive  in  view  of  the  census  of  i86o,4  but  it  was 
claimed  by  the  radicals  that  this  could  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  over  a  hundred  thousand  negroes  had  been 
brought  into  Texas  for  safety  during  the  war.6  But  even 
so,  it  is  doubtful  if  the  list  of  registered  blacks  should  have 
been  within  6,000  to  8,000  of  the  total  given.6 

1  Op.  tit.,  215-218. 

2  Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  40  C,  2  s.,  no.  53.    The  Austin  Republican,  which 
enjoyed  facilities  for  obtaining  official  information,  gave,  on  Novem- 
ber  27,    1867,    the   total    registration,    except    for    a    few    unimportant 
counties,  at  104,096;  while  the  total  given  in  the  Annual  Cyclopedia, 
evidently  taken  before  the  January  revision,  was  104,259, — 56,678  whites 
and  47,581   colored.    The  final  registration  showed  59,633  whites  and 
49,497  colored. 

8  Austin  Republican,  Nov.  27,  1867. 

4  The  census  of  1860  gave  the  population  of  Texas  as  421,294  whites 
and    182,921    colored;    that   of    1870   gave   564,700   whites   and   253,475 
colored. 

5  Austin  Republican,  Nov.  27,  1867. 

6  There   is   no    doubt    whatever   that    in   many   cases   the   registrars 
knowingly  allowed  negroes  under  twenty-one  years  of  age  to  register; 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE 

Although  it  had  come  to  be  the  general  understanding 
that  the  conservatives  would  refuse  to  vote  at  all  in  the  elec- 
tion, some  of  the  leaders,  not  knowing  what  the  final  regis- 
tration returns  would  show  as  to  their  strength,  began  to 
fear  that  with  this  plan  they  ran  too  great  a  risk  of  putting 
their  opponents  in  control.  On  January  2d,  a  call  was  issued 
from  Houston  for  a  general  conference  of  conservatives  at 
that  place  on  the  2Oth,  with  the  view  of  agreeing  upon  a 
definite  program.  Most  of  the  press  fell  in  with  the  idea, 
though  some  expressed  the  fear  that  a  sudden  and  late 
change  of  the  plans  would  create  uncertainty  and  division 
when  unity  was  most  necessary,  and  thus  play  into  the 
hands  of  their  enemies.1  The  time  was  so  short  that,  when 
the  convention  met  on  the  day  appointed,  less  than  twenty 
counties  were  represented.  However,  resolutions  were 
passed  declaring  that  the  one  issue  before  the  people  of 
the  state,  rising  above  all  questions  of  party,  was  that  of 
African  equality,  and  that,  since  it  was  the  declared  inten- 
tion of  the  radicals  in  securing  a  constitutional  convention 
to  Africanize  the  state,  it  was  recommended  that  all  per- 
sons entitled  to  register  vote  first  against  a  convention  and 
then  for  delegates  who  would  frame  a  constitution  without 
negro  suffrage.  A  state  central  committee  was  appointed 
to  establish  local  committees  and  to  push  the  work  in  every 
county.  A  special  committee,  of  which  John  H.  Reagan 
was  chairman,  issued  a  public  address  stating  that  although 
the  people  of  Texas  were  anxious  to  have  the  state  restored 
to  the  Union,  necessity  demanded  that  they  prevent  the  in- 
corporation of  negro  suffrage  into  the  organic  law.  Dis- 
claiming any  intention  of  giving  offense  to  Congress,  they 

but  on  the  other  hand  it  was  often  impossible  to  know  the  exact  age 
of  a  negro,   for  he  usually  did  not  know  it  himself.     In  such  cases 
the  tendency  was  to  place  it  sufficiently  high. 
1  Houston  Telegraph  quoted  in  Texas  Republican,  Feb.  I,  1868. 


198  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [I9g 

rejoiced  "  that  the  terms  of  reconstruction  were  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  them  for  their  approval  without  Africanizing  the 
state."  Their  convention,  they  said,  had  adopted  a  course 
which  offered  to  the  people  three  chances  to  save  themselves 
and  their  children  from  such  a  fate:  first,  by  defeating  the 
call  for  a  convention ;  second,  by  controlling  the  convention ; 
third,  by  rejecting  a  constitution  that  embodied  negro  suf- 
frage. Reconstruction  under  the  acts  of  Congress  would 
be  far  worse  than  any  military  rule.  Again  the  committee 
was  careful  to  state  that  the  action  of  the  conservatives  was 
based  upon  no  spirit  of  factious  opposition  to  Congress  or 
of  hostility  to  the  negroes.1 

There  was  not  time  enough  to  canvass  the  state  for  the 
new  program,  and  in  fact,  if  the  election  could  have  been 
carried  through  on  the  line  laid  down,  it  would  have  availed 
little.  The  Austin  Republican  derided  the  hopes  of  the  con- 
servatives and  expressed  the  well-founded  opinion  that  even 
if  the  voters  of  the  state  should  refuse  the  terms  of  Con- 
gress because  the  Reconstruction  Acts  admitted  negroes  to 
the  ballot,  Congress  would  not  therefore  accept  their  terms 
and  disfranchise  men  on  account  of  their  color;  rather,  it 
would  disfranchise  enough  "  rebels  "  to  make  certain  the 
result  of  future  elections.  "  Negro  suffrage  is  here — it  is 
no  longer  a  question  and  the  failure  of  a  convention  would 
be  just  as  great  a  victory  for  the  loyal  men  as  its  success." 

The  election  passed  off  more  quietly  than  might  have 
been  expected.  The  soldiers  had  explicit  orders  from  Gen- 
eral Hancock  to  stay  away  from  the  polls  unless  called  upon 
by  the  civil  officers  to  assist  in  keeping  the  peace.  The 

1  The  minutes  of  the  convention  and  the  resolution  are  in  the 
Texas  Republican,  Feb.  i,  1868.  The  address  of  Reagan's  committee 
is  in  the  issue  of  Feb.  8.  A  brief  account  of  the  convention  is  in  the 
Annual  Cyclopedia,  1868,  p.  729. 

*  Feb.  5,  1868. 


RADICAL-MILITARY  RULE  lgg 

registry  boards  acted  as  the  officers  of  election  and  made 
returns  directly  to  Hancock's  headquarters.  The  returns 
failed  utterly  to  justify  whatever  hopes  the  conservative 
leaders  may  have  had.  Most  of  their  followers  were  out 
of  reach  of  their  tardy  appeal  and  refused  or  at  any  rate 
failed  to  vote  at  all.  The  radicals  were  overwhelmingly 
victorious ;  44,689  votes  were  cast  for  a  convention  and  only 
11,440  against  it.1  The  total  vote  was  slightly  more  than 
half  the  total  registration,  and  the  only  effect  of  the  Houston 
convention  had  been  to  bring  out  just  enough  votes  to  make 
the  constitutional  convention  a  certainty.  The  defeated 
whites  relapsed  into  sullen,  despairing  inactivity;  the  con- 
servative papers  were  filled  with  the  gloomiest  forebodings 
as  to  the  future  of  both  business  and  political  freedom. 

1  The  vote  as  tabulated  by  General  Buchanan  was  as  follows : 

For    a    convention  —  whites,    7,7571    blacks,    36,932;    total,    44,689. 

Against  a  convention — whites,  10,622;  blacks,  818;  total,  11,440.    Total 

of   vote   cast,   56,129.     Persons   registered   who    failed  to   vote,   41,234 

whites;  blacks  11,730,  total  52,964.    Sen.  Exec.  Docs.,  40  C,  2  s.,  no.  63. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869 

i.  First  Session 

THE  constitutional  convention  elected  under  the  authori- 
zation of  Congress — generally  known  as  the  "  reconstruc- 
tion "  convention,  but  stigmatized  by  the  Conservative  press 
as  the  "  mongrel  "  convention — assembled  in  Austin  on  June 
i,  1868.  The  delegates  were  ninety  in  number,  the  same  as 
the  lower  house  of  the  legislature  in  1860  and  apportioned 
as  nearly  as  possible  in  the  same  way.  Six  had  been  in  the 
convention  of  1866.  Of  the  twelve  Conservatives  only  one, 
Lemuel  Dale  Evans,  an  exiled  Unionist  during  the  war,  had 
been  of  more  than  ordinary  political  prominence.  All  twelve 
were  from  the  eastern  and  northeastern  counties,  some 
of  which  had  a  heavy  negro  population.  Too  weak  to  carry 
through  any  of  the  principles  of  their  party,  they  were  able 
to  make  themselves  felt  only  by  holding,  when  they  could, 
the  balance  between  the  two  wings  of  their  opponents; 
though  they  generally  allied  themselves  with  the  moderates. 
Their  leaders  were  L.  D.  Evans  and  James  Armstrong,  of 
Jasper.  On  the  Radical  side  the  upper  councils  of  the  party 
were  well  represented.  Their  delegates  included  three  mem- 
bers of  the  supreme  court,  namely,  A.  J.  Hamilton,  ac- 
knowledged leader  of  the  moderates,  and  his  able  supporters, 
Colbert  Caldwell  and  Livingston  Lindsay ;  also  A.  J.  Evans, 
of  Waco,  A.  P.  McCormick,  E.  J.  Davis,  who  with  M.  C. 
Hamilton,  the  comptroller,  led  the  ultra-radicals,  Armstrong. 
200  [200 


201  ]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  2OI 

of  Lamar,  E.  Degener,  leader  of  the  Germans  of  the  south- 
west, G.  W.  Whitmore,  J.  W.  Flanagan,  and  F.  A.  Vaughan. 
At  least  half  a  dozen  of  the  Radicals  had  served  in  the  Con- 
federate army,  while  some  fifteen  or  twenty  had  been  in  the 
Federal  service.  Most  of  these  latter  were  bona  fide  Texans ; 
not  more  than  six  or  eight  were  of  the  true  carpet-bag 
variety.  The  carpet-baggers,  none  of  whom  showed  con- 
spicuous ability,  were  led  by  R.  K.  Smith,  of  Galveston,  a 
Pennsylvanian ;  they  supported  the  faction  of  Morgan  Ham- 
ilton and  Davis.  There  were  only  nine  negro  delegates,  all 
save  one  from  the  black  districts  bordering  the  Brazos  and 
Trinity  rivers.  The  exception  was  G.  T.  Ruby,  of  Gal- 
veston, a  county  preponderantly  white.  Ruby  was  a  mu- 
latto carpet-bagger  from  New  England,  a  man  of  some 
ability  and  fair  education,  who  generally  led  the  negroes 
and  threw  his  influence  with  the  white  carpet-baggers  for 
the  ultra-radical  policies.  He  soon  became  the  head  of  the 
Loyal  Union  League  in  Texas  and  was  destined  for  fifteen 
years  to  be  the  political  leader  of  his  race  in  the  state. 

Though  the  lines  were  not  as  yet  closely  drawn  between 
the  two  radical  factions,  each  began  maneuvering  for  con- 
trol and  presented  its  candidate  for  the  presidency  of  the 
convention.  E.  J.  Davis,  put  forward  by  the  Morgan  Ham- 
ilton or  ab  initio  party,  was  elected  over  Judge  C.  Caldwell, 
the  candidate  of  A.  J.  Hamilton  and  the  moderates,  by  a 
vote  of  43  to  33.  Davis's  career  has  already  been  indicated, 
as  a  Federal  judge  in  the  southwest  before  the  war,  an  op- 
ponent of  secession,  colonel  of  the  First  Texas  (Union)  Cav- 
alry and  brigadier-general,  serving  both  in  Louisiana  and 
Texas,  and  delegate  to  the  convention  of  1866.  He  was  one 
of  the  first  in  Texas  to  espouse  the  cause  of  negro  suffrage 
and  was  always  one  of  the  most  radical  of  the  Radicals. 
Able,  well-known,  and  popular  within  his  own  party,  it  was 
conceded  by  the  Austin  Republican  that  only  one  other  man 


202  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2O2 

in  Texas,  A.  J.  Hamilton,  could  have  beaten  him  for  the 
oresidency  of  the  convention. 

The  first  two  days  were  consumed  in  completing  the  or- 
ganization of  the  body.  On  the  third  day  a  message  was 
received  from  Governor  Pease.  After  referring  to  the  con- 
ditions of  "  extreme  difficulty  and  embarrassment  "  under 
which  the  provisional  government  had  been  placed,  both 
because  it  was  distasteful  to  "  the  majority  of  the  people 
who  had  formerly  exercised  the  political  power  of  the 
state,"  and  because  the  commander  of  the  Fifth  Military 
District  (Hancock)  to  whom  its  powers  were  subordinate, 
had  sometimes  withheld  his  co-operation  and  assistance,  the 
governor  went  on — by  inference  connecting  the  two  facts — 
to  declare  that  crime  had  never  been  so  prevalent  as  at  that 
time.  Since  the  first  of  December  there  had  been  reported 
to  him,  from  sixty-seven  out  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven  organized  counties  of  the  state,  two  hundred  and  six 
homicides.  Few  of  the  guilty  parties  had  been  punished  by 
the  law,  and  the  dereliction  of  the  courts  had  given  rise  to 
mobs  and  lynching.  The  first  step  toward  remedying  this 
condition  of  affairs  would  be  the  re-establishment  of  civil 
government  by  renewing  the  proper  relations  of  Texas  with 
the  Union.  That  was  now  the  work  before  the  convention ; 
but  from  the  temper  manifested  by  the  public  press,  the 
majority  of  the  white  people  had  not  yet  profited  by  their 
experience,  were  still  scornful  of  the  mild  terms  offered  by 
the  United  States,  and  seemed  determined  to  risk  bringing 
upon  themselves  harder  terms.  While  not  empowered  to 
make  recommendations  to  the  convention,  the  governor  ven- 
tured to  suggest  certain  lines  of  action  which  it  was  ex- 
pected would  be  followed  in  forming  the  new  constitution. 
The  pretended  act  of  secession  and  all  laws  in  aid  of  re- 
bellion or  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
should  be  declared  null  and  void  from  their  inception,  and 


203]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  2O3 

all  laws  making  any  discrimination  against  persons  on  ac- 
count of  their  race,  color,  or  previous  condition,  should  be 
repealed;  payment  should  be  provided  for  the  state  debt 
owing  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  but  the  payment  of  all 
debts  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion  or  for  the  support  of 
the  rebel  government  should  be  prohibited;  equal  civil  and 
political  rights  should  be  secured  to  every  inhabitant  of  the 
state  who  had  not  forfeited  them  by  participation  in  re- 
bellion or  by  conviction  for  crime;  but  a  sufficient  number 
of  those  who  had  participated  in  rebellion  should  be  tem- 
porarily disfranchised,  in  order  to  place  the  political  power 
of  the  state  in  the  hands  of  those  loyal  to  the  United  States 
government.  Other  measures  were  recommended,  as  lib- 
eral provisions  for  public  free  schools  for  every  child  in  the 
state,  granting  of  a  homestead  out  of  the  public  domain  to 
every  citizen  without  one,  and  encouragement  of  immigra- 
tion. With  regard  to  the  proposition  for  a  division  of  the 
state,  so  much  discussed  of  late,  the  governor  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  population  of  the  state,  only  about  800,000, 
was  not  sufficient  to  bear  the  expense  of  two  or  three  gov- 
ernments, and  that  such  a  division  would  not  only  weaken 
the  efforts  of  the  government  to  carry  out  a  system  of  public 
education  and  other  needed  measures,  but  would  retard  the 
re-admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union,  since  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Acts  provided  for  only  one  state  in  this  territory.  A 
sort  of  counter  proposition  was  offered,  namely,  that  the 
state  government  be  authorized  to  sell  to  the  United  States 
government  that  portion  of  Texas  lying  west  of  a  line 
drawn  from  the  mouth  of  the  Pecos  river  to  the  northwest 
corner  of  Hardeman  County,  that  is,  the  southeast  corner  of 
the  Panhandle.  The  governor  thought  this  region  would 
never  be  of  great  value  to  the  state  and  that  the  money  de- 
rived from  its  sale  could  be  used  very  profitably  in  support- 
ing public  education  and  internal  improvements.  The  total 


204  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [204 

amount  of  money  in  the  treasury  at  this  time  and  applicable 
to  ordinary  expenses  of  the  state  government  was  some 
$203,000,  practically  all  of  which  was  United  States  cur- 
rency. It  was  believed  that  $90,000  would  cover  all  the 
expenses  of  this  convention,  since  the  convention  of  1866 
had  sat  fifty-five  days  and  used  only  about  $70,000.  In 
such  case  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  levy  the  additional 
tax  contemplated  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts.1  It  will  be 
noticed  that  the  governor  showed  no  disposition  to  recede 
from  the  position  which  he  had  earlier  taken  in  refusing  to 
consider  all  acts  of  the  de  facto  governments  from  1861  to 
1867  and  all  acts  done  under  their  authority  as  null  and  void 
ab  initio;  but  that  he  did  put  himself  on  record  as  favoring 
the  political  proscription  of  enough  of  the  Conservative 
whites  to  enable  the  Radicals  to  control  the  government. 

A  resolution  was  carried  to  require  all  members  to  take 
the  test  oath,  but  when  it  was  found  this  would  exclude  a 
number  of  good  Radicals,  it  was  hastily  reconsidered,  and 
then  the  whole  subject  was  postponed  indefinitely.  The 
per  diem  of  members  furnished  matter  for  a  long  wrangle. 
A  resolution,  introduced  by  Webster  Flanagan,  to  fix  the 
pay  at  $15  per  day,  with  mileage  to  and  from  the  conven- 
tion at  25  cents  per  mile,  was  rejected  in  committee,  and  a 
recommendation  of  $8  per  day  and  $8  for  every  25  miles 
of  travel  was  substituted.2  Several  efforts  to  raise  the  pay 
above  this  amount  were  defeated,  notwithstanding  the  plea 
of  one  prominent  Radical  that  "  the  bill  would  be  paid  by 
the  rebels  "  and  that  he  "  would  like  to  handle  their  money." 
The  recommendation  of  the  committee  was  carried.3  In 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  12-17. 

2  This  was  the  pay  received  by  the  members  of  the  convention  of 
1866.    They  had  raised  it  from  $5  because  of  the  depreciated  condition 
of  the  currency. 

8  $4  per  day  was  allowed  for  each  clerk,  but  the  official  reporter 
received  $15  per  day. 


205]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  2Oc 

the  same  resolution  the  commanding  general  was  requested 
to  authorize  an  appropriation  of  $125,000  for  the  expenses 
of  the  convention.  This  appropriation  was  approved  on 
July  2d,  by  General  Buchanan,  to  the  extent  of  only 
$100,000 — ten  thousand  more  than  Governor  Pease  deemed 
necessary.1 

But  if  careful  not  to  be  too  generous  with  themselves  the 
members  did  not  forget  to  be  indulgent  toward  some  of 
their  friends.  The  Radical  papers  were  clamoring  for  pat- 
ronage, and  when  a  proposition  was  brought  forward  to 
furnish  newspapers  to  the  delegates,  a  most  unseemly  quar- 
rel arose  between  the  Austin  Republican  and  the  San  An- 
tonio Express.  The  former  had  the  advantage  of  location, 
but  the  latter  had  one  of  its  proprietors,  Jas.  P.  Newcomb, 
in  the  convention;  and  when  it  was  proposed  to  subscribe 
for  i, 800  copies  of  the  Republican  only,  on  condition  that  it 
print  the  journal,  so  bitter  a  squabble  began,  so  full  of 
personalities,  that  the  president,  E.  J.  Davis,  induced  the 
convention  to  extend  the  subscription  to  the  papers  of  New- 
comb,  who,  it  chanced,  was  one  of  his  staunch  supporters. 
As  it  turned  out  neither  had  much  cause  for  complaint ;  for 
the  Republican  was  allowed  $160  per  day  for  2,000  copies, 
and  its  competitor  $72  per  day  for  400  copies  of  the  Ex- 
press and  500  copies  of  the  Frei  Pressed  Flake's  Bulletin, 
left  out  of  the  patronage,  expressed  the  greatest  disgust  at 
this  "  plundering  of  the  public  treasury  for  the  benefit  of 
party  newspapers — for  which  the  authors  ought  to  blush  ", 
and  furnished  its  own  paper  to  the  members  gratis. 

The  convention  was  a  long  time  in  getting  down  to  the 
task  of  making  a  constitution.  There  was  much  preliminary 
work  to  be  done  by  the  committees,  and  there  was  the 
temptation  constantly  at  hand  to  bring  up  matters  in  no  way 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  33,  35-38,  46-48,  no,  129,  232. 

2  Ibid.,  ist  sess.,  28,  29,  39,  49-51,  59,  61-63,  75-76,  78. 


206  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2O6 

related  to  constitution-making.  It  was  generally  under- 
stood that  the  constitution  of  1845  should  be  the  basis  of 
the  new  one,  and  it  was  the  desire  of  many  members  to  sim- 
plify the  task  before  them  by  modifying  the  older  constitu- 
tion only  in  so  far  as  changes  incident  to  the  war  had  ren- 
dered it  necessary;1  but  as  time  went  on  political  exigencies 
forced  this  idea  aside. 

The  question  as  to  the  powers  possessed  by  the  conven- 
tion was  prolific  of  debate  in  the  early  days  of  the  session. 
A  strong  minority  endeavored  without  success  to  hold  the 
body  to  the  doctrine  that,  since  its  powers  were  derived 
solely  from  the  Reconstruction  Acts  and  not  from  the  people, 
it  should  restrict  itself  to  the  framing  of  the  new  constitu- 
tion. The  majority  determined  that  it  was  a  question  for 
the  convention  alone  to  determine  what  ordinances,  declara- 
tions, and  resolutions  were  "  necessary  and  proper  to  carry 
out  the  expressed  will  of  Congress,"  and  thus,  though  there 
seemed  to  be  a  general  desire  to  stick  to  the  chief  work 
before  them,  the  way  was  opened  for  the  consideration  of  a 
number  of  extraneous  and  time-consuming  subjects.2 

The  real  contest  was  waged  about  the  ab  initio  question. 
Since  the  controversy  aroused  by  the  stand  taken  by  Gov- 
ernor Pease  in  the  previous  October,  the  extremists  had  been 
vigorously  at  work  making  converts,  and  they  were  now 
able  to  muster  a  considerable  number  of  the  ablest  delegates. 
These  included  the  president,  E.  J.  Davis,  Morgan  C.  Ham- 
ilton, the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  faction  on  the  floor, 
E.  Degener,  A.  J.  Evans,  an  able  lawyer  and  debater,  and 
G.  W.  Whitmore,  a  lawyer  and  judge  who  had  been  long  in 
politics.  Most  of  the  "  carpet-baggers  "  also  were  ab  initio 
men,  such  as  R.  K.  Smith  and  the  negro  Ruby.  Opposed 
to  them  were  A.  J.  Hamilton,  Colbert  Caldwell,  Livingston 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  75,  185,  217,  735. 

•Ibid.,  32,  54,  55,  5$,  75,  77,  U7- 


207]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  207 

Lindsay,  the  two  Flanagans,  Vaughan,  H.  C.  Pedigo,  and 
the  able  young  lawyer,  McCormick. 

The  conflict  between  the  two  factions  was  not  to  be  long 
delayed.  A  preliminary  trial  of  strength  had  given  the  ex- 
tremists control  of  the  chair.  On  June  5th,  A.  J.  Evans 
precipitated  the  issue  by  proposing  a  resolution  asserting 
the  theory  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  not  the 
states  established  the  government  of  the  United  States ;  that 
no  local,  territorial,  or  state  government  could  exist  in  the 
United  States  without  the  express  sanction  of  Congress; 
and  that  the  convention  would  not  recognize  or  sanction 
the  ordinance  of  secession  "  or  any  bill,  law,  ordinance,  act, 
resolution,  rule,  or  provision,  made  or  enacted  since  March, 
1 86 1,  as  having  now  or  ever  having  had  validity  in  the 
State  of  Texas."  The  committee  on  federal  relations,  to 
which  it  was  referred,  divided,  the  majority  reporting 
favorably  on  the  whole  resolution,  the  minority  dissenting 
from  the  last  clause  and  desiring  so  to  amend  it  as  to  con- 
fine its  application  to  those  laws  and  acts  passed  in  aid  of 
the  rebellion  and  conflicting  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  majority  report 1  aroused  a  long  and 
bitter  debate,  and  led  to  a  renewal  of  the  quarrel  between 
the  Austin  Republican  and  the  San  Antonio  Express,  the 
latter  of  which  had  become  the  organ  of  the  ab  initio  faction. 
A  vote  was  not  reached  until  June  29th,  when  a  substitute 
offered  by  A.  J.  Hamilton  was  adopted  in  committee  of  the 
whole,  declaring,  in  essence,  that  only  the  secession  ordi- 
nance, laws  in  contravention  of  the  constitution  or  laws  of 
the  United  States,  or  in  aid  of  the  rebellion,  and  laws  de- 
signed to  benefit  disloyal  men  at  the  expense  of  the  public 
or  of  loyal  men,  were  null  and  void  from  the  beginning; 
and  that  such  laws  as  only  regulated  the  domestic  concerns 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  28,  53. 


208  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2O8 

of  the  people  and  were  not  in  contravention  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  should  be  respected  by  the  courts.  The 
Conservatives,  who  had  supported  the  substitute  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  joined  with  Morgan  Hamilton  when  it 
came  before  the  convention  and  succeeded  in  tabling  the 
whole  matter  by  a  vote  of  46  to  43. * 

Feeling  ran  too  strong,  however,  for  the  subject  to  be 
more  than  temporarily  disposed  of  in  this  way.  Two  days 
later,  E.  J.  Davis  introduced  for  incorporation  into  the 
general  provisions  of  the  new  constitution,  a  declaration 
embodying  the  ab  initio  doctrine,  but  with  provisions  ap- 
pended for  validating  and  establishing  such  laws,  parts  of 
laws,  and  acts,  passed  or  performed  since  secession,  as 
should  be  deemed  necessary  and  worthy  to  be  preserved  and 
respected.2  But  Morgan  Hamilton,  as  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  general  provisions  to  which  the  resolution 
was  referred,  reported  the  committee  unwilling  to  accept 
as  valid  or  to  validate  "  any  pretended  law,  however  inof- 
fensive its  character  ",  passed  by  those  in  rebellion  against 
the  government.3  However,  in  their  report  the  section 
dealing  with  this  subject  provided 

that  the  acts  of  the  so-called  officers  in  solemnizing  marriages, 
in  taking  acknowledgments,  and  recording  deeds  and  other 
instruments  of  writing,  the  decisions  of  so-called  courts,  and 
all  contracts  between  private  parties  subject  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  since  the  28th  day  of  January,  1861, 

should  be  declared  valid  and  binding.  In  other  words,  all 
laws  and  official  acts  passed  since  1861  had  been  null  and 
void  from  the  first,  but  certain  acts  involving  only  private 

1  Convention  Journal,   ist  sess.,  53,   120,  126,   157,   161,   176;  Austin 
Daily  Republican,  June  27,  30,  July  6. 
*Ibid.t  188.  *Ibid.,  234. 


209]  THE  C°NVENTION  OF  1868-1869  209 

relations  should  now  be  validated  nonetheless.  The  acts 
of  the  convention  of  1866  and  of  the  eleventh  legislature, 
were  without  sanction  of  legal  authority  and  should  be  re- 
spected only  so  long  as  the  commanding  general  should 
enforce  them  as  rules  of  action  under  his  government.1 

It  was  not  until  August  2Oth  that  the  convention  reached 
this  section  of  the  report,  and  in  the  interval  the  subject 
had  been  fought  over  elsewhere.  The  Republican  state 
convention  met  in  Austin  from  August  I2th  to  I4th,  with 
most  of  the  members  of  the  constitutional  convention  as 
delegates  or  alternates.  The  anti-ab-initio  party  had  about 
two-thirds  of  the  delegates  and  therefore  secured  control 
of  the  organization.  The  majority  of  the  platform  com- 
mittee reported  resolutions  pledging  adherence  to  the  na- 
tional platform,  the  reconstruction  laws,  and  the  prospective 
state  constitution,  and  made  no  mention  whatever  of  the 
local  controversy.  E.  J.  Davis,  in  a  minority  report,  offered 
additional  resolutions  embodying  the  doctrine  of  his  faction. 
After  a  vigorous  debate  the  minority  report  was  overwhelm- 
ingly rejected,  whereupon  Davis  and  a  large  number  of  the 
ab  initio  delegates  withdrew  and  formed  a  convention  of 
their  own  with  Jas.  P.  Newcomb  as  chairman.  The  regular 
convention  endeavored  to  find  some  middle  ground  upon 
which  to  stand  with  the  bolters,  and  drew  up  additional 
resolutions  that  went  so  far  as  to  concede  that  the  rebel 
legislatures,  which  they  had  always  insisted  had  the  force 
of  de  facto  governments  for  the  passage  of  laws  governing 
the  private  relations  of  citizens,  had  "  had  no  legal  capacity 
to  enact  laws  binding  upon  the  people  of  Texas."  The 
"  Newcomb  convention  "  refused  as  a  body  to  make  the 
compromise,  but  the  fear  of  the  consequences  of  a  permanent 
party  split  so  worked  upon  certain  individuals  among  them, 
their  comparative  paucity  and  hopelessness  outside  the  regu- 
1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  234,  241-242. 


210  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2IO 

lar  organization  upon  others,  that  many  of  their  members, 
the  leaders  excepted,  found  their  way  back  before  final  ad- 
journment.1 Thus  the  anti-ab-initio  faction  was  able  to  go 
on  in  the  constituent  body  with  the  prestige  of  regular 
party  approval ;  and  they  did  not  fail  to  claim  in  addition  the 
support  of  the  military  commanders,  of  Grant,  now  Repub- 
lican nominee  for  the  Presidency,  and  of  the  national  plat- 
form, since  this  last  did  not  at  any  rate  raise  the  issue. 

On  August  2Oth  the  convention  reached  the  ab  initio  sec- 
tion in  the  report  of  general  provisions.  Morgan  Hamilton 
was  now  in  Washington  on  mission  to  Congress,  but  it  is 
doubtful  if  his  presence  could  have  availed  his  followers 
much.  After  a  stormy  wrangle  the  whole  section  was  tabled 
by  a  decisive  vote,  52  to  27,  and  a  new  section  offered  by 
Caldwell  was  adopted  over  a  substitute  by  Davis,  45  to  28. 
The  greater  part  of  the  Conservatives  voted  against  all  the 
propositions.  The  section  now  finally  adopted  simply  took 
the  familiar  ground  of  the  moderates,  that  secession,  the 
whole  state  debt  contracted  during  the  war,  and  all  acts  of 
the  "  rebel  "  state  government  in  contravention  of  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  United  States  were  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning;  that  the  legislatures  which  sat  from 
March  18,  1861,  to  August  5,  1866,  had  no  constitutional 
authority  to  make  laws  binding  upon  the  people  of  Texas; 
provided  that  this  should  not  be  construed  to  inhibit  the 
authorities  of  the  state  from  respecting  and  enforcing  such 
"  rules  and  regulations  "  as  had  been  prescribed  by  the  said 
legislatures,  and  were  not  in  violation  of  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  or  of  Texas,  or  in  aid  of  the 
rebellion,  or  prejudicial  to  loyal  citizens — nor  to  prejudice 
private  rights  which  had  grown  up  under  these  rules  and 
regulations,  nor  to  invalidate  official  acts  not  in  aid  of  the 

1  For  proceedings   of  this   Republican  convention   see  Austin  Daily 
Republican,  Aug.   13-15,   1868. 


2 !  !  ]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  2 1 1 

rebellion.  The  eleventh  legislature  (1866)  was  declared 
provisional  only,  and  its  acts  were  to  be  respected  in  so  far 
as  they  were  not  in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  or  were  not  intended  to  reward  par- 
ticipants in  the  rebellion,  or  to  discriminate  between  citizens 
on  account  of  race  or  color,  or  to  operate  prejudicially  to 
any  class  of  citizens.1 

There  would  seem  to  be  but  little  difference  in  the  prac- 
tical application  of  the  two  theories,  since  the  one  proposed 
to  validate  by  special  acts  what  the  other  proposed  to  regard 
as  already  valid  for  reasons  of  public  policy  and  social  sta- 
bility. Only  an  abstraction  now  separated  the  two  factions ; 
but  neither  was  willing  to  go  further,  and  the  split  con- 
tinued despite  efforts  at  conciliation.  The  Austin  Republi- 
can made  an  earnest  plea  for  party  harmony  and  urged  the 
danger  of  division  in  the  face  of  their  Conservative  enemies, 
who  were,  in  fact,  very  jubilant  over  the  Radical  split.2 

That  the  issue  was  still  alive  was  shown  just  three  days 
before  the  final  adjournment  when  a  negro  delegate,  Ralph 
Long,  of  Limestone,  offered  a  resolution  annulling  certain 
decisions  of  the  provisional  state  courts,  among  which  were 
those  that  declared  the  government  of  the  Confederacy  and 
of  the  rebel  states  de  facto  governments,  and  held  that  eman- 
cipation did  not  take  universal  effect  at  the  time  of  Lincoln's 
proclamation.  The  resolution  was  promptly  rejected,  40 
to  22. 8  Davis  and  his  followers  gave  no  sign  of  surrender- 
ing or  even  of  modifying  their  views,  but  on  the  contrary 
threatened  to  oppose  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution 
and  went  about  building  up  an  organization  of  their  own 
in  opposition  to  the  "  regulars  ". 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  793-798. 

2  Austin  Daily  Republican,  July   16,   18,  Aug.   19,  21;   San  Antonio 
Daily  Herald,  June  22 ;  State  Gazette,  Aug.  17,  1868. 

*  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  920. 


212  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [212 

The  proposition  to  divide  Texas  into  two  or  three  states 
brought  about  another  sharp  fight  that  helped  to  widen  the 
breach  and  intensify  the  bitterness  between  the  two  factions ; 
for  the  alignment  here  was  nearly  the  same  as  in  the  ab 
initio  controversy.  The  Davis  faction  favored  division 
almost  to  a  man  and  on  this  issue  gained  over  a  sufficient 
number  of  A.  J.  Hamilton's  followers  to  secure  a  slight 
majority.  The  division  question,  however,  was  not  strictly 
a  party  issue,  for  both  Conservatives  and  Radicals  were  to 
be  found  on  each  side.  It  was  rather  sectional  than  political. 
Nor  was  it  a  new  thing;  for  the  idea  had  been  entertained 
and  occasionally  brought  forward  from  the  time  Texas  had 
first  become  a  member  of  the  Federal  Union.  The  terms  of 
her  admission  in  1845  nacl  provided  for  a  future  division 
into  five  states ;  and  the  problems  at  that  time  incident  to  her 
vast  territorial  extent  had  kept  the  question  alive.  The  lack 
of  railroads,  except  for  a  few  short  lines,  inadequate  means 
of  travel  and  communication,  the  long,  harassed  frontier 
line,  the  peculiar  grouping  of  the  population,  had  made  the 
problem  of  administration  a  difficult  one  for  the  state  gov- 
ernment even  before  the  war.  Now  there  were  additional 
incentives.  It  was  urged  by  many  of  the  Radicals  that  the 
arm  of  the  state  government  was  too  weak  to  reach  into 
the  far-out  districts  and  preserve  order,  that  only  by  a  divi- 
sion into  separate  states  could  the  people  be  assured  of  se- 
curity and  peace.  East  Texas  was  then  the  wealthiest  part 
of  the  state  and  complained  of  bearing  more  than  its  share 
of  the  public  burdens;  it  was  also  the  stronghold  of  the 
Conservatives,  many  of  whom  were  doubtful  of  their  ability 
to  control  the  whole  state  with  the  foreign  and  the  negro 
vote  against  them.  The  south  and  the  southwest  were  peo- 
pled largely  by  Germans  and  were  predominantly  Radical 
or  Republican;  hence  political  interests  also  seemed  to  call 
for  separation.  But  more  potent  reasons,  perhaps,  in  the 


21 3]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  213 

convention  of  1868,  were  the  ambitions  of  political  leaders. 
Three  states  would  offer  more  opportunities  for  political 
advancement  than  one;  and  moreover  the  faction  opposed 
to  A.  J.  Hamilton  feared  that  he  could  not  be  eliminated 
from  the  control  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  state,  which 
would  surely  mean  political  subordination  for  themselves. 
If  Hamilton  could  not  be  thrust  out  of  the  leadership  of  the 
party,  he  might  be  eliminated,  so  far  as  the  most  of  them 
were  concerned,  by  so  slicing  up  the  state  as  to  leave  him  the 
central  region  only.  It  was  perhaps  this  fear  of  Hamilton's 
dominance  that  led  E.  J.  Davis,  of  Nueces,  to  come  to  terms 
with  Lemuel  Dale  Evans,  the  able  Conservative  from  East 
Texas,  on  the  matter  of  division.  Both  were  ambitious, 
each  represented  a  section  upon  which  he  might  confidently 
reckon  for  support,  but  neither  enjoyed  much  of  a  prospect 
for  support  in  sections  other  than  his  own.  The  southwest 
delegation  was  solid  for  division  and  a  large  number  of 
Republicans  from  the  eastern  districts  supported  it  also. 
What  sort  of  understanding  there  was  between  them  and 
L.  D.  Evans  in  the  event  of  the  success  of  the  measure  is 
not  clear,  but  it  is  almost  certain  that  some  agreement  ex- 
isted. 

In  addition  to  the  certain  and  powerful  opposition  of 
A.  J.  Hamilton,  the  plans  of  the  divisionists  were  em- 
barrassed by  two  other  propositions.  One  of  these  was  the 
proposal  submitted  by  Governor  Pease  to  sell  the  northwest 
territory  to  the  United  States;  the  other  was  the  petition 
brought  by  W.  W.  Mills,  a  young  delegate  from  El  Paso, 
for  Texas  to  cede  that  remote  corner  of  her  territory  to  the 
United  States,  provided  it  should  be  joined  with  the  county 
of  Dona  Anna,  New  Mexico,  in  a  territorial  government.1 
Neither  of  these  propositions  suited  the  divisionists  of  the 

1  Convention  Journal  ist  scss.,  135,  758-761. 


214  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [214 

southwest,  for  either  would  subtract  a  substantial  portion 
from  the  state  of  which  they  dreamed.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  the  divisionists  had  secured  help  in  another  quar- 
ter. As  early  as  December  3,  1867,  Thaddeus  Stevens  had 
introduced  a  resolution  into  the  national  House  of  Represen- 
tatives directing  the  reconstruction  committee  to  enquire 
into  the  expediency  of  dividing  Texas  into  two  or  more 
states.  Considerable  pressure  seems  to  have  been  brought  to 
bear  at  Washington — by  whom,  it  is  difficult  to  say  though 
it  is  easy  to  conjecture;  for  the  idea  cropped  up  now  and 
then  during  the  spring.1  Just  before  the  convention  as- 
sembled, Beaman,  from  the  reconstruction  committee  of 
Congress,  reported  a  bill  to  divide  Texas  into  three  states. 
One  line  was  to  cut  the  state  along  the  San  Jacinto  and 
Trinity  rivers,  up  to  the  East  Fork  of  the  Trinity  and  thence 
to  the  Red  river  along  the  western  boundary  of  Fannin 
County.  The  other  was  to  follow  the  Colorado  river  to  the 
thirty-second  parallel  of  latitude,  thence  west  to  the  Rio 
Grande  along  the  northern  edge  of  El  Paso  County.  The 
bill  further  provided  that  the  Texas  convention  should 
divide  itself  into  three  conventions  representing  respectively 
three  new  states,  East  Texas,  Texas,  and  South  Texas. 

On  June  Qth,  a  special  committee  of  fifteen  was  appointed 
to  consider  the  subject  of  division.  The  Beaman  bill,  still 
before  Congress,  was  telegraphed  for,  referred,  and  on  June 
24th,  favorably  reported,  with  a  few  trifling  amendments, 
and  the  request  that  it  be  recommended  to  Congress  for 
speedy  action.2  An  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  whole  matter  by 
referring  the  subject  of  division  to  the  legislature  was  un- 
successful. Since  the  divisionists  had  a  slight  majority, 

1  L.  D.  Evans  had  been  in  Washington  until  the  spring  of  1868,  and 
was  accused  by  the  Austin  Republican  of  having  intrigued  in  the 
matter. 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  51,  106,  144-148. 


215]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  215 

their  opponents  determined  either  to  prevent  a  decisive  vote 
by  filibustering,  or  to  divide  the  forces  of  the  three-state 
party.  The  latter  manceuver  was  tried  first.  A.  J.  Ham- 
ilton introduced  a  substitute  proposing  other  lines  of  divi- 
sion, namely,  to  make  the  Brazos  the  boundary  between  East 
and  West  Texas  and  to  create  a  third  state  north  of  the 
thirty-second  parallel  of  latitude.  It  was  hoped,  not  that 
this  substitute  x  would  really  be  adopted,  but  that  it  would 
divide  and  confuse  the  advocates  of  division.  It  was  finally 
voted  down.2  But  Congress  had  not  yet  acted  upon  the 
Beaman  bill,  and  until  that  should  be  passed  it  was  urged 
that  the  convention  had  no  authority  to  pass  finally  upon  a 
subject  of  such  paramount  importance,  one  that  had  not 
been  contemplated  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts  nor  by  the 
people  of  the  state  in  the  election  of  the  delegates.  Some  of 
the  lukewarm  divisionists,  too,  were  beginning  to  fear  that 
the  subject  was  being  made  paramount  to  the  proper  work 
of  their  body,  and  that  it  was  only  driving  further  asunder 
the  two  wings  of  the  Republican  party  in  Texas;  and  on 
July  i6th,  several  of  them  voted  for  a  resolution  by  Thomas 
that  no  question  relating  to  a  division  of  the  state  would 
thereafter  be  entertained  unless  by  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress. It  was  carried,  47  to  37 ;  the  Republican  vote  stand- 
ing 39  to  35-3  Two  days  before  adjournment  an  attempt 
was  made  to  bring  the  matter  up  again,  but  it  failed.  The 
subject  was  revived,  however,  in  the  next  session  and  pre- 
cipitated a  most  violent  conflict.  Governor  Pease's  propo- 
sition to  sell  the  northwest  had,  in  the  meantime,  been  quietly 
shelved.  The  El  Paso  cession,  championed  by  the  energetic 
Mills,  seemed  on  the  point  of  going  through,  but  it  suc- 

1  Austin  Daily  Republican,  July  6,  1868. 

-  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  309. 

3  Ibid.,  391,  409-11.     Austin  Daily  Republican,  July  18,  1868. 


2l6  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2i6 

cumbed  finally  to  a  combination  of  divisionists,  chiefly  from 
the  southwest,  and  a  few  anti-divisionists,  by  a  vote  of  38 
to  32.1 

A  subject  that  claimed  a  great  deal  of  the  time  and  atten- 
tion of  both  sessions  of  the  convention  was  that  of  railroads ; 
but,  although  it  was  one  of  great  importance  to  the  state, 
it  does  not  come  sufficiently  within  the  province  of  this  essay 
to  warrant  more  than  the  briefest  discussion  here.  Some 
half  dozen  railroads,  by  an  act  of  1856,  had  borrowed  large 
sums  from  the  state  school  fund,  and  the  total  of  principal 
and  accumulated  interest  now  amounted  to  a  little  more 
than  two  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars.2  During  the  war 
all  of  the  roads  had  suffered  great  deterioration,  from  which 
they  had  hardly  begun  to  recover,  and  in  order  to  secure 
their  debts  to  the  school  fund,  those  that  seemed  hopelessly 
insolvent  were  ordered  to  be  foreclosed  upon  and  sold  by 
the  governor,  while  those  that  showed  signs  of  reviving 
were  given  more  time.3  As  it  turned  out,  none  were  actually 
sold  by  the  state,  for  the  convention  failed  to  appropriate 
any  money  for  the  expenses  of  the  sale.  All  the  existing 
roads  were  short  lines  that  reached  but  a  little  way  into  the 
state  and  were  wholly  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  interior 
population.  It  was  generally  felt  that  not  only  more  roads, 
but  especially  a  number  of  trunk  lines  were  needed;  and  in 
addition  to  granting  extensions  to  existing  lines,  several 
new  roads  were  chartered.  Some  suspicion  hovered  over 
certain  of  these  grants;  for  in  several  of  them  prominent 
members  of  the  convention  figured  as  directors  of  the  com- 
panies, eliciting  in  one  case  an  ironical  proposal  "  to  amend 
by  adding  the  remaining  members  of  the  convention  as  in- 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  758-761. 

*Ibid.t  270-275,  482-485. 

8  Ibid.,  848-850 ;  Gammel,  VI,  47,  48. 


217]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  21 7 

corporators."  l  One  of  the  new  roads  that  excited  particu- 
lar controversy  was  the  International  Pacific,  later  known 
as  the  International  and  Great  Northern,  about  which  cen- 
tered one  of  the  scandals  of  the  twelfth  legislature.2 

If  the  ab  initio  question  and  the  proposed  division  of  the 
state  had  created  dissensions  and  bitterness  within  the  Re- 
publican ranks,  there  was  still  one  matter  upon  which  they 
stood  as  a  unit.  Ever  since  the  close  of  the  war  they  had 
complained  of  lawless  violence  and  of  persecution — that  their 
condition  everywhere  was  precarious  and  sometimes  un- 
bearable; and  never  had  their  complaints  been  louder  or 
more  persistent  than  since  the  machinery  of  the  state  govern- 
ment had  passed  into  the  hands  of  "  loyal  "  men.  It  had 
been  confidently  asserted  before  the  assembling  of  the  con- 
vention that  one  of  its  duties  would  be  to  take  measures  for 
the  suppression  of  lawlessness  and  for  insuring  protection 
to  the  members  of  the  Republican  party. 

Hardly  had  the  convention  completed  its  organization 
when  Judge  Colbert  Caldwell,  whose  experiences  at  Mar- 
shall have  been  mentioned,  offered  a  resolution  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  select  committee  to  investigate  and  report 
upon  the  conditions  of  lawlessness  and  violence  in  the  state.8 
The  committee  did  not  make  its  formal  report  for  nearly  a 
month,  but  the  convention  did  not  wait  for  that.  On  June 
1 3th,  a  resolution  was  introduced  by  Lippard  tendering  to 
the  state  commander,  General  Reynolds,  "  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  loyal  men  in  each  county,  as  in  his  opinion  may  be 
necessary,  to  aid  and  assist  in  the  suppression  of  crime  and 
the  protection  of  life  and  property  and  the  enforcement  of 
the  laws  ".  The  resolution  was  reported  favorably,  but  a 
substitute  offered  by  A.  J.  Hamilton  was  accepted  and 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  163. 

2  See  speech  of  E.  Degener,  in  Austin  Daily  Republican,  July  22,  1868. 

3  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess..  30,  34. 


2i8  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [2i8 

passed,  requesting  Congress  to  allow  the  convention  to 
organize  a  militia  force  in  each  county  to  act  in  conjunction 
with  and  under  the  direction  of  the  military  commander 
(Reynolds).1  A  number  of  the  Conservatives  protested 
against  the  resolution  on  the  grounds  that  the  rumors  of 
lawlessness  were  greatly  exaggerated,  "  that  the  organiza- 
tion of  such  a  force  by  a  political  party  would  only  tend  to 
exasperate  the  public  mind  and  in  all  probability  have  the 
effect  to  produce  conflicts  of  races,"  2  that  the  officers  of  the 
provisional  government,  if  they  would  do  their  duty,  would 
be  able  with  the  help  of  the  military  to  bring  all  trans- 
gressors to  punishment,  and  that  the  resolution  was  an  im- 
plied censure  of  and  an  affront  to  the  commander  of  the 
Fifth  Military  District,  in  that  the  granting  of  such  a  power 
would  invest  the  state  commander,  through  the  convention, 
with  power  over  the  district  commander  within  the  limits 
of  the  state.3  This  was  followed  up  by  another  resolution 
appropriating  $25,000  to  enable  the  governor  to  offer  suit- 
able rewards  for  the  arrest  of  desperadoes  and  to  employ 
detectives  to  ferret  out  their, hiding  places.  Before  the  reso- 
lution was  passed  an  amendment  was  tacked  on,  providing 
that  none  of  the  money  so  appropriated  should  be  used 
unless  the  state  commander  should  first  be  authorized  to 
organize  military  commissions  for  the  trial  of  offenders — 
an  undisguised  attack  upon  General  Buchanan,  who  held 
to  Hancock's  opinion  of  military  commissions,  and  all  the 
more  strangely  out  of  place,  since  any  resolution  appro- 
priating money  had  to  be  sent  to  that  officer  for  approval.4 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  108,  in. 

2  A  sensible  conclusion,  for  most  of  the  "  loyalist "  militiamen  would 
of  necessity  have  been  negroes. 

3  Convention  Journal,    ist   sess.,    131.    The   district   commander   had 
in  general  followed  the  policy  of  Hancock  and  was  disliked  almost  as 
much  by  the  Radicals. 

124,  132,  134,  136. 


2I9]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  219 

As  should  have  been  expected,  Buchanan  refused  to  approve 
the  measure,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unauthorized  by  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  under  which  the  convention  was  assem- 
bled, that  it  was  properly  a  subject  for  the  consideration  of 
the  state  legislature,  and  that  the  proviso  with  reference  to 
military  commissions,  "  intended  as  a  gratuitous  indignity 
to  the  Commanding  General,"  displayed  a  spirit  of  which  he 
could  hardly  be  expected  to  approve.1  Shortly  afterwards, 
however,  when  General  Reynolds  became  commander  of  the 
Fifth  Military  District,  confined  now  to  Texas,  the  resolu- 
tion was  again  passed  and  submitted  to  him  for  approval, 
as  one  in  whose  "  loyalty,  ability,  and  patriotism  the  people 
of  Texas  repose  full  confidence."  2 

On  July  2d,  the  committee  on  lawlessness  and  violence 
made  its  report,  which  it  supplemented  three  weeks  later 
with  more  complete  statistics.8  The  committee  had  had 
access  to  three  sources  of  information:  the  records  of  the 
state  departments,  particularly  the  official  reports  of  the 
clerks  of  the  district  courts;  the  records  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau ;  and  the  sworn  statements  of  witnesses  from  various 
parts  of  the  state.  It  was  claimed  that  none  of  these  fur- 
nished complete  information;  the  first,  because  only  about 
forty  counties  were  represented  and  only  those  offenses  were 
taken  notice  of  for  which  indictments  had  been  found;  the 
second,  because  the  records  of  the  Bureau  covered  only 
about  sixty  counties  and  dealt  only  with  the  outrages  upon 
f reedmen ;  and  the  last,  because  it  was  difficult  to  get  wit- 
nesses to  testify,  through  fear  of  assassination,  while  those 
who  did  testify  had  to  rely  wholly  upon  memory.  It  was 
also  claimed  that  no  report  had  been  accepted  that  did  not 
bear  the  marks  of  veracity  and  that  every  statement  made 

1  Convention  Journal,   ist  sess.,  510. 

2  Ibid.,  616,  619-21.  s  Ibid.,  193-203,  500-505. 


220  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [220 

was  warranted  by  the  facts.  The  committee  had  been  com- 
pelled to  restrict  its  investigations  to  the  homicides  com- 
mitted since  the  rebellion,  and  to  take  no  note  of  the  numer- 
ous assaults,  robberies,  and  other  outrages,  which  would 
have  imposed  "  an  endless  task  ".  The  homicides  from  the 
close  of  the  war  to  June,  1868,  were  tabulated  as  follows:1 

Killed  in  1865,  whites,     47;  freedmen,    51;  total  98. 

"       "    1866        "         75           "            95       "  170 

"       "    1867         "       173                        174       "  347 

'    1868                 182                        137  319 

"  Year  unknown  "32                         29       "  61 

"  Race  unknown  40. 

509  486  1035. 

More  than  ninety  per  cent  of  the  total  were  asserted  to  have 
been  committed  by  white  men,  while  little  more  than  one 
per  cent  were  by  negroes  upon  whites.2 

Though  admitting  at  the  outset  that  many  of  these  homi- 
cides were  committed  for  the  purposes  of  plunder  and  rob- 
bery, the  principal  conclusion  that  the  committee  endeavored 
to  deduce  was  that  the  chief  cause  of  these  crimes  was  "  the 
hostility  entertained  by  ex-rebels  toward  loyal  men  of  both 
races."  In  support  of  this  was  cited  the  large  number  of 
negroes  killed  by  whites  as  against  the  small  pumber  of 
'whites  killed  by  negroes,  so  that  "  the  war  of  races  "  was 
all  against  the  blacks;  and  also,  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  whites  slain  were  unionists,  and  that  they  had  been 
killed  for  their  unionism  by  men  who  "  with  remarkably 

1  This  table  is  taken  from  the  supplementary  report  of  July  25,  which 
was    claimed    to    be    more    accurate   than    the    first.     See    Convention 
Journal,  ist  sess.,  194,  501. 

2  The  statement  in  the  report  of  July  2  that  only  48  freedmen  had 
been   killed   by    freedmen   during   the    three   years    is    incredible;    but 
whether  a  correction   on  this  point  would   reduce  the   number  attri- 
buted to  whites  or  simply  swell  the  total,  cannot  be  said. 


221]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  22I 

few  exceptions  were  and  are  disloyal  to  the  government." 
It  is  impossible  to  accept  in  full  the  conclusion  of  the  com- 
mittee on  this  point.  In  the  first  place,  few  or  none  of  the 
negroes  killed  during  1865  and  1866  were  killed  for  their 
unionism — the  negro  was  not  then  a  political  factor — but 
chiefly  on  account  of  labor  disputes  and  other  private  quar- 
rels. Since  the  formation  of  the  Union  Leagues  in  the 
spring  and  summer  of  1867,  irritation  against  the  blacks 
had  developed  rapidly,  but  even  during  this  time  the  political 
question  was  more  often  the  remote  than  the  immediate 
cause  of  trouble.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no  doubt  what- 
ever that  negroes  were  sometimes  killed  because  of  their 
connection  with  the  League,  and  in  many  cases  murdered 
most  brutally  and  wantonly  for  no  real  cause  whatever.  As 
to  the  large  proportion  of  unionists  among  the  whites  killed, 
the  evidence  is  in  no  way  conclusive;  for  other  evidence 
shows  that  many  of  the  "  union  men  "  were  not  unionists 
at  all,  and  that  in  a  number  of  cases  where  they  were,  pri- 
vate quarrels  lay  at  the  root  of  the  trouble.1  On  the  other 
hand,  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  Radicals  were  not 
popular  in  many  sections  of  Texas,  and  that  an  aggressive 
activity  in  the  Union  League  was  the  occasion,  direct  or  in- 
direct, of  much  retaliatory  violence  and  a  number  of  homi- 
cides. The  committee's  report,  however,  made  conditions 
appear  worse  than  they  seem  to  have  been  in  reality.  The 
constant  challenge  of  the  Conservatives  that  the  individual 
cases  of  murdered  loyalists  be  specified  was  answered  with 
a  list  of  twenty-three  whites  and  fourteen  blacks ;  but  of  the 
total  only  eight  victims  were  named  or  otherwise  identified 
— though  it  should  have  been  easy  to  give  the  names  of  all 
or  nearly  all — and  of  the  eight,  four  proved  to  be  incorrectly 

1  See  minority  report  of  Mullins,  Convention  Journal,  672-79. 


222  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [222 

given,  a  fact  which  cast  suspicion  upon  the  accuracy  of  the 
remainder  of  the  list.1 

That  there  were  organizations  of  "  disloyal,  desperate 
men  "  in  several  sections  of  the  state,  was  another  conclu- 
sion reached  by  the  committee.  These  organizations  were 
believed  to  be  widespread  and  to  exist  for  the  purpose  of 
driving  out  or  murdering  Union  men,  of  intimidating  the 
freedmen,  and  of  protecting  their  own  members  from  the 
military  and  the  courts.  In  some  districts  these  combina- 
tions were  too  strong  for  the  civil  authorities  and  openly 
defied  them.  In  others  the  county  officers  were  themselves 
involved  in  their  acts  of  violence,  or  connived  at  them,  and 
wilfully  neglected  to  make  arrests.  In  several  cases  the 
sheriffs  were  leaders  of  the  gangs  which  infested  their  dis- 
tricts. However,  even  if  arrested,  bad  men  had  little  to  fear 
from  the  civil  courts ;  for  it  was  notoriously  difficult  to  secure 
a  conviction  for  murder  upon  any  evidence,  sometimes  be- 
cause of  the  sympathy  of  the  jury  with  the  criminal,  some- 
times through  their  fear  of  his  confederates.  This  laxity 
in  the  civil  courts  was  ascribed  chiefly  to  "  that  animosity 
toward  the  government  and  its  friends  so  prevalent  every- 
where. ...  It  is  our  solemn  conviction  that  the  courts, 
especially  juries,  as  a  rule  will  not  convict  ex-rebels  for 
offenses  committed  against  Union  men  and  freedmen." 

Special  stress  was  laid  upon  "  the  increase  of  crime  within 
the  last  seven  months  ",  and  the  responsibility  for  this  con- 
dition was  ascribed  to  Generals  Hancock  and  Buchanan. 
It  was  claimed  that  since  the  publication  of  Hancock's 
"  General  Orders  No.  40,"  November  29,  1867,  which  had 
relieved  criminals  of  the  fear  of  military  commissions, 
crime  had  fearfully  increased.  Figures  were  adduced  to 

1  Supplementary  report,  Convention  Journal,  500 ;  Austin  Daily  Re- 
publican, Aug.  24,  1868. 


223]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  223 

show  that  to  the  date  of  Throckmorton's  removal  mur- 
ders had  averaged  eighteen  per  month;  falling  off  to  only 
nine  per  month  during  the  first  three  months  of  Pease's  ad- 
ministration ;  and  rising  to  thirty  in  the  first  month  of  Han- 
cock's command,  December. 

In  other  words,  according  to  the  lowest  calculation,  the  peace 
administration  of  Generals  Hancock  and  Buchanan  has  to  ac- 
count for  twice  the  number  of  murders  committed  under  the 
Sheridan-Throckmorton  administration,  and  three  times  the 
number  committed  under  the  Sheridan-Pease  administration. 
Moreover,  fuller  reports  show  that  since  the  policy  of  General 
Hancock  was  inaugurated,  sustained  as  it  is  by  President 
Johnson,  the  homicides  in  Texas  have  averaged  fifty-five  per 
month ;  and  for  the  last  five  months  they  have  averaged  sixty 
per  month.  It  is  for  the  Commander  of  the  Fifth  Military 
District  to  answer  to  the  public  for  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
330,  or  more,  homicides  committed  in  Texas  since  the  first 
of  December,  1867.  Charged  by  law  to  keep  the  peace  and 
afford  protection  to  life  and  property,  and  having  the  army  of 
the  United  States  to  assist  him  in  so  doing,  he  has  failed.  He 
has  persistently  refused  to  try  criminals,  rejected  the  prayers 
of  the  Executive  of  the  State  and  of  the  Commanding  General 
of  the  District  of  Texas  for  adequate  tribunals,  and  turned  a 
deaf  ear  to  the  cry  of  tried  and  persecuted  loyalists.  And 
knowing  whereof  we  affirm,  and  in  the  face  of  the  civilized 
world,  we  do  solemnly  lay  to  his  charge  the  death  of  hundreds 
of  the  loyal  citizens  of  Texas — a  responsibility  that  should  load 
his  name  with  infamy,  and  hand  his  very  memory  to  coming 
years  as  a  curse  and  an  execration. 

The  report  closed  with  an  appeal  to  the  United  States 
government  for  protection,  and  a  resolution  that  copies 
of  the  report  be  sent  to  Congress  to  that  end. 

It  was  a  skilfully  drawn  and  an  impressive  document, 
though  most  obviously  partisan  both  in  the  arrangement  of 


224  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [224 

its  matter  and  in  its  conclusions.  The  committee  bent  every 
effort  to  place  all  the  blame  for  the  lawlessness  in  Texas, 
which  was  certainly  bad  enough,  at  the  door  of  their  politi- 
cal opponents.  To  this  end  they  appear  to  have  exaggerated 
the  popular  hostility,  which  naturally  existed,  toward  their 
party,  while  they  wholly  ignored  the  fact  that  the  radical 
program  of  reconstruction  was  itself  responsible  for  the 
political  excitement,  the  administrative  confusion,  and  the 
general  unrest  which  had  so  encouraged  lawlessness.  It 
was  true  that  convictions  for  homicide  were  difficult  to  ob- 
tain ;  but  that  had  been  true  before  the  war,  as  it  continued 
to  be  true  in  Texas  long  after  the  period  of  reconstruction 
had  closed,  and  was  due  more  to  the  old  code  and  influences 
of  the  frontier  than  to  any  other  cause.  As  for  the,  bitter 
charge  against  General  Hancock,  his  refusal  to  organize 
military  commissions  had  been  coupled  with  a  promise  to 
furnish  military  assistance  for  the  arrest  of  criminals  and 
to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  civil  authorities  whenever 
called  upon  to  do  so;  and  it  does  not  appear  that,  after  their 
disagreement  relative  to  the  military  tribunals  for  Uvalde 
County,  Governor  Pease  ever  made  any  request  for  help  of 
Hancock  himself.  The  increase  of  crime  in  1868 — and  that 
it  had  greatly  increased  is  not  to  be  disputed — can  not  be 
justly  laid  wholly  to  the  charge  of  the  military  commanders; 
the  Radical  leaders  themselves  must  bear  a  part  of  the  re- 
sponsibility. 

On  the  day  after  the  report  was  received,  E.  J.  Davis  in- 
troduced a  resolution  providing  that  Morgan  Hamilton  and 
Judge  Caldwell,  chairman  of  the  above  committee,  should 
go  to  Washington  without  delay  to 

lay  before  Congress  the  conditions  of  lawlessness  and  violence 
prevalent  in  this  state  and  urge  the  immediate  necessity  for 
action  on  the  following  matters:  first,  the  adoption  of  some 


225]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  22r 

law  or  regulation  that  will  secure  the  filling  of  all  state  provi- 
sional offices  with  competent  and  loyal  incumbents ;  second,  the 
organization  of  a  loyal  militia,  to  be  placed  under  the  direction 
and  control  of  the  loyal  provisional  authorities  of  Texas ;  third, 
the  appointment  by  this  convention  of  registrars  of  voters 
previous  to  the  coming  election.1 

On  July  6th,  the  resolution  was  passed  and  the  delegates 
named  proceeded  immediately  to  the  national  capital.2 

Before  passing  to  the  general  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion upon  which  the  convention  finally  got  to  work  during 
the  last  days  of  the  session,  some  mention  should  be  made 
of  certain  miscellaneous  measures  which  occupied  much 
time  and  attention.  Some  were  of  importance,  while  others 
merely  illustrated  the  prevailing  temper  of  the  delegates. 
Such  was  the  effort  made  to  induce  Congress  to  transfer 
from  the  commander  of  the  Fifth  Military  District  to  the 
convention  the  control  over  the  appointment  and  removal 
of  registrars  for  ascertaining  and  recording  the  qualified 
voters.8  Another  was  a  provision  granting  lands  out  of  the 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  212-213.    The  third  clause  was  added 
later.     See  the  Journal,  221. 

2  The   publication   of   the    report    oh    lawlessness,    followed   by   the 
sending  of  a  committee  to   Washington   for  the  purposes  avowed   in 
the   above    resolutions,    aroused   the    ire   of    the    Conservatives.     The 
Houston  Telegraph,  July  14,  closed  a  wrathful  editorial  on  the  pros- 
pect of  a  negro  militia  with  the  words :  "  No  man  ever  hung  in  Texas 
by  lynch  law  was  ever  half  such  a  criminal  in  the  sight  of  God  or 
man  as  the  man  who  seeks  to  plunge  his  country  into  a  war  of  races, 
the  most  savage  of  all  wars,  which  would  result  in  the  extermination 
of  the  blacks  and  in  the  ruin  of  the  state.     We  say  it  solemnly,  such 
men    [Hamilton  and  Caldwell]    ought  to  die."    For   this  the  conven- 
tion requested  General  Reynolds  to  arrest  the  editor,  Gillespie,  try  him 
before  a  military  commission  for  counselling  and  advising  assassina- 
tion, and  suppress  his  paper.     Convention  Journal,  435;  Austin  Daily 
Republican,  July  21,  22,  23,  1868. 

8  Convention  Journal,  40-42. 


226  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [226 

public  domain  and  a  bounty  in  money  to  Texans  who  had 
served  in  the  Federal  army.1  A  list  of  Republicans,  "  loyal 
citizens,"  disfranchised  by  the  reconstruction  acts,  was  very 
carefully  prepared  and  Congress  was  petitioned  to  have  their 
disabilities  removed.2  Several  of  these  were  members  of 
the  convention.  The  condition  of  the  state  penitentiary  was 
examined  into,  its  financial  management  under  the  Throck- 
morton  administration  condemned,  and  a  large  number  of 
convicts,  mostly  negroes,  alleged  to  have  been  convicted  un- 
justly or  for  trivial  offenses,  were  recommended  for  executive 
clemency.8  Finally,  an  effort  was  made  to  have  Congress 
indemnify  the  settlers  on  the  frontier  for  their  losses  at  the 
hands  of  Indians  since  the  war,  and  to  appropriate  money 
for  the  ransom  of  captives  held  by  the  savages.4 

Progress  upon  the  constitution  itself  was  very  slow, 
chiefly  because  so  much  time  was  taken  up  with  contro- 
versies over  the  ab  initio  doctrine,  the  division  of  the  state, 
railroads,  and  a  score  of  minor  matters,  some  of  them  purely 
legislative  in  character  and  therefore  not  proper  to  a  consti- 
tutional convention.  Reports  were  made  by  all  the  im- 
portant committees  having  parts  of  the  constitution  under 
consideration,  but  the  convention  did  not  succeed  in  passing 
upon  them  all.  The  introduction  and  first  section  of  the 
"bill  of  rights"  clearly  illustrate  the  new  Radical  view  of  the 
condition  of  the  state  government : 

1  Convention  Journal,  1^3,  186,  294-296,  845-847.    Gammel,  VI,  45. 

2  Ibid.,  141,  143,  226-227,  232,  512-526,  925-939. 

3  The  recommendations  seem  generally  to  have  been  based  upon  the 
statements  of  the   convicts   themselves.     Convention   Journal,   534~554» 
627-628,  771-775,  803-809,  864-869. 

4  Ibid.,  76,  395,  593.     The  language  of  these  resolutions  shows  that 
the  Unionists  of  Texas  did  not  share  Sheridan's  skepticism  as  to  the 
danger  from  Indian  attacks. 


227]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  227 

That  the  heresies  of  nullification  and  secession  which  brought 
the  country  to  grief  may  be  eliminated  from  future  political 
discussions ;  that  public  order  may  be  restored,  private  property 
and  human  life  protected,  and  the  great  principles  of  liberty 
and  equality  secured  to  us  and  our  posterity,  we  declare  that : 

Section  i.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
laws,  treaties  made  and  to  be  made,  in  pursuance  thereof,  are 
acknowledged  to  be  the  supreme  law ;  that  this  Constitution  is 
framed  in  harmony  with  and  in  subordination  thereto;  and 
that  the  fundamental  principles  embodied  herein  can  only  be 
changed,  subject  to  the  national  authority.1 

A  marked  tendency  toward  centralization  of  authority  was 
manifested  by  extending  the  governor's  appointive  power 
and  lengthening  the  terms  of  nearly  all  state  officials. 
It  was  provided  that  the  governor  should  hold  office  for 
four  years,  and  that  he  should  appoint  the  secretary  of 
state  and  the  attorney-general;  and  an  attempt  was  made, 
though  it  ultimately  failed,  to  give  him  general  control  over 
and  power  to  remove  not  only  those  officials,  but  likewise  the 
comptroller,  treasurer,  and  land  commissioner,  who  were 
elective.  It  was  agreed  that  he  should  appoint  the  justices 
of  the  supreme  court  for  terms  of  nine  years  each,  and  dis- 
trict judges  for  terms  of  eight  years.  A  strong  effort  was 
made  to  have  district  attorneys,  clerks  and  sheriffs  made 
appointive  also,  the  first  by  the  governor,  the  others  by  the 
district  judges,  but  these  were  finally  all  made  elective.8 
The  county  courts  were  abolished.  These  changes  were 
probably  for  the  purpose  of  injecting  more  vigor  into  the 
courts  and  the  peace  officers  with  a  view  to  checking  law- 
lessness. It  is  a  curious  fact  that  this  centralizing  policy 
was  championed  by  the  moderate  Republicans  and  opposed 

1  Convention  Journal,  ist  sess.,  235;  Gammel,  VII,  395. 

2  Ibid.,  ist  sess.,  477-482,  465-470.     Gammel,  VII,  410-415. 


228  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [228 

by  the  faction  of  E.  J.  Davis,  in  whose  hands  it  later  became 
so  odious. 

Action  on  the  report  from  the  committee  on  education 
was  postponed  until  the  next  session.  The  most  noteworthy 
features  of  that  report  were  the  provisions  for  increasing 
the  existing  permanent  school  fund  by  adding  to  it  all 
money  to  be  received  from  the  sale  of  the  public  domain, 
and  for  applying  all  the  available  fund  to  the  education  of 
all  children  within  the  scholastic  age — from  six  to  eighteen 
years  —  without  distinction  of  race  or  color.1  The  con- 
vention was  careful  to  wipe  out  all  such  distinctions  wher- 
ever they  had  previously  existed. 

The  very  important  question  as  to  suffrage  qualifications 
was  reached  only  on  August  26th.  Since  the  great  differ- 
ences of  opinion  on  this  subject  precluded  the  possibility  of 
settling  it  in  the  few  remaining  days  of  the  session,  its  con- 
sideration was  postponed  until  after  the  recess. 

It  had  been  evident  for  some  time  that  an  adjournment 
would  be  inevitable  before  the  work  was  finished.  The  ex- 
treme Radicals  became  more  and  more  dissatisfied  as  they 
saw  the  opportunities  steadily  diminishing  for  carrying 
through  their  measures,  and  from  the  middle  of  July  they 
began  to  demand  a  recess  until  the  next  session  of  Congress ; 
but  on  August  loth  their  opponents  succeeded  in  crowding 
through  a  resolution  shutting  off  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject for  the  next  two  weeks.  In  the  meantime,  however,  the 
appropriation  for  the  pay  and  expenses  of  the  convention, 
approved  by  General  Buchanan  to  the  extent  of  $100,000, 
had  been  exhausted;  and  a  resolution  was  passed,  August 
2Oth,  requesting  the  new  district  commander,  Reynolds,  to 
approve  the  balance  ($25,000)  of  that  appropriation.  Rey- 
nolds refused,  pointing  out  that  the  convention  had  already 

1  Convention  Journal,  609-614;  Gammel,  VII,  417-418. 


229]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  229 

been  in  session  eighty-five  days  and  had  expended  $100,000, 
while  the  low  state  of  the  treasury,  the  rate  at  which  money 
was  coming  in,  and  the  prospective  wants  of  the  state  gov- 
ernment forbade  further  outlay.1  It  was  absolutely  nec- 
essary, however,  to  find  means  of  paying  for  another  session 
unless  the  constitution  was  to  be  left  hanging  in  the  air, 
unfinished.  The  Radical  extremists  were  so  dissatisfied  with 
it  that  they  expressed  a  cheerful  willingness  to  see  it  hang 
there,  and  the  Conservatives  manifested  a  similar  feeling. 
These  factions  were  not  strong  enough,  however,  to  have 
their  way.  As  soon  as  it  was  known  that  the  additional 
appropriation  would  not  be  granted,  the  moderates  agreed 
to  an  adjournment  from  August  3ist  to  the  first  Monday 
in  December.2  The  day  after  the  receipt  of  Reynolds's 
reply,  an  ordinance  was  passed  levying  the  tax  provided  for 
in  the  Supplementary  Reconstruction  Act  of  March  23, 
1867.  The  rate  was  fixed  at  twenty  cents  on  the  hundred 
dollars  valuation,  and  the  proceeds  were  required  to  be  in 
the  state  treasury  by  December  ist.8 

The  convention  had  been  in  session  ninety-two  days  when 
it  adjourned  with  its  work  still  uncompleted.4  It  had 
already  cost  the  state  nearly  fifty  per  cent  more  than  did  the 
convention  of  1866,  which  sat  only  fifty-five  days  and  was 
severely  criticised  because  of  its  slowness. 

1  Convention  Journal,  780,  798,  858.  2  Ibid.,  851-53. 

*Ibid.t  860;  Gammel,  VI,  52. 

4  Another  reason  for  taking  a  recess,  but  hardly  worth  consider- 
ation because  evidently  brought  forward  to  cover  up  the  real  one, 
was  offered  by  the  Austin  Republican:  namely,  that  there  was  so 
much  danger  of  a  "  renewal  of  rebellion "  by  the  disfranchised  Demo- 
crats who  were  threatening  to  go  armed  to  the  polls  and  vote  against 
the  constitution,  that  it  was  necessary  to  avert  a  collision  by  post- 
poning the  completion  and  submission  of  the  constitution  until  the 
election  and  inauguration  of  Grant  should  make  all  things  safe.  See 
issue  of  August  31,  1868. 


230  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [230 

2.  Conditions  during   the  Recess — the  Presidential 

Election 

Despite  the  fact  that  Texas  was  now  under  the  unham- 
pered control  of  General  Reynolds,1  the  late  summer  and 
fall  of  1868  saw  no  apparent  abatement  of  the  general  dis- 
order and  lawlessness.  The  negroes  here  and  there  were  be- 
ginning to  show  the  effects  of  the  teachings  of  reckless  car- 
pet-baggers and  "  scalawags  " ;  and  though  in  the  abstract 
the  assertion  of  their  new  rights  may  seem  just  enough, 
the  manner  of  the  assertion  was  often  such  as  to  bring  them 
into  immediate  collision  with  the  whites.  At  Millican,  on 
July  1 5th,  a  riot  occurred  because  a  mob  of  negroes,  who 
were  attempting  to  lynch  another  negro,  refused  to  dis- 
perse at  the  order  of  a  deputy  sheriff.  A  posse  of  whites 
was  gathered,  a  fight  ensued,  and  a  number  of  negroes  were 
killed.  Another  difficulty,  almost  identical  in  circumstances, 
occurred  at  Houston,  but  here  the  patient  determination 
of  a  number  of  prominent  citizens  prevented  a  general 
battle.  There  was  trouble  also  at  Tyler.  The  Texas  Re- 
publican (Dem.)  declared  that  these  conflicts  went  to  prove 
that  the  two  races  could  not  live  together  in  harmony  on  a 
basis  of  equality.  To  the  Radicals  they  were  evidence  of  a 
plan  for  the  deliberate  extermination  of  the  loyal  citizens 
and  "  a  renewal  of  rebellion  ".2  This  belief  was  strength- 
enen  by  an  affair  which  occurred  at  Jefferson  early  in  Oc- 
tober. Geo.  W.  Smith,  a  carpet-bagger  from  New  York, 
had  become  the  leader  of  the  negroes  in  that  community, 
where  they  outnumbered  the  whites  two  to  one,  and  by  his 
conduct  had  aroused  the  bitter  enmity  of  the  latter.  The 

1  Louisiana  had  been  turned  over  to  the  new  state  government  in 
June,  1868,  and  this  left  Texas  alone  to  constitute  the  Fifth  Military 
District. 

2  Texas  Republican,  Aug.  7,  1868;  Austin  Republican,  July  22,  1868. 


23!]  77f£  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  231 

Jefferson  Times  declared  that  he  had  lived  among  the  negroes 
on  terms  of  social  equality,  had  encouraged  them  in  all  man- 
ner of  evil,  and  by  incendiary  speeches  had  constantly  stirred 
up  animosity  and  trouble  between  them  and  the  whites.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  constitutional  convention,  and,  on  his 
return  from  its  session,  he  became  involved  in  a  dispute  with 
a  white  man.  Smith  brought  up  a  gang  of  negroes  to  his 
support,  wounded  several  white  men,  and  then  fled  to  the 
protection  of  the  military,  who  turned  him  over  to  the  civil 
authorities.  He  was  jailed  and  strongly  guarded  by  both 
citizens  and  soldiers,  but  a  large  body  of  armed  men  over- 
awed the  guard,  entered  the  jail,  and  killed  him,  along  with 
two  or  three  negroes  taken  with  him.  Under  the  caption, 
"  Murder  of  an  Infamous  Scoundrel  ",  the  Jefferson  Times 
gave  an  account  of  the  lynching  and  sought  to  justify  it. 

Though  condemned  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  [the  lynching) 
was  an  unavoidable  necessity.  The  sanctity  of  home,  the  peace 
and  safety  of  society,  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  the 
security  of  life  itself  demanded  the  removal  of  so  base  a 
villain.1 

The  Radical  press,  however,  hailed  Smith's  death  as  that  of 
a  martyr  to  the  Union  and  to  free  speech,  and  this  was  the 
version  that  was  accepted  at  the  North.  Reynolds  sent  ad- 
ditional troops  to  Jefferson,  proclaimed  martial  law  there 
and  arrested  some  thirty  prominent  citizens  on  the  charge 
of  murder.  He  held  them  in  close  confinement  for  about 
ten  months  for  trial  before  a  military  commission,  and 
ultimately  five  were  convicted. 

In  portions  of  northeastern  Texas  the  general  disorder 
was  made  worse  by  a  series  of  feuds  that  involved  whole 

1  Quoted  in  Texas  Republican,  Oct.  16,  1868. 


232  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

communities.  The  most  noted  of  these  was  the  "  Lee  and 
Peacock  War  "  in  Hunt  and  Fannin  Counties.  The  Pea- 
cock party  was  or  claimed  to  be  unionists,  the  Lees  had  been 
secessionists.  From  all  accounts  the  former  were  the  ag- 
gressors, though  politics  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  quarrel. 
Through  the  distorting  medium  of  the  Radical  press  the 
feud  appeared  as  another  effort  of  an  armed  band  of  rebels 
to  exterminate  Union  men.  The  Peacocks  made  an  advan- 
tageous alliance  with  the  military,  and  General  Reynolds 
offered  a  reward  of  $1,000  for  the  capture  of  Bob  Lee,  the 
head  of  his  faction.  In  and  about  Hopkins  County  a  great 
deal  of  trouble  was  caused  by  two  bands  of  guerrillas  under 
the  leadership  of  B.  F.  Bickerstaff  and  Cullen  Baker.  They 
were  strong  enough  to  offer  fight  to  the  troops  stationed  in 
that  vicinity;  they  plundered  several  supply  trains  on  the 
way  to  the  soldiers;  and  they  were  therefore  set  down  as 
evidence  of  prevailing  disloyal  sentiment  and  credited  to  the 
account  of  the  Democratic  party,  though  they  had  no  dis- 
coverable political  affiliations  and  were  tolerated  by  the 
people  generally  only  through  fear.  Large  rewards  were 
offered  for  their  arrest,  more  troops  were  pushed  into  that 
region,  and  these  bands  were  soon  broken  up.1 

Bands  of  Ku  Klux  made  their  appearance  in  nearly  all 
parts  of  the  state,  especially  where  the  Loyal  Union  League 
had  produced  restlessness  among  the  blacks.  Sometimes 
giant  horsemen,  shrouded  in  ghostly  white,  some  of  them 
headless,  passed  at  midnight  through  the  negro  settlements, 
disarming  and  frightening  the  superstitious  freedmen  out 
of  their  senses,  but  otherwise  doing  no  harm.  A  community 
thus  visited  was  usually  quiet  for  some  time  thereafter. 
Sometimes,  however,  the  matter  did  not  stop  with  these 

1  Texas  Republican,  August  14,  Sept.  n;  Austin  Republican,  Sept. 
15,  Oct.  2,  1868. 


233]  THE  CONVENTION  OF 1868-1869  233 

comparatively  harmless  pranks.  Now  and  then  negroes  and 
Radical  whites,  whose  political  activity  made  them  particu- 
larly obnoxious,  received  written  warnings  couched  in  mys- 
terious and  sanguinary  terms,  and  embellished  with  fearful 
symbols.  Though  some  of  it  was  but  "  fantastic  foolery  ", 
some  of  it  was  not ;  and  if  the  warnings  went  unheeded,  the 
offender  was  likely  to  be  taken  out  and  whipped,  or  even 
murdered.  It  is  but  fair  to  say,  however,  that  in  many  cases 
the  guilty  parties  proved  to  be  reckless  and  irresponsible 
persons  masquerading  under  the  name  of  Ku  Klux;  and 
they  only  helped  to  bring  the  name  of  the  organization  into 
disrepute  and  to  furnish  campaign  material  to  the  Radicals.1 
The  Ku  Klux  in  Texas  seem  not  to  have  been  a  part  of  the 
general  organization  which  operated  east  of  the  Mississippi, 
but  rather  imitative,  local,  and  independent  companies, 
generally  of  brief  existence.2 

Other  means  were  sought  for  overcoming  Radical  in- 
fluence with  the  negroes.  Democratic  clubs  passed  resolu- 
tions to  the  effect  that  they  would  not  give  employment, 
assistance,  or  patronage  to  any  man,  white  or  black,  that 
belonged  to  or  acted  with  the  Radical  party.3  Negro  Demo- 
cratic-Conservative clubs  were  formed  in  opposition  to  the 
Union  League  and  the  Radicals,  and  special  favor  was 
shown  in  the  way  of  employment  and  protection  to  the 
negroes  who  went  into  them.4  But  it  could  hardly  have 

1  See  report  of  Gen.  J.  J.  Reynolds  on  affairs  in  Texas  for  1868,  in 
Austin   Republican,    Dec.    19;    in   Houston    Telegraph,    Dec.    17,    1868. 
Also  printed  in  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  110-112. 

2  W.  H.  Wood,  "  The  Ku  Klux  Klan,"  in  Texas  Historical  Quarterly, 
IX,  262-268. 

3  Texas  Republican,  Aug.  21,  Oct.  30,  1868;  Austin  Daily  Republican, 
Nov.  25,  1868. 

*  Texas  Republican,  Sept.  18,  1868;  J.  H.  Fowler  to  E.  M.  Pease,  MS. 
in  Exec.  Corres. 


234  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [234 

been  expected  that  many  freedmen  would  long  be  satisfied 
in  the  party  that  was  so  desperately  bent  upon  shutting 
them  out  of  participation  in  politics,  and  the  superior  attrac- 
tions offered  in  the  Radical  camp  gradually  enticed  most 
of  them  away. 

On  October  5th,  General  Reynolds  ordered  a  special  elec- 
tion in  the  counties  of  Falls,  Bell,  and  McClennan  to  fill  a 
vacancy  in  the  convention  caused  by  the  death  of  Wm.  E. 
Oakes.  New  boards  of  registrars  were  appointed  in  each 
county,  headed  by  officers  of  the  army,  with  directions  to 
revise  the  lists  of  voters  registered  in  that  district.  The  im- 
portance of  this  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  commander  issued 
to  the  registrars  a  set  of  instructions  very  similar  to  the 
secret  memoranda  used  earlier  by  Sheridan  and  Griffin.  In 
fact  it  gave  more  explicit  directions  as  to  the  persons  to  be 
forbidden  registration,  under  the  acts  of  Congress  of  March 
23d,  and  July  19,  1867,  by  enumerating  every  office  created 
by  state  law  since  1845. *  Reynolds's  instructions  were 
wholly  within  the  law,  as  Sheridan's  were  not  when  first 
issued;  but  they  rigorously  went  to  the  very  extremity  of 
the  law  in  the  way  of  disfranchising  the  whites.  The  Austin 
Republican  expressed  great  satisfaction  with  the  order  be- 
cause a  similar  one  could  be  expected  at  the  next  general 
state  election,  and  invited  the  disfranchised  rebels  to  "  howl 
to  their  heart's  content "  over  the  fact  that  it  was  a  conden- 
sation of  all  of  Griffin's  orders,  including  the  secret  circular. 
The  rebels  did  "  howl  ",  but  without  effect.2 

1  Special  Orders,  nos.  49  and  51,  printed  in  Austin  Daily  Republican, 
Oct.  8,   1868.     It  will  be  remembered  that  the  second  Supplementary 
Reconstruction  Act  had  declared  any  person  disqualified  from  voting 
who  had  ever  held  any  Federal  or  state  office  and  afterward  engaged 
in  rebellion,  "  whether  he  had  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  or  not." 

2  Austin  Republican,  Oct.  9,  Nov.  25;   Houston  Telegraph,  Oct.   14, 
15,  1868. 


235]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869 

The  impending  Presidential  election  overshadowed  for  a 
time  in  interest  and  importance  all  other  political  matters. 
State  politics,  in  fact,  were  at  a  standstill.  With  no  imme- 
diate local  campaign  in  sight  the  parties  were  doing  little 
but  prepare  their  organizations  for  a  future  trial  of  strength. 
The  Democrats  held  a  convention  at  Bryan,  July  7th 
and  8th,  where  was  adopted  the  usual  string  of  resolutions 
attacking  radicalism  in  both  state  and  nation,  but  no  state 
ticket  was  nominated.  The  Republicans  held  their  state 
convention  at  Austin  on  August  I2th  to  I4th,  as  has  already 
been  noted,  and  adopted  a  platform  in  conformity  with  the 
national  platform  of  their  party ;  but  because  the  new  consti- 
tution was  as  yet  uncompleted  and  their  own  party  was 
splitting  in  two,  they  also  refused  to  put  out  a  ticket.  All 
eyes  were  turned  northward  on  the  struggle  between  Grant 
and  Seymour,  for  upon  its  outcome  depended  to  a  very  great 
degree  the  immediate  political  future  of  Texas.  The  elec- 
tion of  Grant  would  mean  not  only  national  endorsement 
of  the  reconstruction  policy  of  Congress,  but  the  perpetua- 
tion of  Radical  power  in  the  state.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Democrats  should  succeed  in  carrying  Seymour  into  the 
presidency  and  secure  a  majority  in  the  lower  house  of  Con- 
gress, it  was  certain  that  the  South  would  get  more  liberal 
treatment.  Many  believed  it  would  result  in  declaring  in- 
valid and  setting  aside  the  acts  of  the  "  Rump  Congress  ", 
from  which  the  representatives  of  ten  states  had  been  ex- 
cluded— especially  the  acts  which  particularly  affected  those 
states — and  that,  in  Texas,  not  only  the  radical  constitu- 
tional convention  would  never  re-assemble,  but  Pease  and 
his  fellow  officials  would  be  swept  away  and  the  Throck- 
morton  administration  restored. 

In  the  presidential  election  Texas  could  have  no  part, 
since,  by  a  joint  resolution  of  Congress  passed  July  20, 
1868,  all  states  not  reorganized  under  the  Reconstruction 


236  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [236 

Acts  and  readmitted  to  the  Union,  were  to  be  excluded  from 
the  electoral  college.  However,  the  resolution  did  no.  ex- 
pressly forbid  the  holding  of  an  election  for  presidential 
electors,  and  the  idea  grew  up  that  the  election  should  be 
held  anyway  on  the  chance  that  somehow  the  votes  might 
be  counted,  especially  if  the  election  should  be  a  very  close 
one.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  any  one  expected  any  result  of 
this  kind  without  a  resort  to  force — though  some  may  have 
been  willing  to  go  to  that  extremity — but  it  is  possible  that 
the  plan  was  encouraged  by  certain  northern  Democrats.1 
The  Democratic  state  executive  committee  itself  nominated 
a  full  ticket  of  electors  for  Texas,  which  the  party  papers 
carried  at  the  head  of  their  columns.  The  manner  in  which 
the  election  was  to  be  called  and  held  presented  considerable 
difficulty.  An  act  of  1848  governing  elections  made  it  the 
duty  of  the  governor  to  issue  a  proclamation  requiring  the 
chief  justice  of  each  county  to  cause  the  election  to  be  held 
in  each  precinct ;  but  this  Pease  would,  of  course,  refuse  to 
do,  nor  could  it  be  expected  that  without  his  order  the  county 
justices  would  take  any  action  themselves.2  It  was  urged 
by  some  Democratic  papers  that,  in  the  event  of  Pease's  re- 
fusing to  act,  the  Democratic  executive  committee  should 
suggest  the  manner  provided  by  law  in  which  the  people 
themselves  should  hold  the  election;  and  some  others  went 

1  "About  your  being  allowed  to  vote,  be  not  alarmed ;  we  shall  see 
that  Texas  is  represented.    Vote,  by  all  means."    From  letter  of  Geo. 
H.    Pendleton    (Ohio)    to    S.    Kinney,    August    21,    1868,    printed    in 
Houston  Times,  Sept.  13,  1868,  and  quoted  in  Austin  Republican,  Sept. 
30,  1868.     It  is  proper  to  state  that  this  letter  was  later  denounced  by 
Pendleton  as  a  forgery. 

2  The  Austin  Republican  insisted  that  an  act  of   1861   changing  the 
law  of  1848  to  fit  the  Confederate  system,  in  fact  repealed  it  without 
substituting  a  valid  one  in  its  stead;  and  that  therefore  there  was 
now  no  Texas  law  in  existence  governing  the  subject.     See  issues  of 
Sept.  i  and  28,  1868. 


237]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869 

so  far  as  to  demand  that  Throckmorton,  as  the  rightful 
governor,  should  issue  the  necessary  proclamation.1  The 
former  plan  was  adopted,  and  on  September  28th,  W.  M. 
Walton,  who  had  been  attorney-general  in  the  Throck- 
morton administration  and  was  now  chairman  of  the  ex- 
ecutive committee,  issued  a  circular  "  to  the  qualified  elec- 
tors of  the  State  of  Texas  ",  reciting  the  law,  the  failure  of 
the  governor,  and  the  probable  failure  of  the  county  justices 
to  perform  their  duties  as  prescribed  by  the  law,  and  recom- 
mending that  the  said  electors  peaceably  assemble  at  their 
usual  voting  places  on  November  3rd,  appoint  a  presiding 
officer  to  act  at  the  election  and  proceed  without  any  violence 
or  disturbance  to  vote  for  electors  for  President  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  presiding  officer 
make  duplicate  returns  of  the  votes  cast,  one  to  the  county- 
justice,  the  other  to  the  executive  committee.  On  the  same 
day  Walton  sent  a  letter  to  General  Reynolds,  inclosing  his 
circular  and  requesting  that,  as  there  was  no  law  actually 
forbidding  the  election,  that  he  himself  either  order  it  or 
have  Governor  Pease  do  it,  or  else  allow  the  people  to  hold 
it  themselves.  Reynolds  promptly  refused  to  do  any  of  these 
and  on  the  next  day  issued  a  special  order  reciting  the  joint 
resolution  of  Congress  above  mentioned  and  adding  thereto : 

No  election  for  electors  of  President  and  Vice-President  of 
the  United  States  will  be  held  in  the  State  of  Texas  on  the 
third  of  November  next.  Any  assemblages,  proceedings,  or 
acts  for  such  purpose  are  hereby  prohibited,  and  all  citizens 
are  admonished  to  remain  at  home  or  attend  to  their  ordinary 
business  on  that  day.2 

As  it  was  useless  to  go  further,  Walton  issued  another 

1  Texas  Republican,  Oct.  9,  1868. 

2  Special    Orders    no.    44,    Sept.    29,    printed    in   Austin    Republican, 
Sept.  30,  1868. 


238  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

short  circular  advising  his  fellow  Democrats  of  Reynolds's 
attitude  and  stating  that  it  was  now  their  duty  not  to  at- 
tempt to  vote.  Their  dejection  was  for  a  short  time  turned 
to  joy  by  the  news  that  President  Johnson  had  caused 
Grant,  as  General  of  the  Army,  to  issue  an  order  reciting  a 
law  of  Congress  forbidding  the  military  to  interfere  in  elec- 
tions. It  was  rumored  that  this  was  intended  to  counter- 
mand Reynolds's  order  and  "  put  a  wet  blanket  over  mili- 
tary despotism  in  Texas  " ;  but  it  was  soon  discovered  that 
the  order  had  reference  only  to  the  states  recognized  by  Con- 
gress as  in  the  Union,  and  that  Special  Orders  no.  44  would 
stand.1  The  Democrats  derived  a  certain  satisfaction  soon 
afterwards  from  the  publication  of  orders  relieving  General 
Reynolds  from  command  in  Texas  and  naming  General  E. 

R.  S.  Canby,  recently  in  command  in  the  Carolinas,  as  his 
successor.2 

In  the  meantime  both  parties  were  awaiting  with  some 
apprehension  the  elections  in  the  North.  The  result  was 
foreshadowed  in  various  elections  held  in  doubtful  states  in 
October,  but  the  Democrats  seemed  wholly  unprepared  for 
the  avalanche  that  came  on  November  3rd.  They  saw  Radi- 
calism triumphant,  and  themselves  demoralized,  helpless. 

1  For   circulars   of    Walton   and   correspondence   with   Reynolds   see 
Texas  Republican,   Oct.  23,   1868;   also  Austin  Republican,   Oct.  5,   13 
and  22. 

2  What  the  reasons  were  for  Reynolds's  removal,  or  whether  there 
were  any  outside  of  the  mere  routine  of  the  war  department,  was  not 
divulged;  but  numerous  conjectures  were  indulged  in.     One  was  that 
he  had  aroused  the  powerful  hostility  of  army  contractors;  another, 
that   his   instructions   to   the   registrars   of    Bell  County   to   disregard 
special  pardons  by  the  President  in  cases  of  disqualified  persons  ap- 
plying  for  registration,   had  aroused   Mr.  Johnson's   resentment;   and 
still  another,  that  his  interference  with  the  action  of  a  district  court 
in  Washington  county,  in  the  case  of  the  heirs  of  J.  C.  Clark,  in  order 
to  continue  the  case,  was  the  cause.     Austin  Republican,  Nov.  6,  7,  10, 
13  and  24,  1868. 


239]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869 

"  All  our  hopes  for  a  return  to  good  government  [in  Texas] 
have  passed  away,"  said  the  Texas  Republican.  Its  Radical 
namesake,  on  the  other  hand,  professed  that  it  was 

with  no  feeling  of  exultation  but  with  devout  thankfulness  that 
we  publish  the  great  victory  of  yesterday.  It  relieves  us  of 
the  most  painful  apprehensions  of  persecution  and  outrage; 
and  it  assures  us  of  the  existence  of  a  moral  force  in  the  nation 
not  only  able  but  determined  to  protect  the  loyal  men  of  the 
South. 

Now  that  the  election  of  Grant  had  assured  their  power 
for  the  next  four  years  at  least,  the  Republicans  of  Texas 
were  better  able  to  turn  their  attention  once  more  to  the  re- 
construction of  the  state.  The  convention  was  to  reassemble 
early  in  December,  and  there  was  much  to  be  done  before 
that  time  in  the  way  of  harmonizing,  if  possible,  the  dis- 
cordant factions  of  their  party.  When  the  first  session 
ended,  there  seemed  to  be  a  genuine  desire  on  the  part  of 
members  of  both  factions  to  come  to  some  sort  of  agreement, 
but  the  weeks  passed  without  tangible  result.  Even  the  heat 
of  the  national  campaign  was  not  sufficient  to  weld  the  sev- 
ered parts.  The  Davis  faction  still  grumbled  over  the  rejec- 
tion of  their  ab  initio  doctrine  and  of  the  division  of  the 
state,  and  threatened  to  oppose  any  constitution  not  embody- 
ing their  ideas.  The  quarrel  between  the  two  factional  or- 
gans, the  San  Antonio  Express  and  the  Austin  Republican, 
had  never  been  made  up,  but  constantly  grew  more  bitter. 
Private  quarrels  that  boded  ill  for  any  general  harmony  had 
grown  up  between  certain  members  of  the  convention. 
Morgan  Hamilton  had  returned  from  his  Washington  mis- 
sion as  bitter  as  ever  against  his  brother  and  his  brother's 
following.  Nor  were  all  the  hard  words  on  one  side.  The 
regulars,  as  the  Jack  Hamilton  faction  termed  themselves, 
denounced  the  bolters  from  the  state  convention  who  were 


240  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [240 

now  threatening  opposition  to  the  new  constitution,  as  de- 
serters and  political  bushwhackers,  who  would  jeopardize  the 
welfare  of  the  party  and  the  state  to  satisfy  private  grudges 
and  ambitions.  Each  faction  still  maintained  its  own  state 
executive  committee  and  refused  to  recognize  that  of  the 
other. 

Besides  this  unyielding  factional  antipathy  another  fac- 
tor that  promised  to  be  a  disturbing  one  was  the  question  of 
suffrage,  or  rather  the  extent  to  which  the  rebels  should 
be  disfranchised.  Governor  Pease,  as  has  been  stated,  re- 
commended in  his  first  message  to  the  convention  that 
a  sufficient  number  should  be  denied  the  suffrage  to 
place  the  state  government  in  the  hands  of  the  "  loyal  ", 
and  the  subject  was  reported  on  by  committee,  but  was  not 
reached  in  debate  before  adjournment.  The  general  dis- 
position at  that  time  had  been  to  follow  out  the  suggestion 
of  Pease,  but  the  sweeping  national  victory  seemed  to  ad- 
mit of  a  more  generous  policy,  and  several  of  the  moderate 
leaders,  such  as  A.  J.  Hamilton,  Caldwell,  and  J.  L.  Haynes, 
chairman  of  the  "  regular "  Republican  executive  com- 
mittee, had  become  convinced  that  the  best  interests,  not  only 
of  the  state  but  also  of  their  party,  demanded  no  further 
restriction  of  the  franchise  than  that  already  provided  in 
Amendment  XIV  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  Davis  faction  was,  of  course,  almost  solidly  opposed  to 
this  policy,  as  were  not  a  few  of  Hamilton's  own  friends,  of 
whom  the  most  influential  perhaps  was  A.  H.  Longley,  edi- 
tor of  the  party  organ,  the  Austin  Republican.  It  was 
argued  by  the  latter  that  to  admit  the  rebels  to  the  ballot 
would  endanger  the  supremacy  of  the  Republican  party  and, 
therefore,  of  truly  republican  institutions ;  that  their  undying 
malice,  manifested  in  persecutions  and  assassinations,  their 
bitter  opposition  to  negro  suffrage,  the  bulwark  of  the 


24I]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  241 

"  loyal "  party,  and  to  any  constitution  embodying  that 
principle,  should  not  be  rewarded  by  giving  them  a  chance 
to  seize  upon  political  power.  The  recent  action  of  the 
Democrats  in  the  Georgia  legislature  in  unseating  all  the 
negro  members  of  that  body  was  cited  in  warning  of  what 
the  Democrats  of  Texas  might  be  expected  to  do.  It  was 
claimed  that  "  if  the  late  election  meant  anything,  it  meant 
that  the  loyal  people  of  the  United  States  were  unwilling  for 
the  late  rebels  to  exercise  power  in  this  Republic."  The 
advocates  of  the  liberal  policy  answered  that,  in  the  first 
place,  disfranchisement  would  almost  certainly  involve  the 
defeat  of  the  constitution  unless  Congress  could  first  be  in- 
duced so  to  amend  the  Reconstruction  Acts  as  to  prevent 
the  rebels  from  voting  upon  it ;  and  Congress  would  not  be 
likely  to  do  a  thing  so  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  Re- 
publican party,  as  expressed  in  the  great  Amendment  and 
the  Acts.  In  the  second  place  such  a  measure  would  arouse 
the  bitterest  discord  when  quiet  was  most  desirable,  and 
leave  a  heritage  of  hatred  against  the  Republican  party  that 
would  ruin  its  future  in  Texas.  Lastly,  nothing  could  be 
more  dangerous  to  the  welfare  of  the  state  and  of  the 
negroes  themselves  than  to  give  all  political  power  into  the 
untrained  hands  of  these  new  citizens  and  a  few  white  office- 
seekers.  It  would  narrow  the  struggle  to  one  of  races,  and 
would  inevitably  in  a  few  years  result  in  the  overthrow  of 
the  negro  and  in  his  disfranchisement  in  retaliation.2 

The  difference  of  opinion  on  this  question  was  not  likely 
to  cause  serious  division  among  the  regulars,  but  it  endan- 
gered their  control  of  the  convention  until  they  could  agree 
among  themselves.  The  Democrats  had  no  part  in  this 

1  Austin  Republican,  Sept.  10,  Oct.  19,  27,  Nov.  23  and  Dec.  2,  1868. 

2  For  an  able  summary  of  the  arguments  against  disfranchisement,  see 
Article  of  J.  L.  Haynes  in  Austin  Republican,  Dec.  2,  1868. 


242  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [242 

controversy,  but  had  to  confine  themselves  to  gloomy  pro- 
phecies of  enfranchisement,  helpless  protests  against  negro 
suffrage,  and  now  and  then  pleas  for  a  qualified  negro  suf- 
frage based  upon  either  property  or  education. 

3.  Second  Session 

Unreconciled  and  full  of  mutual  suspicions,  alternating 
between  offensive  innuendoes  and  appeals  for  harmony,  the 
two  factions  of  Republicans  came  together  in  December  to 
finish  the  constitution.  The  attendance  was  never  as  full 
as  in  the  previous  session.  During  the  recess  one  member 
had  died,  another  had  been  killed,  four  had  resigned;  four 
others  never  returned  to  their  duties,  and  several  others 
were  delayed  until  very  late.1 

The  beginning  of  the  session  was  not  auspicious  for  har- 
mony, despite  the  appeal  of  the  Austin  Republican  to  the 
factions  to  avoid,  in  the  interest  of  party  success,  "  the  bick- 
erings, the  heart-burnings  and  the  wrangling  "  that  charac- 
terized the  first  session.  When  it  was  proposed  to  renew 
the  subscription  to  newspapers,  a  personal  encounter  was 
almost  precipitated  between  Caldwell  and  Morgan  Hamilton 
because  the  latter  bitterly  attacked  the  political  affiliations 
of  the  Austin  Republican.2  Immediately  afterwards  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed,  with  Morgan  Hamilton  chairman,  to 
consider  a  general  reduction  of  expenses  of  the  convention, 

1  Died,  W.  H.  Mullins  (Dem.)  ;  G.  W.  Smith  (Rep.),  killed  at  Jeffer- 
son;   resigned,   Talbot    (Rep.),    Crigsby    (Rep.),    Boyd    (Dem.),   and 
Muckleroy  (Dem.)  ;  absent,  Johnson,  Coleman,  Foster  and  Yarborough. 
Johnson  soon  resigned,  Foster  and  Coleman  left  the  state,  the  latter,  a 
carpet-bagger,  under  charges  of  bigamy  and  horse-theft.     W.  W.  Mills 
returned  only  for  the  last  week  of  the  session. 

2  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess,  14-15;  Austin  Republican,  Dec.  n,  12 
and  14,  1868.    Just  before  this,  Morgan  Hamilton  had  made  offensive 
allusions  to  a  public  speech  of  Caldwell's  delivered  in  Jefferson  just 
after  the  killing  of  G.  W.  Smith,  who  was  of  the  Davis  faction. 


243]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  243 

and  when  it  reported  its  chairman  was  able  to  get  in  an- 
other thrust  at  the  organ  of  the  other  party.  These  com- 
paratively trivial  things  were  enough  to  awaken  the  old 
hostility,  which  never  slept  again. 

It  was  known  before  the  convention  assembled  that  the 
question  of  division  of  the  state  would  come  up  again. 
Upon  this  question  the  Davis  faction  had  resolved  to  make 
their  fight.  Ab  initio  appeared  hopelessly  dead ;  but  division 
had  commanded  a  slight  majority  in  the  summer  session 
until  it  began  to  crowd  out  other  matters,  and  it  seemed  a 
promising  issue.  From  the  very  start,  therefore,  a  fight 
was  begun  to  secure  reconsideration  or  rescission  of  the 
Thomas  resolution,  passed  in  July,  setting  aside  the  subject. 
On  December  loth,  Newcomb  of  Bexar  moved  to  rescind. 
Thomas  replied  with  another  motion  to  the  effect  that  the 
convention  would  entertain  nothing  that  did  not  relate  to 
the  formation  of  the  constitution.  A  trial  of  strength  on 
this  last  resulted  in  its  rejection  by  35  to  24.  The  anti- 
divisionists  resolved,  therefore,  to  filibuster  against  all  at- 
tempts to  rescind  the  original  Thomas  resolution,  and  when 
Newcomb's  resolution  came  up  next  day  it  was  met  by  a 
"  call  of  the  house."  l  Sixteen  members  were  absent,  most 
of  whom  had  never  reported  for  this  session.  In  a  rage, 
Newcomb  moved  to  adjourn  sine  die,  and  was  supported 
by  twelve  other  members.  Every  time  the  resolution  came 
up  thereafter  for  nearly  three  weeks,  it  was  checked  in  the 
same  way.2  Feeling  was  rapidly  rising.  An  effort  of 

1  Under  no.  55  of  the  convention  rules,  fifteen  members  could  sustain 
a  "call  of  the  house"  on  any  measure.    No  further  consideration  of 
this  or  any  other  measure  could  be  had  until  all  the  members  absent 
without  satisfactory  excuse  had  been  brought  in.    Designed  to  secure 
action  by  all  the  members,  it  was  used  solely  to  obstruct  measures. 

2  One  whole  day,  December  15,  was  spent  in  calls  of  the  house  and 
voting  by  "yeas"  and  "nays"   on  motions  to  adjourn.    Convention 
Journal,  2nd  sess.,  51-65. 


244  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [244 

McCormick  to  amend  the  rules  so  as  to  allow  consideration 
of  other  matters  pending  a  call  was  voted  down  by  the  angry 
divisionists.1  Possibly  foreseeing  that  they  could  not  hold 
out  forever,  the  "  anti's  "  endeavored  to  secure  the  passage 
of  a  resolution  binding  the  convention  to  submit  the  question 
— along  with  the  constitution — to  a  popular  vote.  This  also 
was  voted  down  by  the  suspicious  divisionists,  for  fear 
that  it  might  in  some  way  embarrass  them  later.2 

It  was  urged  in  extenuation  of  reviving  the  question  that 
the  members  of  Congress  had  indicated  that  Texas  must 
take  the  initiative  before  the  national  legislature  could  act, 
and  that  the  popular  sentiment  for  division  had  grown 
enormously  since  the  summer  session.  It  was  argued  on  the 
other  side  that  the  convention  was  restricted  solely  to  the 
powers  granted  it  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  that  these 
had  given  it  no  authority  whatever  to  consider  such  a 
question;  that  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
matter  must  be  passed  upon  by  the  state  legislature;  and 
that  before  anything  was  done  the  people  should  be  allowed 
to  vote  upon  it,  since  the  creation  of  additional  states  would 
entail  heavy  expense  for  duplicating  buildings  and  offices. 
The  southwestern  delegates,  among  whom  were  Davis, 
Degener,  Newcomb,  Varnell,  and  Morgan  Hamilton,  were 
determined  not  to  depend  wholly  upon  the  convention  and 
appointed  a  committee  of  seven  to  draft  a  constitution  for 
"West  Texas,"  to  be  submitted  to  Congress  for  approval.1 
It  does  not  appear  that  they  expected  to  submit  it  to  their 
people  first,  though  they  asserted  that  west  Texas  had  a 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  73. 

8  Ibid.,  95,  97-8;  debates  in  Austin  Republican,  Dec.  30  and  31,  1868. 

8  This  Committee  of  seven  is  given  by  the  Austin  Republican  as 
Davis,  Degener,  Newcomb,  M.  Hamilton,  Keuchler,  Jordan,  Varnell. 
See  issue  of  Jan.  4,  1869,  also  of  Dec.  21,  23,  30,  31,  1868. 


245]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  245 

right  to  separate  itself  from  the  rest  of  the  state  without 
waiting  for  the  permission  of  the  people  in  the  other  parts, 
— a  statement  of  the  right  of  secession  that  must  have 
sounded  strange  from  the  lips  of  radical  unionists.  In  this 
they  seem  to  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  divisionists 
of  east  Texas,  and  together  they  agreed  to  prevent  the  con- 
vention from  completing  the  constitution  until  it  had  agreed 
to  division.  The  way  was  opened  for  them  on  December 
29,  when,  a  call  of  the  house  having  failed,  Newcomb's  mo- 
tion to  rescind  the  Thomas  resolution  finally  came  to  a  vote 
and  was  passed.  The  question  now  took  a  sudden  turn,  to 
explain  which  necessitates  a  slight  digression. 

Much  had  been  said  in  the  press  and  on  the  stump  of  the 
disorder  in  the  state,  and  of  the  hostility  manifested  toward 
radicals.  Maintaining  that  rebel  intolerance  would  not 
permit  of  free  discussion  or  a  fair  and  free  vote,  many  in- 
fluential Republicans  were  of  the  opinion  that  no  general 
election  should  be  held  either  to  vote  on  the  constitution  or 
for  officers  under  it,  until  the  fall  of  1869.  On  Decem- 
ber 1 6,  J.  R.  Burnett  introduced  a  resolution  providing  for 
the  appointment  of  a  special  committee  of  thirteen  to  en- 
quire into  and  report  upon  the  condition  of  the  state  in  this 
respect;  and  in  case  they  found  conditions  unfavorable,  to 
report  what  additional  legislation  was  necessary  to  effect  the 
speedy  reorganization  of  a  loyal  civil  government  that 
would  protect  the  people  in  their  lives,  liberty,  and  property, 
and  meet  their  present  necessities  for  special  and  general 
legislation.  The  resolution  passed.1  Of  those  appointed, 
eight  were  for  division,  five  against  it;  of  the  latter,  two 
were  Democrats.  The  report  of  this  committee,  rendered 
December  23,  was  based  upon  statements  of  General 
Reynolds,  Governor  Pease,  Bureau  officers,  judicial  and 

1  It  was  foreshadowed  in  Austin  Republican  of  Dec.  14  and  16,  1868. 


246  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [246 

other  civil  officials,  and  private  citizens,  and  asserted  that  no 
fair  and  impartial  election  could  be  held  at  this  time  and 
probably  not  until  several  months  after  the  inauguration 
of  Grant,  though  it  was  admitted  that  there  was  general 
evidence  of  a  decrease  of  crime  and  lawlessness  and  of  bet- 
ter feeling  toward  the  government.  With  regard  to  the  ad- 
ditional legislation  necessary,  a  resolution  was  reported 
calling  upon  Congress  to  give  the  convention  the  powers  of 
a  state  legislature;  provided  that  every  act  passed  by  the 
convention  should  be  approved  by  the  provisional  governor 
before  it  should  take  effect,  or  else  be  passed  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote  after  his  veto,  and  that  the  provisional  governor 
should  make  removals  and  appointments  of  state  officers 
and  that  no  other  oath  should  be  required  of  such  officers 
except  that  prescribed  in  the  Reconstruction  Acts  for  electors 
and  the  oath  of  office  prescribed  by  the  state  constitution. 
The  reason  assigned  for  seating  aside  the  test  oath  still  re- 
quired of  all  appointees,  was  that  it  shut  out  many  com- 
petent and  loyal  persons  and  left  the  offices  to  become 
vacant  or  to  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  disloyal.  What 
relations  this  anomalous  government  was  to  have  with  the 
military  was  not  stated,  but  the  effect  would  have  been  vir- 
tually to  supplant  the  district  commander  by  the  governor. 
The  proposition  is  curious  as  a  declaration  from  Republicans 
that  the  Reconstruction  Acts  had  failed.1 

Two  minority  reports  were  made.  One  by  Armstrong 
and  Kirk,  the  two  Democrats,  denied  at  some  length  the 
allegations  of  the  majority  with  respect  to  the  wide  extent 
of  lawlessness  and  the  absence  of  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the  press, — citing  against  the  last  ten  very  radical  papers 
then  flourishing  in  various  parts  of  the  state.  The  other 

1  This  statement  was  frequently  made  in  debate  by  members  of  the 
Davis  faction. 


247]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  247 

minority  report  was  by  James  P.  Newcomb,  the  rabid 
divisionist,  who  insisted  that  the  temper,  loyalty,  and  conduct 
of  the  people  living  west  of  the  Colorado  River, — in  the 
proposed  state  of  West  Texas, — were  exceptionally  good, 
and  that  those  people  should  be  allowed  a  separate  state 
government,  or  else  that  the  dual  form  of  military  and  civil 
government,  which  was  a  manifest  failure,  should  be  re- 
placed by  a  territorial  government  in  order  that  the  United 
States  might  be  able  to  maintain  order  and  peace. 

As  soon  as  the  reports  were  taken  up,  it  became  evident 
that  the  majority  report  was  not  acceptable  to  the  Davis 
faction,  who  had  no  intention  of  prolonging  and  increas- 
ing the  power  of  Pease's  administration,  and  who  were 
not  so  much  concerned  about  a  general  election  as  about 
their  project  of  division.  A  substitute,  therefore,  was  of- 
fered by  Davis,  declaring  that  the  extent  of  the  territory, 
the  conflicting  sectional  interests  and  general  disorganiza- 
tion rendered,  in  the  opinion  of  the  convention,  a  division  of 
Texas  necessary;  and  that  six  commissioners  elected  by  the 
convention,  one  each  from  the  northern,  eastern,  middle, 
and  western  sections,  and  two  from  the  state  at  large,  should 
be  sent  to  Washington  to  acquaint  Congress  with  these  con- 
ditions and  necessities.  Nothing  could  make  clearer  the 
determination  of  this  party  to  force  division  upon  the  con- 
vention as  the  paramount  issue.  For  two  weeks  the  subject 
was  thrashed  out  in  a  committee  of  the  whole,  consuming 
during  that  time  almost  exclusive  attention.  On  the  night 
of  January  13  the  substitute  was  reported  from  the  com- 
mittee, and  a  furious  fight  began  to  get  it  adopted  over  the 
majority  report.  The  anti-divisionists  filibustered  success- 
fully until  nearly  daylight.1  The  next  day  the  president 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.  267-278. 


248  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [248 

wrote  to  General  Canby,1  explaining  the  impossibility  of 
getting  a  vote  under  a  "  call  of  the  convention  "  until  four 
absent  members  should  arrive,  lamenting  the  consequent 
waste  of  time,  and  requesting  the  commanding  general  to 
apply  whatever  remedy  he  was  authorized  to  use.2 

In  the  meantime,  the  filibustering  continued  and  the  divis- 
ionists  decided  to  amend  the  rules.  Under  cover  of  making 
inquiry  concerning  the  tardy  delegates,  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  propose  the  necessary  change  and  immediately 
reported  a  new  rule  to  the  effect  that  only  those  members 
who  had  been  present  within  five  days  preceding  a  call 
should  be  counted.  The  report  came  up  for  passage  on 
January  16,  and  was  promptly  met  by  a  call.  Here  the 
president,  Davis,  clearly  violated  the  rules  by  entertaining 
the  resolution  anyway, — reporting  the  convention  as  full 
despite  the  four  absentees, — and  hurrying  it  to  a  vote.  Im- 
mediately the  body  was  in  an  uproar.  The  anti-divisionists 
saw  the  ground  cut  from  under  their  feet  by  these  tactics, 
and  three  of  them, — Bryant  of  Grayson,  A.  J.  Hamilton, 
and  Cole,  a  Democrat, — refused  to  vote  and  were  placed 
under  arrest.  The  last  two  agreed  to  vote,  and  Bryant  re- 
signed.3 The  new  rule  was  declared  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
42  to  28.  Thus  armed  against  a  call,  the  divisionists 
hurried  immediately  to  a  vote  on  the  more  important  meas- 
sure  and  succeeded  in  substituting  Davis's  resolution  for 
the  majority  report  of  Burnett's  committee.4  It  came  up 

1  General   Canby  had  assumed  command  of  the  District  about  the 
middle  of  December. 

2  Four  delegates  were  still  absent :  Mills,  Foster,  Coleman  and  Yar- 
borough.     Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.  287-288. 

8  He  was  later  allowed  to  withdraw  his  resignation. 
*  Convention   Journal,    2nd    sess.,    300-304.    See    Austin   Republican, 
Jan.  18,  1869. 


249]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  249 

again  for  final  passage  on  the  2Oth,  and  probably  in  antici- 
pation of  a  "  call  ",  one  anti-divisionist,  Sumner,  deliber- 
ately walked  out  in  order  to  prevent  a  vote.  When  the  call 
was  made  and  he  could  not  be  found,  the  majority  forth- 
with expelled  him  by  a  vote  of  38  to  32, — the  president  rul- 
ing, again  in  defiance  of  parliamentary  law,  that  a  vote  of 
two-thirds  was  not  necessary  to  expel.1  The  Davis  re- 
solution was  then  finally  passed,  and  the  next  day  was  fixed 
for  electing  the  commissioners  for  which  it  provided.  Un- 
able any  longer  to  make  use  of  the  call,  the  minority  ab- 
sented themselves  next  day  and  broke  the  quorum.  On  the 
second  day  they  returned  and  A.  J.  Hamilton  read  a  protest, 
signed  by  thirty  members,  against  Sumner's  expulsion,  but 
the  majority  would  not  allow  it  to  be  spread  on  the  minutes 
and  themselves  appointed  a  committee  to  give  their  own 
version  of  the  affair.2  Excitement  was  at  white  heat.  At- 
tention was  now  turned  upon  the  election  of  the  six  com- 
missioners to  Washington.  The  majority  succeeded  on  the 
first  ballot  in  electing,  as  the  two  delegates  at  large,  E.  J. 
Davis  and  J.  W.  Flanagan.  On  the  second  ballot  for  the 
representative  from  north  Texas,  they  also  won,  electing 
Whitmore.  The  minority  offered  no  further  candidates  and 
allowed  Burnett  and  Morgan  Hamilton  to  be  elected  from 
east  and  central  Texas;  but  by  uniting  upon  Varnell,  a 
divisionist,  they  beat  Newcomb  for  the  western  district. 
The  victory  of  the  divisionists  was  not  without  qualifica- 

1  Objection  was  made  that  the  resolution  to  expel  was  out  of  order 
because  the  convention  could  not  transact  other  business  while  under 
a  call.    This  also  Davis  overruled.     Convention  Journal,  325.     See  com- 
ment in  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  21,  1869. 

2  Convention    Journal,    2nd    sess.,    330-331.      Hamilton's    protest    is 
printed  in  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  23.    The  answer  to  it,  *'.  e.  the  com- 
mittee's report,  is  in  the  Journal,  521-524. 


250  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [250 

tions.  While  they  were  holding  back  every  other  important 
measure  until  division  could  be  accomplished,  every  news- 
paper in  the  state,  except  the  San  Antonio  Express,  was 
either  denouncing  the  measure  or  at  least  refusing  its  sup- 
port, and  the  citizens  of  San  Antonio,  the  proposed  capital 
for  "  West  Texas,"  and  of  New  Braunfels,  the  second  larg- 
est town  in  that  district,  declared  against  it  in  mass-meeting.1 
Although  in  entire  control  of  the  commission,  the  division- 
ists  were  weakened  somewhat  by  the  fact  that  in  no  form  or 
manner  had  the  wishes  of  the  people  been  consulted  on  this 
important  subject,  while  the  action  of  the  convention  in 
considering  it  was  wholly  outside  the  duties  contemplated 
by  the  Reconstruction  Acts.  Moreover,  a  reaction  was 
threatened  against  the  high-handed  methods  by  which  the 
victory  was  won.  The  Austin  Republican  announced  the 
next  day  after  the  commissioners  were  elected  that  the 
fight  was  not  over  and  that  a  delegation  from  the  other 
side  also  would  go  to  Washington. 

Now  that  the  troublesome  question  of  division  was  out  of 
the  way,  the  delegates  were  free  to  turn  their  attention  to 
other  things.  More  than  a  month  and  a  half  had  been  con- 
sumed in  fighting  over  that  subject;  the  only  other  matters 
considered  had  been  of  a  special  and  legislative  character, 
and  not  a  thing  had  been  done  towards  completing  the  con- 
stitution except  to  appoint  a  committee  to  correct  and  revise 
so  much  of  it  as  had  been  engrossed  at  the  previous  ses- 
sion.2 There  had  been  much  criticism  of  the  body  even  by 
Republican  journals,  because  of  its  apparent  disregard  of  its 
proper  business.  Flake's  Bulletin  had  expressed  disgust 

1  Texas  Republican,  Dec.  18,  1868;  Houston  Telegraph,  Jan.  14;  San 
Antonio  Daily  Herald,  Jan.  14,  1869;  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  13  and 
18,  1869. 

2  Convention  Journal,  255,  260. 


k5I]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  251 

ith  its  methods  in  the  preceding  summer  and  now  re- 
iterated the  advice  to  the  members  to  adjourn  and  go  home. 
The  Austin  Republican  criticised  the  delegates  for  "  their 
waste  of  time  and  money,  their  frivolous  and  long  debates 
upon  foreign  issues,  their  indiscriminate  and  lavish  legis- 
lation, their  long  delay  in  the  formation  of  a  constitution," 
which  had  "  brought  reproach  upon  the  Republican  party 
of  our  state  " ;  and  especially  censured  them  for  the  vast 
amount  of  legislative  work  they  had  presumed  to  do : 

They  have  assumed  to  erect  new  counties;  on  the  faith  of 
their  action,  court  houses  have  been  built ;  they  have  authorized 
the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  under  which  interests  have 
grown  up ;  they  have  chartered  railways  and  immigration  com- 
panies, in  which  large  amounts  of  capital  have  been,  or  soon 
will  be  invested.1  In  a  hundred  ways  they  have  put  under 
pledge  to  support  any  constitution  they  may  present  a  hundred 
powerful  interests. 

The  Democratic  press  was  more  contemptuous  in  its  com- 
ments, and  only  one  paper,  the  Houston  Telegraph,  showed 
any  disposition  at  this  time  to  make  the  best  of  a  bad  situ- 
ation and  treat  the  product  of  the  convention  with  less  than 
open  hostility. 

But  though  the  way  was  now  open  for  work  on  the  con- 
stitution, many  of  the  Davis  faction  showed  no  desire  to 
take  up  that  subject,  for  they  were  not  pleased  with  that 
part  already  completed,  and  most  of  them  were  even  more 
opposed  to  the  liberal  suffrage  views  now  rapidly  gaining 
adherents.  Possibly,  too,  they  expected  their  commis- 

1  The  Liverpool  and  Texas  Steamship  company  was  granted  $500,000 
in  six  per  cent  state  bonds  and  half  a  million  acres  of  land,  the  last  to 
be  given  as  subsidy  for  bringing  immigrants, — forty  acres  for  each  im- 
migrant. Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  VI,  126-129. 


252  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [252 

sioners  to  Congress  to  bring  about  a  division  of  Texas  into 
several  states,  in  which  case  there  was  no  need  of  framing 
a  constitution  now.  The  commissioners  were  elected  on 
Friday,  January  22.  On  the  following  Monday,  a  resolu- 
tion was  introduced  by  Adams  for  the  purpose  of  shutting 
out  any  new  legislative  topics  and  confining  attention  to 
the  constitution  and  such  other  matters  as  were  already 
taken  up.  It  passed,  but  against  the  opposition  of  most  of 
the  divisionists.1  The  next  day  the  latter  made  an  effort 
to  adjourn  the  convention  on  February  ist,  "  to  be  reas- 
sembled at  any  time  by  the  Commanding  General,  or  by  a 
majority  of  the  committee  to  Washington."  This  revealed 
too  much  of  their  designs,  and  a  substitute  was  offered  to 
the  effect  that  no  adjournment  should  take  place  until  a 
constitution  had  been  framed  for  submission  to  the  people 
and  that  no  other  business  should  be  in  order  until  this  was 
done.  The  vote  of  34  to  25,  adopting  the  substitute,  ex- 
pressed approximately  the  feeling  for  and  against  the  con- 
stitution.2 Under  the  operation  of  this  resolution  the  con- 
vention began  work,  January  27, — just  ten  days  before  it 
was  to  adjourn, — upon  the  engrossed  parts  of  the  constitu- 
tion as  revised  by  the  special  committee. 

Two  days  later  the  question  of  suffrage  was  reached,  and 
here  began  the  second  great  battle.  The  committee,  con- 
trolled of  course  by  the  Davis  or  "  ultra  "  faction,  had  re- 
ported a  stringent  provision  disfranchising  all  who  had 
previously  been  disqualified  by  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  or  by  participation  in  the  rebellion,  and  all  who  could 
not  take  a  prescribed  oath  3  almost  as  difficult  as  the  famous 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  359-361. 

2  Ibid.,  378-380. 

•"I, ,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm),  .  .  .  that  I  have  not  been 

disfranchised  for  participation  in  any  rebellion  or  civil  war  against  the 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  353 

iron-clad  oath.  On  this  issue,  ex-Governor  A.  J.  Hamilton, 
as  champion  of  a  most  liberal  and  generous  policy,  per- 
formed one  of  his  greatest  services  to  the  state.  He  set 
himself  squarely  against  any  and  all  attempts  to  disfran- 
chise the  late  rebels  further  than  was  already  done  by  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment.  His  following  at  first  was  com- 
paratively small :  many  of  his  friends  who  had  supported 
him  in  other  questions  left  him  on  this;  the  one  newspaper 
that  had  always  acted  as  the  organ  of  his  party  remained 
silent  throughout  the  struggle;  but  the  sentiment  for  con- 
ciliation that  had  begun  to  spread  after  the  election  of  Grant 
came  to  his  aid ;  and  as  the  northern  Republicans,  one  after 
another,  gave  expression  to  conciliatory  views,  his  follow- 
ing increased.  After  some  preliminary  skirmishes,  in  which 
a  proposition  of  the  Democrats  to  exclude  negroes  from  the 
ballot,  and  another,  by  Mundine,  for  woman  suffrage,  had 
been  overwhelmingly  voted  down,  the  real  fight  began  on  a 
substitute  offered  by  Thomas  to  the  committee  report, 
granting  unrestricted  suffrage.  This  was  laid  on  the  table 

United  States,  nor  for  felony  committed  against  the  laws  of  any  state, 
or  of  the  United  States;  that  I  have  never  been  a  member  of  any 
state  legislature  nor  held  any  executive  or  judicial  office  in  any  state  and 
afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection  and  rebellion  in  the  United  States 
or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof ;  that  I  have  never  taken 
an  oath  as  a  member  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  or  as  an 
executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  state,  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection  and  rebellion 
against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemies 
thereof ;  that  I  have  not  voted  as  a  member  of  any  convention  or 
legislature  in  favor  of  an  ordinance  of  secession;  that  I  was  not  a 
member  of  any  secret  order  hostile  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States ;  that  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  or  editor  of  a  newspaper,  I  did 
not  advocate  secession,  nor  did  I  support  rebellion  and  war  against  the 
United  States,  so  help  me  God."  Disabilities  could  be  removed  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  the  legislature  or  by  Congress.  See  Convention 
Journal,  ist  sess.,  568-579. 


254  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [254 

by  a  close  vote,  34  to  31.  Filibustering  could  not  prevent 
the  adoption,  then,  of  the  committee  report,  but  Hamilton 
did  not  despair.  The  small  group  of  Democrats  came 
solidly  to  his  side  under  the  leadership  of  L.  D.  Evans. 
All  his  eloquence  and  all  his  powers  as  a  parliamentary  tac- 
tician and  leader  of  men,  he  threw  into  the  struggle). 
Helped  perhaps  by  a  reaction  against  Davis's  methods,  only 
four  days  later  Hamilton  commanded  a  clear  majority,  and 
under  cover  of  a  substitute  for  the  provision  relating  to 
the  registration  of  voters,  he  reopened  the  whole  question. 
His  substitute  was  as  follows : 

Section  i.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years  and  upwards,  not  laboring  under  the 
disabilities  named  in  this  Constitution,  without  distinction  of 
race,  color  or  former  condition,  who  shall  be  a  resident  of  this 
State  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  or  who 
shall  thereafter  reside  in  this  State  one  year,  and  in  the  county 
in  which  he  offers  to  vote  sixty  days  next  preceding  any 
election,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  all  officers  that  are  now, 
or  hereafter  may  be,  elected  by  the  people,  and  upon  all  ques- 
tions submitted  to  the  electors  at  any  election;  provided,  that 
no  person  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  or  hold  office  who  is  now  or 
hereafter  may  be  disqualified  therefor  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  until  such  disqualifications  shall  be  removed 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States;  provided,  further,  that 
no  person  while  kept  in  any  asylum,  or  confined  in  any  prison, 
or  who  has  been  convicted  of  any  felony,  or  who  is  of  unsound 
mind,  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  or  hold  office. 

An  attempt  to  table  was  defeated  by  an  overwhelming  ma- 
jority, as  was  another  to  make  more  stringent  the  clause 
relating  to  disqualification.  The  Radicals  struggled  hard 
to  secure  other  amendments,  but  the  substitute  was  finally 
made  a  part  of  the  constitution  by  a  vote  of  30  to  26,  and 


255]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  255 

the  victory  was  won.1  The  patriotism  which  could  rise 
high  enough  to  disregard  the  question  of  party  advantage 
was  not  without  its  reward,  if  the  gratitude  of  the  white 
people  of  Texas  for  their  rescue  from  political  proscription 
may  be  accounted  a  reward.2 

Another  important  part  of  the  constitution,  the  article  on 
education,  was  already  disposed  of  between  times.  Two 
provisions  of  importance  were  added:  one  increasing  the 
revenue  for  schools  by  imposition  of  a  poll  tax,  and  setting 
apart  for  the  same  purpose  one-fourth  of  the  annual  state 
taxes;  and  the  other  directing  the  investment  of  the  prin- 
cipal of  the  school  fund  in  United  States  bonds.  These 
measures  were  chiefly  the  work  of  A.  P.  McCormick.3 

Two  things  now  remained  to  be  done.  Provision  must 
be  made  for  printing  the  constitution  and  for  ordering  a 
general  election  at  which  the  voters  of  the  state  should  ac- 
cept or  reject  the  constitution  and  vote  for  officers  for  the 
new  government.  Here  troubles  arose  again.  The  Austin 
Republican  had  been  publishing  the  journals  of  the  conven- 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  482-486. 

2  The  Houston  Telegraph  (Dem.),  of  Feb.  25,  1869,  paid  a  glowing 
tribute  to  Governor  Hamilton :  "  He  stood  as  a  break-water  between 
us    and    the    floods    of    ruin.      He    moved    among    breakers,    shoals, 
and   quicksands.      He    had    to    steer    between    Scylla    and    Charybdis, 
with   the   heavens   overcast   with   clouds,   and   the   storm   howling   all 
around  him.  ...  If  we  reflect  that  he  labored  to  give  the  ballot  to 
those  who  had  bitterly  opposed  him,  that  he  placed  himself  in  opposi- 
tion to  extreme  members  in  his  own  party,  and  even  to  his  own  brother ; 
that  he  labored  for  a  people  who  he  believed  had  wronged  him ;  that  a 
large  number  of  newspapers  in  the  state  were  pouring  abuse  upon  him 
even  while  he  was  laboring  for  the  people;  that  he  clothed  us  with  the 
ballot  at  the  imminent  risk  of  having  it  used  against  himself,  and  that 
all  of  passion  and  even  promise  pointed  out  to  him  the  opposite  course 
as  the  one  most  for  his  interest,  then  indeed  does  he  stand  before  us  a 
Patriot,  firm,   tried,  and   true,  deserving  the   gratitude  of   our  whole 
people  of  all  parties." 

8  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  417-422. 


256  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [256 

tion  daily  and  was  endeavoring  to  get  the  contract  for  print- 
ing the  bound  volumes  of  the  journal  and  the  new  constitu- 
tion; but  its  ardent  support  of  the  moderates,  especially  its 
opposition  to  state  division,  had  so  angered  the  Davis  fac- 
tion that  they  were  determined  the  contract  should  go  else- 
where. They  therefore  proposed  that  the  Washington 
delegation  should  have  the  printing  done  somewhere  in  the 
North,  and  by  filibustering,  with  the  president's  aid,  they 
prevented  the  other  proposition  from  coming  to  a  final  vote.1 
They  likewise  opposed  every  move  to  have  the  constitution 
submitted  to  the  people;  and  when,  nevertheless,  February 
5,  an  ordinance  was  crowded  through,  providing  that  the 
election  for  the  constitution,  and  for  state,  district,  and 
county  officers,  and  members  of  Congress,  should  be  held 
during  the  first  week  in  July,  they  entered  a  written  protest 
against  the  constitution  itself.2  This  remarkable  document, 
which  seems  to  have  been  the  work  of  Morgan  Hamilton, 
attacked  the  constitution  in  two  points,  viz.,  its  omission 
of  the  ab  initio  doctrine  and  its  extension  of  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  all  those  who  voluntarily  became  the  public  enemy 
of  the  United  States. 

The  majority  of  the  convention  have  deliberately  removed 
from  the  constitution  every  safeguard  for  the  loyal  voter, 
white  and  black.  They  have  stricken  from  that  instrument 
the  whole  system  of  registry ;  they  have  repudiated  the  oath  of 
loyalty  contained  in  the  reconstruction  laws ;  they  have  spurned 
the  test  of  equal  civil  and  political  rights,  and  we  do  most 
solemnly  call  upon  the  registered  voters  of  Texas  to  vindicate 
the  national  honor  and  the  cause  of  right  and  justice  by  their 
votes.8 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  437-441,  524-527;  Austin  Republican, 
Feb.  6,  1869. 

2  Ibid.,  199,  509-510,  517-520. 

8  Ibid.    Those  signing  the  protest  were,  in  order :  M.  C.  Hamilton, 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  257 

This  was  the  declaration  of  war  between  the  two  factions, 
and  here  was  the  issue  presented  before  the  people. 

The  convention  was  now  seething  with  excitement  The 
bickerings  and  quarrels  of  the  first  session  were  as  nothing 
compared  with  the  animosity  and  altercations  of  this  one. 
The  two  wings  of  Republicans  had  long  since,  as  Davis  him- 
self said,  come  to  hate  each  other  with  a  bitterness  they 
had  never  felt  toward  their  rebel  and  Democratic  opponents, 
and  the  situation  had  steadily  grown  worse  as  the  session 
progressed.  If  the  apparent  triumph  of  division  and  the 
expulsion  of  Sumner  had  greatly  excited  the  Jack  Hamilton 
party,  the  defeat  of  disfranchisement,  added  to  that  of  ab 
initio,  had  infuriated  their  opponents  no  less.  An  incident 
will  illustrate  how  far  one  side,  at  least,  was  carried  away. 
One  member,  C.  W.  Bryant,  of  Harris  County,  a  negro 
preacher,  was  indicted  in  Austin  for  rape  upon  an  eleven- 
year-old  colored  girl,  and  the  examining  trial  made  his 
guilt  perfectly  evident;  yet  in  the  face  of  this  evidence, 
the  Davis  faction,  to  which  he  belonged,  resisted  every  ef- 
fort to  expel  the  brute,  for  no  other  apparent  reason  than 
that  they  desired  his  vote.  However,  he  was  finally  ex- 
pelled.1 A  number  of  personal  encounters  occurred  and 
added  to  the  general  ill-feeling.2 

The  closing  scenes  formed  a  fitting  climax  to  the  story  of 
party  rancor  and  strife.  The  passage  of  the  ordinance  pro- 

J.  P.  Butler,  H.  C.  Hunt,  G.  H.  Slaughter,  James  Brown,  A.  Downing, 
J.  P.  Newcomb,  J.  H.  Lippard,  S.  Mullins,  N.  M.  Board,  J.  Keuchler, 
N.  Patten,  J.  H.  Wilson,  E.  Degener,  R.  K.  Smith,  E.  J.  Davis,  Ralph 
•Long  (col.),  G.  T.  Ruby  (col.),  W.  Johnson  (col.),  B.  F.  Williams 
(col.),  A.  P.  Jordan  and  W.  F.  Carter. 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  398-9,  441-44,  455,  459,  462-63;  Austin 
Republican,  Jan.  25,  Feb.  i;  Houston  Telegraph,  Feb.  n,  1869. 

2  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  445-447 ;  Austin  Re  publican,  Feb.  2,3; 
Houston  Telegraph,  Feb.  u,  1869. 


258  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [258 

viding  for  an  election  and  for  submitting  the  constitution 
to  the  people  and  the  protest  of  the  ultra-radicals  had  oc- 
curred on  Friday  morning,  February  5.  The  passage  of 
the  resolution  to  give  the  printing  to  the  Austin  Republican, 
the  last  subject  for  controversy,  was  prevented  by  the  presi- 
dent's declaring  the  convention  adjourned.  At  the  open- 
ing of  the  evening  session  only  a  few  of  Davis's  supporters 
were  present,  and  at  first  there  was  no  quorum.  A  call  of 
the  house  secured  one.  Thereupon  the  president  had  the 
secretary  read  a  letter  from  General  Canby  to  the  effect 
that  if  the  printing  of  the  constitution  were  not  provided 
for  by  the  convention,  he  himself  would  attend  to  it.  Mills 
accused  Davis  of  influencing  General  Canby  to  write  the 
letter  and  arraigned  him  severely  for  plotting  to  break  up 
the  convention  in  order  to  defeat  reconstruction  under  the 
new  constitution.  He  was  called  to  order  but  refused  to 
take  his  seat,  and  was  ordered  under  arrest  by  the  president, 
who  over-ruled  an  objection  that  this  required  the  authority 
of  the  convention.  In  the  hubbub,  Williams,  a  negro  mem- 
ber in  the  Davis  faction,  resigned,  and  was  followed  by 
Ruby,  and  then  by  Newcomb,  who  declared  the  sittings 
were  being  prolonged  "  for  the  purpose  of  subsidizing  a 
venalized  press."  The  effect  was  to  reduce  the  number 
present  below  the  usual  quorum,  as  was  evidently  intended ; 
but  Governor  Hamilton  raised  the  point  that  a  majority  of 
the  actual  members  only  constituted  a  quorum.  Davis  over- 
ruled it.  A  motion  to  adjourn  was  voted  down,  and  a  call 
of  the  house  made ;  but  Davis  declared  no  call  could  be  sus- 
tained unless  he  concurred, — a  most  highhanded  ruling, — 
and  declared  the  house  adjourned  until  ten  o'clock  the  next 
morning.  As  he  left  the  chair,  pandemonium  broke  loose, 
but  the  majority  held  together  and  elected  M.  L.  Armstrong 
of  Lamar  as  president  pro  tern.  Hamilton,  white  with 


259]  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1868-1869  259 

anger,  took  the  floor  and  poured  forth  upon  Davis,  who 
had  not  been  allowed  to  leave  the  hall,  such  a  torrent  of 
invective  as  no  man  but  Jack  Hamilton  was  capable  of 
delivering.  Then  an  adjournment  was  had  until  9.30 
next  (Saturday)  morning. 

Only  the  delegates  of  the  Hamilton  faction  assembled  in 
the  morning.  Davis  would  not  come,  even  when  sent  for, 
and  they  proceeded  without  him.  A  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  Canby  about  the  printing;  nothing 
else  was  done.  The  committee  reported  in  the  afternoon 
that  the  general  advised  the  delegates  to  attend  to  whatever 
business  there  was  and  adjourn  in  due  form.  A  committee 
of  fifteen  was  then  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  records 
and  the  constitution  and  see  that  they  were  properly  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  Commanding  General.  It  was  found 
that  the  papers  had  disappeared  and  that  they  were  in  the 
hands  of  an  assistant  secretary,  A.  J.  Bennet,  who  was  act- 
ing under  the  order  of  Davis.  Bennet  was  arrested  and 
gave  up  the  papers.  It  was  then  decided  to  adjourn  over  to 
Monday.  On  Saturday  evening,  at  the  usual  hour,  Davis 
with  two  or  three  members  of  his  faction  came  to  the  hall 
and  declared  the  convention  adjourned  sine  die.  The  same 
was  done  on  Monday  morning  by  the  other  party.1 

Forty-five  delegates,  a  fair  majority  of  the  membership 
at  the  close,  signed  the  constitution.2  The  records  were 

1  Convention  Journal,  2nd  sess.,  527-529,  Austin  Republican,  Feb.  6, 
8  and  10,  1869.    All  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings  Friday  night,  after 
the  resignation  of  Ruby,  and  of  the  sessions  of  Saturday  morning  and 
afternoon   and    Monday   morning  were   suppressed   in   the   permanent 
journal  printed  under  the  auspices  of  Davis's  administration  in  1870. 
They  are  given,  however,  in  the  Austin  Republican  of  Feb.  8.    For 
an  account  of  the  closing  scenes,  see  also  Houston  Telegraph,  Feb.  n, 
and  Galveston  News,  Feb.  14,  1869. 

2  The  names  are  given  in  Gammel,  VII,  430. 


26o  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [26o 

found  to  be  in  such  confusion  that  General  Canby  appointed 
a  special  commission,  consisting  of  J.  W.  Thomas  of  the  one 
side,  Morgan  Hamilton  from  the  other,  and  one  of  his  staff 
officers,  to  assist  the  secretary,  Tunstall,  in  putting  them 
into  shape  for  printing.1 

The  two  sessions  of  the  convention  had  cost  the  state 
more  than  $200,000  for  five  months  of  wrangling,  not  more 
than  one  month  of  which  was  spent  in  actual  consideration 
of  the  constitution.2 

1  Ten   thousand  copies   were  printed   for   distribution.    The  Austin 
Republican  got  to  print  them  after  all. 

2  The  list  of  appropriations  made  and  approved  is  as  follows : 
First  Session: 

Mileage,  per  diem,  and  contingent  expenses $100,000 

Second  Session: 

Mileage  and  per  diem 50,000 

Publishing  completed  parts  of  Constitution 3,6oo 

Contingent  expenses  15,000 

Printing  and  contingent  expenses 6,000 

Mileage  and  per  diem 20,000 

Delegation  to  Washington 6,000 

Total $200,600 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869 

i.   The  Appeal  to  Congress 

FOR  the  present  there  was  no  thought  of  reconciliation 
on  either  side.  Though  foiled  in  the  convention,  the  radi- 
cals,— a  name  now  enjoyed  exclusively  by  the  Davis  party, 
— still  hoped  to  defeat  the  constitution  and  divide  the  state 
through  their  control  over  the  commission  elected  to  Wash- 
ington. The  moderates,  or  conservatives,  were  determined 
to  prevent  this  by  sending  a  delegation  of  their  own.  With- 
in less  than  a  week  after  the  convention  adjourned,  both 
were  on  their  way,  and  political  interest  was  anxiously  cen- 
tered upon  their  work  at  the  national  capital.1 

The  rival  delegations  arrived  in  Washington  about  the 
last  of  February,  and  at  once  sought  interviews  with  Gen- 
eral Grant  and  the  congressional  leaders.  The  issue  be- 
tween them  is  very  clearly  defined  in  the  memorials  which 
they  each  laid  before  Congress.  That  of  the  radical  dele- 
gation, dated  March  2,  was  drawn  up  by  Morgan  Hamilton, 
generally  accounted  the  ablest  as  well  as  the  most  fanatical 
of  that  party.  After  explaining  their  authority  to  act  in 

1  The  radical  delegation  consisted  of  E.  J.  Davis,  Morgan  Hamilton, 
J.  W.  Flanagan,  Varnell  and  Burnett,  official  delegates  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  Newcomb,  Degener,  H.  Taylor,  Ruby  and  C.  W.  Bryant,  who 
was  still  under  indictment.  The  moderates  were  more  numerous,  the 
list  of  their  delegates  including  A.  J.  Hamilton,  Jas.  H.  Bell,  J.  L. 
Haynes,  C.  Caldwell,  Geo.  W.  Paschal,  M.  L.  Armstrong,  McCormick, 
Sumner,  Bumngton,  Alexander  Rossy  and  Donald  Campbell.  Austin 
Republican,  March  16,  1869. 

261]  261 


262  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [262 

the  name  of  the  convention,  the  memorialists  declared  that 
the  condition  of  society  in  Texas  "  has  been,  and  is  still,  very 
desperate  ".  In  support  of  this  statement  the  statistics,  tabu- 
lated months  before  by  the  convention  committee  on  law- 
lessness and  violence,  were  cited,  as  were  the  report  of 
Reynolds  and  the  statement  of  Governor  Pease  made  in 
December ; l  and  it  was  declared  that  conditions  had  stead- 
ily grown  worse  since  Grant's  election.  This  was  to  prove 
that  no  fair  election  could  be  held  in  Texas.  Because  these 
conditions  had  been  due  to  "  Johnson's  policy  ",  it  had  been 
believed  that  a  convention  elected  under  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress would  bring  about  a  solution  satisfactory  to  the  loyal 
people,  a  hope  that  had  not  been  realized. 

A  considerable  number  of  members,  calling  themselves  Repub- 
licans, did  not  in  their  actions  come  up  to  that  firmness  for 
Republican  principles  which  their  constituents  had  a  right 
to  expect.  A  constitution  was  framed  which  gives  no  satis- 
faction or  security  to  the  loyal  people  of  either  color,  but  which 
is  heartily  endorsed  by  the  Democratic  or  rebel  party  and  a 
few  (so-called)  Republicans.  This  new  constitution  recognizes 
the  validity  of  rebel  legislation,  so  far  as  not  prohibited  by  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  thus  putting  the 
legislation  during  the  rebellion  on  the  same  footing  as  that  of 
the  most  loyal  states.  .  .  .  [It]  abolishes  the  wise  safeguard  of- 
fered by  the  reconstruction  acts  with  regard  to  the  right  of 
suffrage,  allowing  in  this  respect  the  utmost  latitude  to  the 
disloyal. 

That  the  constitution  would  be  accepted  by  the  white  rebel 
majority,  the  memorialists  regarded  as  certain,  since  a  fair 
canvass  could  not  be  made  of  the  colored  voters.  The 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  departments  would  be 
filled  with  "  ex-Confederates  and  so-called  Republicans." 
Such  a  fearful  condition  cried  aloud  for  a  remedy: 
1  Supra,  p.  245. 


263]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  263 

The  new  constitution  should  not  be  submitted  to  the  people 
at  such  an  early  date  as  the  resolution  contemplates  [July  5], 
if  it  is  to  be  submitted  at  all.  .  .  .  Our  only  hope  rests  [in  a 
postponement  of  the  election]  until  genuine  peace  is  restored, 
and  .  .  .  [Congress  intervenes]  ...  to  secure  a  remodeling 
of  the  constitution,  in  consonance  with  the  necessities  and  spirit 
of  the  times.1 

The  memorialists  then  went  on  to  an  argument  for  the  divis- 
ion of  Texas  into  three  states,  as  another  part  of  the  remedy, 
—urging  the  diversity  of  interests  and  population  of  the 
various  sections,  and  the  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  con- 
vention had  endorsed  the  plan.  However,  the  chief  rea- 
son urged  in  favor  of  division  was  that  it  would  offer  the 
loyalists  a  better  chance  to  get  entire  control,  since  smaller 
administrative  divisions  would  be  more  easily  reduced  to  or- 
der, and  a  full  vote  of  the  loyal  blacks  could  be  had,  suffi- 
cient, it  was  believed,  with  the  loyal  whites,  to  carry  any 
election.  As  an  alternative  to  immediate  organization  of 
the  three  states,  Congress  should  create  three  territorial  dis- 
tricts and  hold  them  under  military  control  until  civil  gov- 
ernments could  be  safely  established. 

The  memorial  bore  the  signatures  of  Davis,  J.  W. 
Flanagan,  M.  C.  Hamilton,  Varnell,  and  Burnett;  but  the 
last  named  declared  that  his  name  was  placed  there  without 
his  consent  and  presented  a  spirited  memorial  of  his  own, 
protesting  against  classing  the  opposing  wing  of  the  Repub- 
licans with  rebels,  insisting  that  conditions  had  grown 
better  rather  than  worse  since  Grant's  election,  defending 
the  new  constitution  as  satisfactory  to  the  loyal  people  of 
Texas,  and  praying  for  the  election  to  be  held  in  July.  He 
concurred  with  his  colleagues  only  in  the  matter  of  state 

1  This  meant,  of  course,  the  adoption  of  the  ab  initio  doctrine  and 
enfranchisement. 


264  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [264 

division,  and  in  that  for  reasons  other  than  those  which 
they  urged.1  It  was  not  anticipated,  in  fact,  when  these 
delegates  were  elected,  that  they  would  petition  for  any- 
thing but  state  division. 

The  moderates  presented  their  "  Statement  and  Me- 
morial "  on  March  16.  It  was  an  eloquent  summary  of 
political  conditions  and  measures  in  Texas  from  the  close 
of  the  war  to  that  time.2  Particular  attention  was  given  to 
the  origin  of  the  ab  initio  doctrine,  its  rejection  by  Gov- 
ernor Pease,  by  the  military,  by  the  constitutional  conven- 
tion and  the  Republican  state  convention.  The  history 
of  the  attempt  to  divide  the  state,  the  failure  of  the  division- 
ists  to  agree  upon  the  lines  of  division,  and  the  expense  it 
would  bring  upon  the  people  of  Texas,  who  were  generally 
poor,  were  briefly  but  clearly  set  forth.  The  section  of  the 
constitution  granting  suffrage  to  the  late  rebels  was  de- 
fended in  language  both  eloquent  and  generous : 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  the  part  either  of  wisdom 
or  justice  to  perpetuate  disabilities  in  our  state  constitution.  .  .  . 
Those  who  have  been  temporarily  clothed  with  power  in  the 
lately  rebellious  states,  wisely  and  for  necessary  ends,  are  too 
much  heated  by  the  friction  of  the  contest  through  which  they 
are  passing,  and  are  under  too  strong  a  temptation  to  punish 
their  opponents,  and  to  preserve  power  to  themselves,  to  be  the 
best  judges  of  what  a  wise  and  just  policy  requires  to  be  done 
on  such  a  subject.  .  .  .  We  wish  to  sit  down  by  our  hearth- 
stones once  more  in  peace.  We  do  not  wish  to  prolong  a  con- 
test which,  if  prolonged,  can  produce  only  the  bitter  fruit  of 
settled  and  implacable  hate.8 

1  For  these  two  memorials,  see  Austin  Republican,  March  31,  1869. 

2  It  was  written  by  Judge  Jas.  H.  Bell. 

8  This  memorial  was  signed  by  twenty-four  Texas  Republicans, 
twelve  of  whom  had  been  members  of  the  convention.  Austin  Re- 
publican, March  30,  1869. 


265]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  26$ 

It  soon  became  evident  that  only  a  few  of  the  most  ex- 
treme of  the  Republican  leaders  in  Congress  looked  with 
any  favor  upon  the  designs  of  the  Davis  committee,  and 
none  openly  espoused  their  cause.  General  Reynolds,  who 
had  influence  with  Grant,  was  credited  with  declaring 
"division"  a  ridiculous  proposition;  at  any  rate,  neither 
congressmen  nor  the  Northern  press  took  up  the  idea  read- 
ily. Nor  did  the  ab  initio  doctrine,  soon  to  receive  its 
deathblow  at  the  hands  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,1  gain  many  adherents.  They  were  not  more  suc- 
cessful in  the  matter  of  suffrage,  for  Northern  politicians 
had  grown  weary  of  carrying  the  burden  of  a  disfranchised 
South  so  long  after  the  war  had  ended.  The  general  dis- 
position was  to  hurry  up  reconstruction  and  get  it  over 
with.  Finding  there  was  small  chance  of  getting  Congress 
to  interfere  in  their  behalf  on  these  points,  the  radical  lead- 
ers fell  back  to  the  question  of  postponing  the  election 
until  fall,  which  would  give  them  more  time  to  determine 
upon  their  future  policy.  In  this  there  was  greater  pro- 
mise of  success ;  for  whether  their  accusation  that  the  moder- 
ates had  "  sold  out  to  the  rebels  "  found  many  believers  or 
not,  there  was  some  uneasiness  among  Grant's  supporters 
as  to  how  the  elections  in  Pennsylvania  and  other  doubtful 
states  would  go  in  the  early  fall,  and  a  desire  to  hold  back 
Texas  and  Mississippi  until  these  elections  were  over. 
Meanwhile  they  interposed  successful  resistance  to  the  ef- 
forts of  their  opponents  to  have  Congress  remove  before 
adjournment  the  political  disabilities  of  some  two  hundred 
citizens  of  Texas,  among  whom  were  such  prominent  union- 
ists as  Jas.  H.  Bell,  Thos.  H.  Stribling,  W.  E.  Jones,  and 
G.  H.  Noonan.2  After  passing  an  act  which  left  the  Presi- 

1  Cf.  Texas  vs.  White,  7  Wall.,  700-743. 

2  Austin  Republican,  April  8,  12,  13,  14,  1869. 


266  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [266 

dent  to  order  elections  in  Virginia,  Mississippi,  and  Texas, 
at  such  times  as  he  should  see  proper,  for  voting  upon  the 
constitutions  and  the  officers  thereunder,  Congress  ad- 
journed April  10;  but  the  two  delegations  lingered  with 
Grant  and  his  cabinet,  seeking  Federal  patronage,  until 
Grant  informed  them  that  the  patronage  would  be  divided 
equally  between  them.  It  was  distributed,  however,  chiefly 
upon  the  advice  of  General  Reynolds,  who  at  this  time 
seemed  to  favor  the  conservatives,  and  the  latter  got  the 
larger  share.1  On  the  whole,  the  contest  at  Washington 
resulted  in  favor  of  the  Hamilton  Republicans  and  to  the 
discomfiture  of  the  radicals,  who  returned  to  Texas  dis- 
organized and  discouraged. 

One  change  had  been  made  in  Texas  with  which  neither 
party  had  anything  to  do,  though  it  must  have  seemed  an 
additional  advantage  to  the  conservatives.  Grant  sent 
General  J.  J.  Reynolds  back  to  the  command  pf  Texas, 
transferring  Canby  to  Virginia.  No  reason  was  assigned 
except  that  it  was  a  matter  of  justice  to  Reynolds  to  allow 
him  to  finish  up  what  he  had  begun.2  Canby's  rule  had 
been  vigorous  and  firm,  but  just,  and  he  was  looked  upon 
by  the  people  generally,  that  is,  the  whites,  with  more  favor 
than  Reynolds,  who  was  regarded  as  unjust  and  arbitrary. 
Though  the  whole  administration  of  the  state  practically 
centered  at  his  headquarters,  and  was  transacted  largely 
through  his  special  orders,  Canby  was  careful  to  follow  the 
state  law  as  far  as  possible  and  to  interfere  but  little  with 
the  peaceful  pursuits  of  the  people.  His  most  unpopular 
order  was  not  of  his  own  making.  It  was  the  promulga- 
tion of  a  joint  resolution  of  Congress  directing  that  all  per- 
sons holding  office  under  the  provisional  governments  of 

1  Austin  Republican,  April  4,  9,  10,  n,  13,  24,  30,  May  7,  1869. 

2  Ibid.,  March  5,  1869. 


267]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  26/ 

Virginia,  Texas,  and  Mississippi  be  required  to  take  the 
iron-clad  oath,  failing  which  their  places  should  be  rilled  by 
persons  who  could  take  the  oath.  This  was  carrying  out  to 
its  extremity  the  policy  laid  down  by  Griffin  in  1867  and 
followed  ever  since  with  respect  to  appointments  to  office. 
It  was  easier  to  apply  such  a  rule  now  than  earlier,  when 
the  prevalence  of  grave  disorder  made  necessary  the  retention 
of  many  officials  in  whom  the  people  had  confidence;  but  it 
does  not  seem  unfair  to  assume  that  the  sole  motive  was  to 
get  the  offices  and  their  perquisites  into  the  hands  of  Re- 
publicans. Canby  did  not  remain  long  enough  to  complete 
the  transfer  of  offices,  and  the  task  was  left  to  Reynolds, 
who  assumed  command  on  April  8. 

2.   The  Formation  of  Tickets 

Now  that  it  was  positively  known  that  the  constitution 
would  be  submitted  to  the  voters  and  state  officers  elected, 
interest  in  the  election  deepened,  though  Grant  had  not  in- 
dicated when  it  would  be  called.  The  late  convention  had 
barely  adjourned  when  considerable  discussion  arose  among 
the  Democrats  as  to  what  should  be  their  attitude  as  a  party 
toward  the  new  constitution  and  the  offices.  At  first  they 
diverged  widely.  The  Houston  Telegraph  declared  for 
the  constitution,  as  the  best  that  could  be  expected  under 
the  conditions  of  the  times,  and  for  Jack  Hamilton  for 
governor.  The  State  Gazette  favored  the  constitution,  but, 
as  the  party  organ,  refused  to  commit  itself  to  any  candi- 
date until  a  Democratic  convention  should  be  held  and  a 
ticket  put  out.1  The  Telegraph  vehemently  opposed  call- 
ing any  convention,  putting  out  any  candidates  for  state 
offices,  or  organizing  in  any  way, — very  sensibly  urging 
that  if  a  Democratic  ticket  were  elected  it  would  defeat  the 

1  Issues  of  Feb.  17,  March  i,  3,  5  and  10,  1869. 


268  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [268 

readmission  of  the  state  as  it  did  in  1866,  and  that  if  the 
new  officials  must  be  Republicans,  the  Democrats  should 
throw  their  entire  strength  to  the  moderate  party  and  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  lend  countenance  to  the  cry  that  the 
latter  had  "  sold  out  "  to  them.1  The  San  Antonio  Herald 
sided  with  the  Telegraph;  some  of  the  smaller  papers  de- 
manded a  straight  Democratic  ticket,  but  practically  all 
were  for  the  constitution.  At  one  time  Walton,  chairman 
of  the  executive  committee,  announced  that  a  convention 
would  be  called,  but  soon  withdrew  the  announcement, 
fearing  that  participation  in  the  contest  by  an  organized 
Democracy  would  result  either  in  a  victory  for  the  radi- 
cals or  rejection  of  the  constitution  by  Congress.  A  ten- 
tative proposition  to  fuse  with  the  moderate  Republicans 
on  the  state  ticket  was  at  once  rejected,  and  abandoning  that 
field  thereafter  the  Democrats  put  forward  only  county  and 
legislative  candidates.  The  State  Gazette  urged  that  a 
Democratic  legislature  was  necessary  to  save  the  state  from 
the  ruinous  effects  of  radicalism,  since  the  rest  of  the  gov- 
ernment was  already  surrendered  to  the  Republicans.2 

The  constitutionalist  Republicans  were  slow  to  get  their 
ticket  formed.  It  was  evident  from  the  first  that  A.  J. 
Hamilton  was  the  general  choice  of  their  party  for  gov- 
ernor, but  his  name  was  not  formally  put  forward  until 
it  became  evident  that  the  constitution  would  not  be  set  aside 
by  Congress.  On  March  18,  he  announced  his  candidacy 
in  a  telegram  from  Washington,  and  on  the  next  day  his 
associates  in  that  city  drafted  a  state  ticket  with  his  name 
at  the  head.  The  state  executive  committee  was  called  to 
meet  in  Austin  on  April  20.  A  few  of  the  conservatives 

1  Weekly  Telegraph,  Feb.  25,  March  4,  n,  18  and  April  I,  1869. 

2  State  Gazette,  April  19,  31,  June  7,  18,  25,  1869. 


269]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  269 

held  out  for  Pease,  but  he  promptly  declared  he  would  not 
be  a  candidate.  Two  questions  now  confronted  this  party. 
Should  they  join  forces  with  the  Democrats  on  a  fusion 
ticket?  and  should  they  call  a  state  convention  for  the 
purpose  of  agreeing  upon  their  ticket?  The  first,  we  have 
seen,  was  decided  in  the  negative;  the  other  was  debated  at 
great  length.  The  Austin  Republican  opposed  a  conven- 
tion, as  did  most  of  the  leaders,  on  the  ground  that  there 
was  not  time;  that  the  people  would  not  respond  because 
there  was  not  a  big  enough  contest  in  sight  to  interest  them ; 
and  that  a  convention  would  be  attended  only  by  aspirants 
for  office.  It  was  not  a  strong  argument,  but  with  the 
strong  combination  of  leaders  back  of  it,  it  was  sufficient  to 
prevent  a  convention.  The  consequence  was  that  some  dis- 
satisfaction arose  and  accusations  were  made  that  the 
"Austin  ring  "  was  manipulating  affairs  in  its  own  inter- 
est; considerable  difficulty  was  experienced  in  getting  a 
ticket  that  all  of  their  own  party  would  agree  upon;  and, 
more  than  either  of  these,  it  deprived  the  conservatives 
of  that  appearance  of  regularity  which  such  an  organization 
would  have  given  them  in  the  struggle  against  their  radical 
brethren  for  recognition  at  Washington. 

At  first,  however,  the  radicals  did  not  seem  dangerous. 
They  had  returned  from  Washington  defeated  in  practically 
every  issue  they  had  raised.  Ab  initio  was  dead,  division 
was  dead,  and  there  was  no  hope  for  disfranchisement. 
Greeley  had  informed  them,  with  respect  to  the  last,  that  it 
was  time  for  the  southern  Republicans  to  cease  "  hanging 
around  the  neck  of  the  North  ",  that  they  must  take  care 
of  themselves,  and  after  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  secured 
the  suffrage  to  the  negroes  it  would  be  "  Root  hog,  or  die!"  * 

1  Quoted  from  New  York  Tribune  by  State  Gazette,  June  9,  1869. 


270  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [270 

In  all  of  Texas  at  this  time  there  was  not  a  single  paper  of 
importance  that  openly  espoused  their  cause.1  To  con- 
tinue the  fight  against  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  was 
already  hopeless,  and  there  was  before  them  a  choice  of  three 
things:  to  go  down  in  defeat  against  the  constitution;  to 
give  up  the  contest  and  disintegrate  as  a  party;  or  to  repu- 
diate their  former  declarations,  accept  the  constitution  and 
either  become  reconciled  to  the  other  faction,  or  go  into  the 
field  against  it  upon  a  similar  platform.  The  first  and 
second  being  out  of  the  question,  a  hint  was  feelingly  thrown 
out  to  the  Hamilton  party  that  reconciliation  could  be  had 
by  placing  some  of  the  radicals  upon  the  ticket.2  The 
former,  however,  were  confident  of  success  and  distrustful 
of  their  opponents  and  refused  to  displace  any  of  their 
candidates.  In  the  meanwhile,  Morgan  Hamilton,  who 
was  no  party  to  the  reconciliation  idea,  issued  a  call  for  a 
radical  Republican  convention  to  meet  at  Galveston  on 
May  10.  It  was  poorly  attended,  only  about  twenty  dele- 
gates with  some  twenty-five  alternates  and  proxies  from  a 
score  of  counties  being  present — and  many  appear  to  have 
been  self-appointed.  None  of  the  radical  leaders  were  pres- 
ent except  Ruby;  and  nothing  was  done  except  to  attack 
General  Reynolds  for  telling  Grant  that  there  were  not 
enough  Union  men  in  Texas,  under  the  operation  of  the 
iron-clad  oath,  to  fill  the  offices,  and  to  refer  certain  resolu- 
tions to  another  convention  which  J.  G.  Tracy,  editor  of 

1  The  San  Antonio  Express  had  recently  passed  under  the  editorial 
control  of  E.  M.  Wheelock,  Superintendent  of  Education,  and  a  close 
friend  of  Pease.  The  Houston  Union  and  Flake's  Bulletin  were  as  yet 
neutral  Republican. 

2E.  M.  Wheelock  to  Governor  Pease,  June  11,  1869,  MS.  in  Exec. 
Corres.  The  Houston  Union,  now  gravitating  to  Davis,  proposed  him 
for  lieutenant-governor.  See  State  Gazette,  May  12.  See  also  letter 
of  Jas.  McKean  to  J.  L.  Haynes  in  Austin  Republican,  June  12,  1869. 


27i]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  27 1 

the  Houston  Union,  had  called  to  meet  in  Houston  on 
June  7.1 

The  outlook  was  not  auspicious,  for  the  abortive  Galves- 
ton  affair  had  weakened  their  position  and  little  could  be 
hoped  of  another  such  attempt.  But  it  seems  that  in  the 
latter  part  of  May  the  radical  leaders  began  to  receive  en- 
couragement from  northern  radicals,  such  as  Boutwell  and 
Sumner,  who  stood  close  to  national  headquarters,  and  who 
were  already  helping  them  to  secure  the  postponement  of 
the  election.  Whatever  the  understanding,  the  Davis  party 
were  made  to  see  that  in  opposing  reconstruction  they  were 
holding  to  an  impossible  position,  and  cutting  themselves 
off  from  Northern  help;  and  they  came  the  more  easily  to 
the  last  alternative — to  effect  an  independent  organization 
on  a  liberal  platform.* 

When,  therefore,  the  Houston  convention  assembled,  con- 
sisting of  about  thirty-five  delegates  and  forty  alternates 
from  seventeen  counties,  their  plans  were  taking  form.  The 
platform  adopted  involved  a  complete  reversal  of  policy  and 
principles.  It  made  no  reference  to  state  division;  it  said 
not  a  word  of  ab  initio  principles.  It  accepted  and  promised 
to  sustain  the  reconstruction  acts  of  Congress,  which  had 
so  often  been  declared  a  failure,  and  the  constitution,  which 
heretofore  had  been  so  impossible,  was  now  declared  "  to 
propose  the  main  object  of  constitutional  government,  viz., 
the  equal  civil  and  political  rights  of  all  persons  under  the 
law.  This  convention  therefore  recommends  the  ratification 
of  the  same."  The  only  issue  raised  against  their  oppo- 
nents, the  conservatives,  was  embodied  in  a  warning  to  "  the 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Galveston  convention  in  Flake's  Daily  Bulletin, 
May  ii  and  12,  1869. 

2  See  Houston   Union,  June   i,   1869;   quoted  in  Austin  Republican, 
June  4,  1869. 


272  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [272 

loyal  people  of  Texas  that  opposition  to  the  organization  of 
the  Republican  party  is  the  result  of  an  insidious  design  of 
the  enemy  purposing  the  practical  surrender  of  the  state 
to  the  disloyal/' 1  There  was,  in  fact,  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  this  platform  and  that  of  the  state  convention 
of  August  12,  1868,  upon  which  the  conservatives  stood. 
E.  J.  Davis  was  nominated  for  governor  and  J.  W.  Flana- 
gan for  lieutenant-governor.  The  ticket,  however,  was 
not  completed,  and  that  task  was  left  in  the  care  of  the 
chairman  of  the  new  state  executive  committee.  To  this 
position  had  been  called  J.  G.  Tracy,  president  of  the  con- 
vention, a  most  thorough-going  spoilsman  and  one  destined 
to  play  a  large  part  in  the  history  of  the  radical  adminis- 
tration. Less  than  a  year  before  he  had  been  the  publisher 
of  the  Houston  Telegraph,  at  that  time  one  of  the  most  vio- 
lent Democratic  sheets  in  the  state;  but  anxious  only  for 
power,  place,  and  profits,  he  was  ready  to  act  with  any 
political  party  that  promised  them.  He  had  been  support- 
ing Hamilton  in  a  neutral  sort  of  way,  and  his  sudden  ad- 
hesion to  Davis,  who  was  desperately  in  need  of  an  organ, 
strengthens  the  presumption  that  some  understanding  had 
been  effected  between  the  latter  and  the  radicals  of  the 
North. 

There  was  one  member  of  the  party,  however,  who  was 
not  prepared  for  so  complete  a  face-about  of  principles,  and 
that  was  no  less  a  person  than  the  dominating,  splenetic, 
but  able  Morgan  Hamilton,  whom  one  of  his  opponents 
called  "  the  spinal-column  of  the  Davis  party."  He  had 
not  attended  the  convention  and  he  now  refused  to  act  on 
its  new  executive  committee.  In  a  long  letter  to  Tracy  he 
reviewed  the  history  of  the  faction  to  which  he  belonged 
and  the  principles  which  had  called  it  into  existence,  and 
then  went  on  to  say: 

1  The  platform  in  full  is  given  in  the  Austin  Republican,  June  14,  1869. 


273]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  273 

The  platform  adopted  is  a  clean  surrender  of  all  the  issues 
which  separated  the  two  sections  of  the  Republican  party. 
It  sinks  out  of  sight  and  out  of  hearing  everything  upon  which 
our  appeal  to  Congress  was  made  and  upon  which  we  can  go 
before  the  country.  ...  I  have  no  stomach  for  further  work  in 
the  cause.  ...  I  have  been  so  generally  characterized  by  "  all 
liberal  minded  men,"  i.  e.  conservatives,  as  impracticable, 
illiberal,  fanatical,  vindictive,  blood-thirsty,  and  by  many  other 
choice  epithets  distinguishing  the  savage,  that  I  can  not  well 
afford  to  have  superadded  those  of  knave  or  fool.1 

3.   The  Canvass — The  Radicals  Endorsed  by  Grant 

All  parties  now  hurried  to  complete  their  legislative  and 
Congressional  tickets,  and  to  this  end  conventions  were  held 
in  various  districts,  though  in  some  the  ticket  was  simply 
agreed  upon  without  a  convention.  The  canvass  grew  more 
spirited.  The  only  issues,  aside  from  the  bitter  personali- 
ties that  characterized  the  time,  have  already  been  indi- 
cated. The  radicals  still  insisted  that  the  conservatives 
had  "  sold  out  to  the  rebels  ",  or  Democrats,  and  that  the 
loyal  people  would  suffer  in  the  sale :  the  conservatives  held 
up  and  derided  the  recent  conversion  of  the  radicals,  de- 
claring their  inconsistency  proved  a  lack  of  political  prin- 
ciple, and  stigmatized  them  as  a  negro-supremacy  and  car- 
pet-bagger party.2  One  other  question  there  was  which 
was  fought  out  elsewhere,  the  date  of  the  election.  The 
Davis  party  had  everything  to  gain  by  delay,  the  Hamilton 
nothing  to  gain.  The  former  continued  to  represent  at 

1  Tracy  for  a  time  refused  to  publish  this  letter,  though  specifically 
requested  to  by  its  author,  and  not  until  Hamilton  threatened  to  send 
out  copies  to  other  papers  did  he  print  it  at  all.     It  is  given  in  full  in 
the  Austin  Republican,  July  6,  1869.    Later  on,  Morgan  Hamilton  went 
back  into  the  fold  of  the  Davis  faction. 

2  On  this,  see  Austin  Republican,  Flake's  Bulletin,  Houston  Union, 
San  Antonio  Express,  passim. 


274  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [274 

Washington  that  political  intolerance  and  assassination  of 
union  men,  i.  e.  radicals,  were  terribly  prevalent  in  Texas 
and  that  as  yet  they  would  not  be  allowed  a  free  vote;  the 
latter  insisted  that  Texas  had  grown  very  peaceful  and  that 
there  was  no  reason  whatever  for  longer  delay.1 

It  must  have  been  about  this  time  that  another,  and,  for 
obvious  reasons,  a  powerful  factor  entered  the  struggle  in 
the  form  of  an  alliance  between  the  Davis  party  and  Gen- 
eral Reynolds,  who  had  been  the  subject  of  their  bitter  at- 
tacks and  complaints  since  the  origin  of  the  ab  initio  con- 
troversy in  the  fall  of  1867.  Whether  Reynolds  had  secret 
ambitious  designs,  when  he  induced  President  Grant,  his 
old  friend  and  West  Point  classmate,  to  send  him  back  to 
Texas,  can  not  be  determined,  but  he  was  not  long  in  ac- 
quiring an  itch  for  political  office.  He  had  always  pro- 
fessed sympathy  with  the  moderate  and  liberal  faction,  and 
now  he  approached  J.  L.  Haynes,  chairman  of  their  exe- 
cutive committee,  intimated  a  desire  to  be  elected  United 
States  senator  from  Texas,  and  suggested  that  his  influ- 
ence with  Grant  would  insure  a  speedy  reconstruction  of 
the  state,  and,  therefore,  the  triumph  of  Hamilton.  Haynes 
was  willing  to  accept  the  arrangement,  but  Reynolds  tried 
to  exact  a  pledge  from  Hamilton  himself,  who  not  only  re- 
fused but  denounced  the  bargain  publicly.  Rebuffed  and 
humiliated,  Reynolds  secretly  allied  with  Davis,  and  ap- 
parently on  the  same  terms,  for  he  was  a  candidate  for  the 
United  States  senate  before  the  legislature  the  next  winter.2 

1  It  is  very  amusing  to  note  the  conservative  Republicans  employing 
identically   the    same   arguments    on   this   point   that   the    Democratic- 
Conservatives,  then  their  opponents,  had  used  three  years  before.     A 
different  ox  was  being  gored  now. 

2  Much  information  on  this  point  was  contributed  by  Mrs.   W.  W. 
Mills,  a  daughter  of  A.  J.  Hamilton.     Hamilton  himself  refers  to  it  in 
his  Memorial  to  Congress  of  February,  1870,  concerning  frauds  in  the 
recent  election. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  275 

Thus  began  a  career  of  duplicity  and  fraud  that  was  to 
cover  with  reproach  a  hitherto  honorable  reputation.  Soon 
afterwards,  it  appears,  he  wrote  Grant  advising  a  post- 
ponement of  the  election  which  Hamilton's  supporters  still 
hoped  would  be  held  in  August  or,  at  latest,  September. 

Both  parties  were  manoeuvering  for  the  support  of  the 
President,  but  the  radicals  were  gradually  getting  the  ad- 
vantage. In  the  first  place  their  organization  had  the  ap- 
pearance of  regularity,  because  they  had  held  the  only  state 
convention  that  called  itself  Republican  since  the  year  be- 
fore, and  they  had  the  sympathy  of  men  like  Butler,  Bout- 
well,  Sumner,  and  Creswell,  and  by  no  means  least  in  influ- 
ence, Reynolds.  They  had  a  number  of  active  agents  in 
Washington  who  were  endeavoring  to  secure  the  official  re- 
cognition of  their  organization,  and  in  this  they  finally 
succeeded.1  On  July  7,  Governor  Wm.  Claflin  of  Massa- 
chusetts, chairman  of  the  national  Republican  executive 
committee,  officially  directed  that  the  Davis  committee  be 
recognized  as  the  regular  one  in  Texas.  This  petition  be- 
ing sustained  by  several  of  the  members  of  his  cabinet, 
Grant,  who  had  hitherto  refused  to  take  sides,  now  an- 
nounced to  the  radical  leaders  that,  it  having  been  decided 
which  was  the  Republican  party  in  Texas,  he  was  "  ready 
to  make  any  changes  necessary  to  the  success  of  recon- 
struction in  that  state."  2  The  conservatives  seem  to  have 
been  fighting  in  the  dark.  Pease,  bearing  a  letter  of  com- 
mendation from  Reynolds,  who  was  not  yet  suspected  of 
duplicity,  went  to  Washington  early  in  July  to  prevent  the 

1  Among  those  agents  were  W.  B.  Moore,  late  of  the  S.  A.  Express, 
Judge  C.  B.  Sabin  and  even  L.  D.  Evans,  a  Democrat. 

2  The   circumstances   attending   this   recognition,    especially  his   own 
part  in   it,   are   told   by  W.    B.    Moore   in   a  printed   circular   written 
May  20,  1871. 


276  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [276 

postponement  of  the  election.  He  could  do  nothing.  On 
July  15,  President  Grant  issued  a  proclamation  fixing  the 
election  for  November  30. l 

Meanwhile  several  things  occurred  to  alarm  the  Hamilton 
party.  The  stand  taken  by  the  President  in  the  contest  in 
Mississippi,  where  he  openly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  radi- 
cals against  his  own  brother-in-law,  was  an  uncomforting 
precedent.2  Then  rumors  flew  about  that  several  of  the 
friends  of  Hamilton  holding  federal  appointments  were  to 
be  displaced  by  Davis  men.  The  first  to  fall  was  W.  W. 
Mills,  collector  of  customs  at  El  Paso  and  Hamilton's  son- 
in-law,  who  was  replaced  by  D.  C.  Marsh,  a  carpet-bagger 
from  Michigan  and  a  supporter  of  Davis.  The  Davis  or- 
gans were  soon  prophesying  the  removal  of  others,  and  in 
September  the  changes  began.  The  post  offices  at  import- 
ant places  were  given  to  prominent  Davis  men ;  revenue  and 
customs  officers,  United  States  marshals  and  other  federal 
appointees  who  were  known  to  be  Hamilton's  supporters, 
were  ousted.3  This  interference  by  Grant's  cabinet  was 
resented  bitterly  by  the  conservative  Republican  press  in 
Texas,  but  was  denounced  as  well  by  such  Northern  papers 
as  the  New  York  Tribune  as  "  little  short  of  idiotic,"  be- 
cause calculated  to  endanger  the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  by  alienating  many  of  the  Hamilton  party.4 
These  removals  were  as  yet  confined  to  federal  offices.  But 

1  Ann.  Cyclop.,  1869,  p.  674. 

2  Garner,  Reconstruction  in  Mississippi,  241. 

8  J.  G.  Tracy  was  made  postmaster  at  (Houston,  Swante  Palm  at 
Austin.  Among  other  changes,  J.  H.  Haynes  was  replaced  as  collec- 
tor of  customs  for  the  Galveston  district  by  Nathan  Patten;  A.  H. 
Longley,  assessor  of  internal  revenue,  by  W.  B.  Moore.  See  Austin 
Republican,  June  15,  Sept.  27,  28,  30,  1869. 

4  Quoted  in  Austin  Republican,  Oct.  8,  1869.  See  also  issues  of  Sept. 
23  and  30. 


277]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  277 

following  the  example  of  the  cabinet,  Reynolds,  when  ill- 
feeling  was  aroused  by  the  news  of  his  alliance  with  Davis, 
soon  began  the  decapitation  of  state  officers. 

The  General's  change  of  heart  seems  to  have  remained 
generally  unsuspected  by  his  late  Hamiltonian  friends  until 
the  telegraphic  despatches  of  September  25  gave  out  part 
of  his  letter,  "  Personal  No.  2,"  of  September  4,  to  the 
President.  Within  two  weeks  the  whole  text  of  that  re- 
markable letter  was  in  their  hands.  It  charged  the  failure 
of  reconciliation  between  the  factions  wholly  upon  the 
Hamilton  party,  which  had  held  aloof  from  any  organiza- 
tion; and  declared  the  only  organized  Republican  party  in 
the  state  was  that  headed  by  E.  J.  Davis ;  and  that  the  rea- 
son for  this  action  of  the  Hamilton  faction  was  to  be  found 
in  Democratic  support  of  Hamilton  for  governor.  Further- 
more, the  radical  wing  acted  out  their  professions  of  ad- 
herence to  the  reconstruction  laws  by  presenting  for  office 
men  qualified  under  those  laws;  while  the  conservatives 
nominated  men  who  could  not  qualify  but  were  acceptable 
to  the  Democrats.1 

The  circumstances  all  considered,  I  am  constrained  to  believe 
that  the  coalition  which  has  been  charged  as  existing  between 
the  Conservative,  or  A.  J.  Hamilton  Republicans,  and  the 
Democrats  (generally  ex-rebels)  does  exist.  .  .  .  The  success 
of  the  A.  J.  Hamilton  faction,  as  it  will  be  produced  by  Demo- 
cratic votes,  will  be  the  defeat  of  Republicanism  in  Texas,  and 
will  put  the  state  in  the  hands  of  the  very  men  who,  during 
the  entire  period  of  the  rebellion,  exerted  every  nerve  to 

1  Reynolds  cited  as  examples,  Stribling  of  San  Antonio,  candidate  for 
Congress,  and  McFarland  of  Austin,  candidate  for  state  senator.  Yet 
Degener,  the  Davis  candidate  against  Stribling,  could  not  take  the  test- 
oath,  and  Whitmore,  Davis  candidate  for  Congress  in  North  Texas, 
was  disqualified  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts.  There  were  quite  as  many 
ex-Confederates,  though  Union  men,  on  the  Davis  ticket  as  on  the  other. 


278  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [278 

destroy  the  Union,  and  who  have  uniformly  opposed  the  re- 
construction laws  with  a  persistency  worthy  of  a  better  cause. 

The  publication  of  this  letter  aroused  a  storm  of  angry 
protest  from  the  Hamilton  party.     As  soon  as  its  substance 
had  been  made  public,  Governor  Pease  addressed  an  indig- 
nant but  courteous  letter  to  Reynolds  tendering  his  resigna- 
tion.    The  General's  opinions,  he  said,  were  not  warrantee 
by  the  course  of  the  two  parties;  his  endorsement  of  Davis 
and  the  efforts  of  the  national  administration  to  assist  in 
the  election  of  that  factious  element  left  no  alternative. 
Pease  now  plunged  into  the  campaign  for  Hamilton.     I 
was  rumored  that  Davis  or  Morgan  Hamilton  would  be 
appointed  to  succeed  him,  but  it  was  not  done.     Indeec 
there  was  now  little  need  for  a  governor,  for  the  military 
commander    had    gradually    absorbed    all    his    importan 
functions. 

Although  they  saw  the  cards  stacked  against  them,  the 
conservatives    redoubled    their    efforts.      Here    and    there 
changes  were  made  in  the  ticket,  several  candidates  resign 
ing  in  order  to  concentrate  upon  one  man.     Stribling,  can- 
didate for  Congress  from  the  4th  or  western  district,  who 
ran  some  risk  of  disqualification,  gave  way  to  J.  L.  Haynes 
against  whom  nothing  damaging  could  be  urged.     Speak 
ers  were  sent  out  to  all  parts  of  the  state.     Nor  were  their 
opponents  idle.     Though  unable  to  command  a  like  array  o 
able  speaking  talent — for  Pease  was  right  in  saying  that 
eight-tenths  of  the  educated  Republicans  were  with  Hamil- 
ton,— the  radicals  could  appeal  with  peculiar  force  to  the 

1The  full  text  of  this  letter  may  be  found  in  Ann.  Cyclop.,  1869,  pp 
674-5;  in  Austin  Republican,  Oct.  8,  1869;  and  in  appendix  to  Hamil 
ton's  Memorial,  of  Feb.  6,  1870. 

2  Austin  Republican,  Oct.  2,  1869.  Executive  Records,  Register  Book 
no.  283,  pp.  427-8. 


279]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  279 

negroes  through  the  Loyal  Union  League  of  which  Ruby 
was  president.  In  July,  this  officer  had  levied  a  special 
tax  of  twenty-five  cents  upon  each  member  of  the  organiza- 
tion for  campaign  purposes.1  It  was  represented  to  them 
that  Hamilton  and  his  friends  had  "  sold  out  to  the  rebels  " 
and  intended  to  disfranchise  the  blacks,  and  as  proof  of  this 
was  cited  the  administration's  endorsement  of  Davis.  It  was 
soon  to  be  seen  that  the  majority  of  the  negroes  were  safe 
for  the  radical  ticket.  As  they  so  overwhelmingly  out- 
numbered the  whites  in  the  Republican  party,  it  was  evident 
that  to  win,  Hamilton  must  secure  a  large  number  of 
Democratic  votes.  So  great  was  the  repugnance  of  the 
average  Democrat  to  radical  rule,  that,  as  has  been  seen, 
most  of  them  were  willing  to  support  him.  However,  many 
wavered  and  some  extremists  there  were  who  would  not 
vote  for  a  Republican  under  any  circumstances.  These 
were  encouraged  by  the  radicals  to  take  an  independent 
stand,  since  such  a  course  would  weaken  Hamilton.  In- 
deed it  is  hard  to  acquit  some  of  these  extreme  Democrats 
of  having  willingly  played  into  the  hands  of  the  radicals. 
On  September  29,  a  small  group  of  Democratic  editors  as- 
sembled at  Brenham  and  nominated  Hamilton  Stuart,  edi- 
tor of  the  Galveston  Civilian,  a  man  of  the  highest  personal 
character,  for  governor,  with  a  full  ticket  of  state  officers. 
The  movement  was  engineered  by  a  group  of  self-styled 
"  careful  thinkers  ",  who  apparently  had  no  hope  whatever 
of  electing  Stuart,  but  expected  to  pull  over  enough  waver- 
ing Democrats  from  Hamilton  to  defeat  him.  In  this  they 
were  planning  not  for  the  present,  but  for  the  future. 
The  election  of  the  prescriptive  radicals,  controlled  by 
carpet-baggers  and  negro  leaders,  would  destroy  the  future 

1  The  order  is  printed  in  Austin  Republican,  August  28,  1869. 


28o  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [28o 

chances  of  the  Republican  party  in  Texas,  while  a  moder- 
ate administration  might  give  it  increased  strength  and 
respectability.  Their  action  did  not  move  many  Democrats 
but  it  placed  another  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  Hamilton 
party.1 

On  October  i,  General  Reynolds  issued  his  order  for 
revising  the  registration  lists  and  for  holding  the  general 
election,  which  was  to  commence  November  30  and  close 
December  3.  The  registration  was  to  begin  November 
1 6  and  run  for  ten  days,  and  the  registrars  were  given  the 
same  powers  they  held  under  former  orders.  The  provis- 
ions relating  to  the  method  of  holding  the  election  will  be 
noted  further  on.2 

No  objection  was  to  be  found  to  the  directions  for  regis- 
tration, but  objection  was  very  speedily  made  to  the  regis- 
trars appointed.  In  most  counties,  especially  in  the  popu- 
lous and  important  ones,  Davis  men  alone  were  selected, 
though  in  a  good  many  instances  military  officers  were 
placed  at  the  head.  It  was  seen  at  once  that  this  was 
giving  the  radicals  an  unfair  advantage.  Before  Reynolds's 
order  was  issued,  Jas.  P.  Newcomb,  again  editor  of  the 
San  Antonio  Express,  had  declared  it  necessary  for  the 
commander  to  appoint  only  radical  Republicans,  and  no 
others,  to  these  places,  in  order  that  "  a  proper  registration  " 
could  be  had;  they  should  be  able  to  reject  applicants,  as 
did  those  appointed  by  General  Griffin,  "  even  when  they 
were  technically  entitled  to  register,  if  they  were  known  to 

1  There  was  thought  at  the  time  to  be  some  significance  in  the  fact 
that  both  E.  J.  Davis  and  J.  G.  Tracy  were  in  Brenham  at  the  time 
Hamilton    Stuart   was    nominated.    Tracy   was    hobnobbing   with    the 
Democratic  editors. 

2  General  Orders,  no.  174,  in  Ann.  Cyclop.,  1869,  pp.  676-7;  and  in 
Austin  Republican,  Oct.  4,  1869. 


2g I  ]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  28l 

be  opposed  to  the  government." l  Since  such  men  as 
Newcomb  insisted  that  all  who  were  not  radicals  were  re- 
bels and  therefore  "  opposed  to  the  government,"  this  could 
mean  but  one  thing;  and  it  was  given  even  a  more  sinister 
aspect  when  Reynolds  afterwards,  in  the  face  of  this  bra- 
zen declaration,  appointed  this  same  Newcomb  the  head  of 
a  radical  board  of  registrars  for  Bexar  County. 

When  the  registration  began  complaints  were  plentiful. 
For  convenience,  the  old  registration  lists  were  accepted 
and  only  new  names  added.  The  most  frequent  complaint 
was  that  all  applicants  who  testified  that  they  had  been  re- 
fused before,  were  rejected  at  once,  no  matter  what  the 
trouble  had  been.  Many  claimed  they  were  refused  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  they  were  Hamilton  men.  In  Bexar 
County,  in  addition  to  the  usual  complaints  of  unfair  rejec- 
tion, it  was  later  shown  that  about  one  hundred  names  were 
struck  off  illegally  after  registration  had  closed.  Undoubt- 
edly many  of  those  who  complained  were  legally  ineligible, 
and  there  would  have  been  dissatisfaction  and  accusations  in 
any  case;  but  the  mere  fact  that  in  a  close,  exciting  cam- 
paign, the  boards  were  in  the  majority  of  cases  drawn 
wholly  from  one  side,  often  composed  of  persons  of  equiv- 
ocal character,  and  given  sole  authority  to  appoint  chal- 
lengers,— in  fact,  that  complete  power  over  the  registration 
of  the  voters  was  given  to  one  of  the  factions,  is  enough  of 
itself  to  justify  grave  suspicion  of  both  actual  and  premedi- 
tated fraud. 

During  the  later  stages  of  the  campaign  Reynolds  began 
a  general  removal  of  Hamilton's  friends  from  the  higher 
state  offices.  In  October  W.  R.  Fayle,  judge  of  the  crim- 
inal court  of  Harris  and  Galveston  counties,  was  removed 

1  The  whole  article  is  quoted  in  Tri-Weekly  State  Gazette,  Sept.  6, 
1869. 


282  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [282 

on  the  ground  that  he  had  caused  a  white  jury  to  be  re- 
turned for  the  trial  of  J.  G.  Tracy,  Davis's  campaign  man- 
ager, indicted  for  homicide, — though  it  had  not  been  cus- 
tomary in  that  district  to  return  mixed  juries.  A  former 
jury  had  been  packed  for  acquittal,  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  Tracy's  friend,  the  prosecuting  attorney,  and  the 
judge's  sole  object  seems  to  have  been  to  get  an  impartial 
jury.  Tracy  went  to  see  Reynolds,  who  issued  the  order 
of  removal  and  appointed  a  new  judge,  Dodge,  a  personal 
and  political  friend  of  Tracy.  It  was  charged  by  Judge 
Fayle  himself  that  the  sole  motive  for  his  removal  was  to 
prevent  harm  to  the  Davis  cause.1  D.  J.  Baldwin  was  sus- 
pended from  the  office  of  district  attorney  for  no  other 
apparent  reason  than  that  he  was  a  friend  of  Hamilton.2 
Joseph  Wadsworth  was  removed  from  a  similar  position  for 
the  same  reason.  C.  Caldwell  was  removed  from  the  su- 
preme court  for  no  other  cause  than  being  one  of  the  ag- 
gressive Hamilton  leaders;  and  his  colleague,  the  venerable 
A.  H.  Latimer,  candidate  for  lieutenant-governor  with 
Hamilton,  was  virtually  thrust  off  and  treated  in  a  most 
insolent  manner.8  To  his  place  was  appointed  Moses  B. 
Walker,  an  ex-colonel  in  the  United  States  Army.4 

1  Flake's  Bulletin,  quoted  in  Austin  Republican,  Nov.  2,  1869;  Ann. 
Cyclop.,  1869,  p.  676. 

2  He  had  been  imprisoned  during  the  war  as  a  Union  man ;  his  suc- 
cessor  was   an    ex-Confederate    officer.      Ann.    Cyclop.,    1869,    p.   676; 
Houston  Union,  Nov.  20,  1869. 

3  He  had  offered  his  resignation,  to  take  effect  Dec.  30 ;   Reynolds 
informed  him  it  would  take  effect  Nov.  30.     Resenting  the  affront,  he 
asked  that  his  resignation  take  place  at  once.    The  court  was  in  session 
and   Reynolds   refused   and   ordered   him   not   to  leave  town.    Austin 
Republican,  Nov.  2,  5,  n,  1869. 

4  Federal  army  officers  were  appointed  to  several  judgeships  and  dis- 
trict-attorneyships.     One  was  made  mayor  of  Brenham. 


283]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  283 

4.   The  Election 

On  Tuesday,  November  30,  the  election  began,  with  the 
country  in  a  state  of  suppressed  excitement.  In  counties 
where  there  was  any  reason  to  apprehend  disturbances, 
Reynolds  had  stationed  detachments  of  soldiers  to  guard 
the  polls.  The  polling  places  were  in  the  county  seats  and 
the  registry  boards  were  the  officers  of  election.  The 
methods  employed  in  the  registration  had  not  increased  the 
confidence  of  the  people  in  a  fair  election,  and  it  was  found 
that  the  provisions  of  Reynolds's  recent  order  were  far 
from  assuring  it.  The  vote  was  by  ballot;  but  it  was  or- 
dered that  no  mark  should  be  placed  upon  the  ballot  by  the 
registrars,  except  to  designate  "  colored "  voters.  The 
customary  precaution  of  numbering  the  ballot  so  as  to  make 
it  correspond  to  the  voter's  number  on  the  registry  list,  in 
order  to  detect  a  fraudulent  change  of  ballot,  was  omitted. 
This  left  the  ballot  box  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  re- 
gistrars. It  was  also  ordered  that  if  any  disturbance  arose 
the  polls  should  be  closed  by  the  board  and  not  re-opened 
until  ordered  by  the  military  commander. 

In  general  the  election  passed  off  more  quietly  than  had 
been  anticipated.  The  returns  came  in  very  slowly,  but  it 
soon  became  evident  that  the  vote  for  Hamilton  would 
prove  to  be  unexpectedly  small.  A  large  proportion  of 
the  whites  had  not  voted,  either  because  they  would  not 
support  any  Republican  candidate,  or  else  because  they 
feared,  as  the  Davis  party  insisted,  that  Hamilton's  election 
would  not  be  acceptable  to  the  administration  and  would 
therefore  defeat  the  reconstruction  of  the  state.  But  little 
more  than  half  of  the  registered  whites  went  to  the  polls  at 
all,  while  a  large  percentage  of  the  negroes  voted.1  Since 

1The  revised  registration  lists  showed:  whites,  78,648;  colored,  56,- 
905 ;  total,  135,553. 


284  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [284 

most  of  these  last  were  controlled  for  Davis  by  means  of  the 
League  the  race  for  governor  was  rendered  very  close. 
Both  sides  claimed  victory,  but  reports  obtained  from  mili- 
tary headquarters  gave  Davis  a  majority  which  rose  and 
fell  until  it  settled  to  about  800. 

In  the  meantime  came  a  deluge  of  accusations  of  fraud 
from  various  parts  of  the  state.  Some  of  these  pertained 
to  registration  and  have  already  been  noticed.  In  Navarro 
County,  claimed  for  Hamilton,  with  a  voting  population  of 
over  one  thousand,  no  election  was  held  at  all,  because  the 
chairman  of  the  board,  a  non-resident,  had  taken  away  the 
list  of  registered  voters  and  never  returned.1  In  Milam, 
also  said  to  be  a  Hamilton  county,  the  election  was  stopped 
on  the  morning  of  the  second  day  on  pretext  of  disturb- 
ance near  the  polls,  and  no  returns  were  made  at  all.  The 
ballot-box  of  Hill  County  was  taken  into  an  adjoining 
county  and  counted  by  one  member  of  the  board  alone,  who 
returned  a  majority  of  149  for  Davis.  Returns  from  El 
Paso  gave  Davis  339  and  Hamilton  122,  though  277  voters 
afterwards  made  affidavit  that  they  had  voted  for  the  latter. 
An  examination  of  the  ballots  by  the  local  district  com- 
mander showed  that  they  had  been  tampered  with,  and  he 
advised  General  Reynolds  that  an  investigation  should  be 
had.2  It  was  charged  and  admitted  that  in  a  number  of 
counties  the  officers  of  election  failed  altogether  to  swear  to 
the  correctness  of  the  returns.  The  conservatives  were 
clamorous  for  Reynolds  to  make  an  investigation  into  these 
fraud  charges  and  to  order  a  special  election  in  Milam  and 
Navarro,  as  he  had  indicated  he  would  do.  If  this  should 
be  done  they  were  confident  of  success.  But  Reynolds  re- 

1  He  was  a  son  of  J.  H.  Lippard,  a  candidate  for  the  state  senate 
from  that  district,  and  it  was  said  that  Navarro  was  not  a  Lippard 
stronghold. 

2  Mills,  Forty  Year  sin  El  Paso;  Austin  Republican,  Dec.  2,  n,  21,  22, 
23,  1869;  Jan.  u,  21,  24,  1870;  Hamilton's  Memorial. 


285]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  285 

fused  to  do  anything.1  The  returns  were  accepted  as  sent 
in;  and  the  question  as  to  Milam  and  Navarro  was  dallied 
with  awhile  and  then  in  some  form  referred  to  the  Presi- 
dent. The  President's  action  may  be  guessed  at  from  the 
fact  that  the  special  election  was  never  ordered.2  A  protest 
of  the  conservative  leaders  was  sent  to  Grant,  but  availed 
nothing. 

On  January  8,  General  Reynolds  issued  the  following: 

Special  Orders,  No.  6,  Austin,  Texas,  Jan.  8,  1870. 

The  following  appointments  to  civil  office  are  hereby  made, 
the  persons  appointed  having  been  elected  to  the  positions 
designated : 

Edmund  J.  Davis  to  be  Governor. 

J.  W.  Flanagan  to  be  Lieutenant  Governor. 

A.  Bledsoe  to  be  Comptroller. 

G.  W.  Honey  to  be  Treasurer. 

Jacob  Keuchler  to  be  Commissioner  of  General  Land  Office. 

The  present  incumbents  will  continue  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  their  respective  offices  until  their  successors  appear  in  per- 
son and  duly  qualify.8 

1  Hamilton  and   his    friends  always  believed  that  he   had  been  de- 
liberately and  fraudulently  counted  out  by  Reynolds.    Just  before  the 
election  one  of  Reynolds's   staff  officers,  Colonel   Hunt,  a  warm  per- 
sonal friend  of  Hamilton,  warned  him  that  there  was  a  move  on  foot 
at  headquarters  to  make  the  election  of  Davis  sure,  "  if  he  had  to  be 
counted  in."    The  course  openly  pursued  by  Reynolds  before,  during 
and  after  the  election,  seemed  to  justify  the  warning  and  established 
the  belief  in  his  guilt. 

2  During  this  time  the  Hamilton  party  seemed  to  be  entirely  in  the 
dark  as  to  Reynolds's  intentions,  while  the  leaders  of  the  other  party 
were  in  frequent  consultation  with  the  General.     For  running  comment 
of  a  partisan,  but  one  on  the  ground  and  generally  reliable,  see  files  of 
Austin  Republican  for  this  time. 

3  The  candidates  on  the  Hamilton  ticket  had  been : 
A.  J.  Hamilton  for  governor. 

A.  H.  Latimer  for  lieutenant  governor. 

A.  T.  Monroe  for  comptroller. 

Jas.  W.  Thomas  for  treasurer. 

Joseph  Spence  for  commissioner  general  land  office. 


286  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [286 

Five  days  later  another  order  was  issued  making  appropria- 
tions for  the  salaries  of  the  state  officials  for  the  year  1870 
as  fixed  by  the  new  constitution.  On  January  n,  General 
Orders  no.  5  again  gave  out  the  results  of  the  election 
without  stating  the  vote  for  any  of  the  candidates.1  In  ad- 
dition to  the  Davis  ticket,  already  named,  the  four  Con- 
gressmen-elect were  declared  to  be  G.  W.  Whitmore,  J.  C. 
Conner,  W.  T.  Clark  and  E.  Degener  from  the  ist,  2nd, 
3rd  and  4th  districts  respectively.2  The  vote  for  the  con- 
stitution was  72,466  to  4,928  against  it.  It  was  learned  at 
headquarters  that  the  official  returns  for  governor  were : 

Davis 39*901 

Hamilton    39,092 

Stuart  (Dem.) 380 

Davis  arrived  at  Austin  about  a  week  after  his  appointment 
and  took  up  his  duties  as  "  provisional  governor."  He 
would  not  become  actual  governor  until  Congress  should 
accept  the  constitution  and  readmit  the  state.  Jas.  P.  New- 
comb  became  his  secretary  of  state.  J.  G.  Tracy  hurried  to 
Austin  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  paper  there  as  the 
administration  organ,  purchased  the  State  Gazette  which 
he  renamed  the  State  Journal,  and  installed  Newcomb  as  its 
editor.3  Hamilton's  friends  called  a  consultation  at  Austin 

1  Copy  in  Exec.  Corres. 

2  Conner  was  a  Democratic  carpet-bagger  who  had  been  stationed  in 
that  district  for  some  two  or  three  years  as  a  captain  in  the  U.   S. 
army.     His  home  was  in   Indiana. 

8  The  record  of  this  pair  of  spoilsmen  and  their  business  associates 
is  worth  noting.  Tracy,  ex-Confederate,  ex-Democrat,  and  radical  of 
eighteen  months'  standing,  was  postmaster  at  Houston,  publisher  and 
editor  of  the  Houston  Union,  enjoying  with  the  5.  A.  Express  the  ex- 
clusive patronage  of  the  U.  S.  Government  in  Texas,  chairman  of  the 
Republican  executive  committee,  and  was  soon  to  be  public  printer. 
His  partner  in  the  Union,  Quick,  with  identical  war  and  political  re- 


287]  THE  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION  OF  1869  28? 

for  February  7,  for  the  purpose  of  devising  measures  for 
bringing  the  election  frauds  to  the  attention  of  Congress, 
but  the  evident  hopelessness  of  such  a  contest  and  the  dis- 
inclination of  many  of  the  party  leaders  to  carry  the  fight 
further  led  to  the  abandonment  of  the  program.1 

cord,  was  postmaster  at  Brownsville.  Newcomb  had  been  thriftier. 
He  was  editor  of  the  S.  A.  Express,  alderman  of  San  Antonio,  notary- 
public,  assistant  assessor  of  internal  revenue,  secretary  of  state,  and 
editor  of  the  State  Journal.  For  business  purposes  the  new  combina- 
tion was  nearly  ideal  and  drew  from  the  Republican  the  remark  that 
"  with  Tracy  to  make  out  the  bills,  and  Newcomb  as  secretary  of  state 
to  approve  them,  these  gentlemen  ought  to  do  a  right  driving  busi- 
ness." Siemering,  part  owner  of  the  Express  and  the  State  Journal, 
had  been  a  lieutenant  in  Duffs  Partisan  Rangers,  that  terror  to  Union 
men  in  west  Texas  during  the  war. 

1  It  was  in  anticipation  of  this  contest  that  Hamilton  prepared  his 
Memorial,  an  excellent  summary,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  con- 
servative Republicans,  of  the  election  and  of  General  Reynolds's  rela- 
tions thereto. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  FINAL  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL  Orders  no.  5,  of  January  n,  had  contained 
the  list  of  legislators-elect,  and  directed  them  to  assemble 
at  Austin  on  February  8,  as  prescribed  by  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress of  April  10,  1869.  By  General  Orders  no.  21,  Febru- 
ary 5,  directions  were  given  for  the  organization  of  the  two 
houses.  A  stringent  oath,  based  upon  but  amplifying  the 
disqualifying  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  was 
prescribed,  and  the  seat  of  any  member  failing  to  take  it  was 
declared  vacant.  Reynolds  explained  that  the  oath  was  re- 
quired by  the  act  of  April  10,  1869,  but  in  fact  it  copied 
the  one  passed  in  December  for  the  second  reconstruction 
of  Georgia,  and  the  commander  had  no  authority  whatever 
for  exacting  it  in  Texas.1  By  the  same  order  a  temporary 
speaker  of  the  house  was  appointed,  and  all  cases  of  con- 
tested seats  were  to  be  referred  to  military  headquarters. 
The  reason  assigned  for  this  close  surveillance  of  the  legis- 
lature was  that  any  organization  of  the  state  government, 
prior  to  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  by  Congress, 
could  only  be  provisional,  and  he  must  be  responsible  for  its 
acts.  The  houses  were  ordered  to  transact  no  business  un- 
til all  members  had  taken  the  required  oath,  but  to  adjourn 
from  day  to  day.  Business  was  delayed  in  this  way  for 
three  days,  but  those  who  hesitated  at  last  came  forward, 
convinced  that  if  not  debarred  by  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 

1  See  Fleming,  Doc.  Hist,  of  Reconstruction,  488-491.    Also  Flake's 
Bulletin,  Feb.  u  and  Austin  Republican,  Feb.  8,  1870. 

288  [288 


289]  THE  FIN^L  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  289 

ment  they  were  not  debarred  by  this.  The  first  appointeee 
of  Reynolds  having  declined,  J.  P.  Butler  was  designated 
speaker.1  On  February  10,  Ira  H.  Evans,  of  Corpus 
Christi,  an  ex-officer  of  the  United  States  Army,  a  towns- 
man and  close  personal  friend  of  Governor  Davis,  was 
elected  permanent  speaker.  On  the  same  day  General  Rey- 
nolds informed  the  two  houses  that  certain  cases  of  con- 
tested seats,  not  arising  under  the  reconstruction  laws, 
should  be  acted  upon  by  the  bodies  concerned.  Of  these, 
one  was  in  the  senate  and  eight  were  in  the  house.  The 
others,  about  ten,  were  reserved  for  the  decision  of  a  mili- 
tary board.  In  each  house  the  radicals  had  a  slight  ma- 
jority over  both  Democrats  and  conservative  Republicans, 
and  therefore  controlled  the  committees  on  elections.1 
These  made  short  work  of  the  contests;  the  radical  con- 
testants were  seated  in  nearly  every  instance.3  Several  of 
those  who  lost  their  seats  were  leading  Hamilton  Republi- 
cans, as  A.  J.  Evans  in  the  senate  and  M.  L.  Armstrong  in 
the  house.  Practically  all  business  pertaining  to  the  execu- 
tive was  transacted  by  the  military  commander,  as  Davis 
consistently  regarded  his  own  powers  as  provisional  gov- 
ernor too  limited  to  justify  any  action  of  his  own,  even  to 
sending  messages  to  the  two  houses. 

1  Butler  was  the  man  who  had  spoken  so  bitterly  and  insultingly  of 
General  Reynolds  in  the  Galveston  convention,  May  10,  1869.     He  was 
a  carpet-bagger. 

2  In  the  Senate,  radicals  16,  conservatives  3,  Democrats   n;  in  the 
House,  radicals  about  46,  conservatives  8,  Democrats  about  36. 

3  One   case   that   seems   particularly   flagrant   was   the   unseating  of 
Nelson  Plato  (Dem.)   of  the  Brownsville  district.     He  was  not  served 
with  notice  of  a  contest  until  the  legislature  convened;  but  was  called 
before  the  committee,  given  no  time  in  which  to  collect  evidence,  and 
immediately   deprived  of  his   seat  by  jamming  through   the  majority 
report  which  threw  out  the  vote  of  Cameron  County. 


290  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [290 

There  were  only  two  matters  in  particular  which  the  legis- 
lature was  required  to  attend  to  at  this  provisional  session : 
to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  elect  United  States 
senators.  The  amendments  were  submitted  on  February 
n,  and  three  days  later  were  overwhelmingly  adopted, 
practically  without  opposition.  The  election  of  the  sena- 
tors was  not  so  easily  disposed  of.  Rumor  had  been  busy 
with  the  names  of  a  number  of  candidates,  of  whom  the 
most  prominent  were  General  J.  J.  Reynolds,  Governor 
Davis,  Morgan  Hamilton,  J.  W.  Flanagan,  L.  D.  Evans, 
and  J.  P.  Butler.  Unexpectedly  to  himself,  perhaps,  vio- 
lent opposition  developed  against  Reynolds.  He  was  bit- 
terly attacked  by  the  press  for  becoming  a  candidate  be- 
fore a  body  he  had  helped  so  much  to  constitute  through 
manipulation  of  the  voting,  whose  election  he  had  declared 
without  making  returns,  whose  organization  he  had  super- 
vised and  whose  contested  seats  he  himself  had  decided.1 
It  was  plain  to  see,  also,  that  some  of  his  late  allies  had  no 
desire  to  elevate  him  at  the  expense  of  themselves,  and  that 
there  was  a  strong  undercurrent  of  feeling  against  him 
at  Washington.  Just  before  the  radicals  went  to  caucus 
for  deciding  upon  their  candidates,  he  withdrew  his  name. 
Davis  had  pledged  himself  to  retain  the  governorship. 
This  left  M.  C.  Hamilton  and  the  lieutenant-governor  the 
most  prominent  candidates  of  the  majority  party.  In  the 
caucus  which  settled  the  choice  there  were  a  few  who  bitterly 
opposed  Hamilton,  because  of  his  letter  on  the  Houston 
convention.  On  February  22,  Hamilton  and  J.  W.  Flana- 
gan were  elected  by  decisive  majorities,  the  former  for  the 
short  term  to  expire  March  4,  1871,  and  also  for  the  suc- 

1  Flake's  Bulletin,  Feb.  11;  Houston  Telegraph,  Feb.  14;  Austin  Re- 
publican, Feb.  8  and  16,  1870. 


291]  THE  FINAL  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  2QI 

ceeding  term  to  1877,  and  *ne  latter  for  the  term  ending 
in  March,  1875.  The  Democrats  gave  their  votes  to  Gen- 
eral Horace  Boughton. 

On  February  24,  after  adopting  resolutions  compliment- 
ary to  General  Reynolds,  the  legislature  adjourned,  to  be 
called  by  Governor  Davis  in  regular  session  after  the  re- 
admission  of  Texas  to  representation  in  Congress.1 

Early  in  March  Benjamin  F.  Butler  reported  a  bill  from 
the  Reconstruction  Committee  for  the  admission  of  the 
Texas  senators  and  representatives  to  Congress.  It  went 
through  with  no  opposition  and  almost  without  debate. 
Certain  conditions,  however,  were  provided:  one,  that  each 
member  of  the  state  legislature  should  within  thirty  days 
take  the  oath  implied  by  the  third  section  of  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  or  vacate  his  seat;  another,  that  the  con- 
stitution of  Texas  should  never  be  so  amended  or  changed 
as  to  deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  of  the  right  to  vote  as  recognized  by  the  constitution 
adopted,  except  as  punishment  for  crime;  a  third,  that  it 
should  never  be  lawful  for  the  said  state  to  deprive  any 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  of  the  right  to  hold  office 
under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  state,  or  upon  any 
such  ground  to  require  of  him  any  other  qualifications  for 
office  than  such  as  were  required  of  all  other  citizens;  and 
finally,  that  the  constitution  of  Texas  should  never  "  be 
so  amended  or  changed  as  to  deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of 
citizens  ...  of  the  school  rights  and  privileges  "  secured 
by  this  constitution.  The  act  was  at  once  approved  by 
President  Grant,  March  30,  1870. 

Immediately  the  senators  and  representatives  from  Texas 

1  One   other   thing   it   was   thoughtful    enough   to   do.    Tracy    was 
elected  state  printer. 


292  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [292 

were  sworn  in.1  As  soon  as  the  news  reached  Texas,  E.  J. 
Davis  dropped  the  qualifying  term  "  provisional "  from 
his  official  title.  The  final  act  of  reconstruction  was  per- 
formed on  April  16,  when  General  Reynolds  issued  a  gen- 
eral order  or  proclamation  remitting  all  civil  authority  in 
the  state  "  to  the  officers  elected  by  the  people." 

Legally,  the  reconstruction  of  Texas  was  now  complete. 
After  nine  years,  tumultuous  with  political  and  social  re- 
volution, she  was  back  again  in  the  Union  with  her  sister 
states, — not  on  terms  of  perfect  equality  it  is  true,2  but 
unmanacled,  at  any  rate,  and  free  to  work  out  the  new 
problems  that  confronted  her.  The  first  of  these  was  to  en- 
dure as  best  she  could  the  rule  of  a  minority,  the  most 
ignorant  and  incapable  of  her  population  under  the  domin- 
ation of  reckless  leaders,  until  time  should  overthrow  it. 
Reconstruction  had  left  the  pyramid  upon  its  apex;  it  must 
be  placed  upon  its  base  again. 

1  There  was  some  controversy  over  the  admission  of  J.  C.  Conner 
(Dem.),   representative   from  the   second   district;   but  there  was  no 
doubt  of  his  majority  in  the  election,  and  he  was  finally  admitted  to 
his  seat. 

2  Dunning,  Essays,  351. 


EPILOGUE 


CHAPTER  XII 
RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW 

i.  Policies  and  Legislation 

PARTLY  through  a  natural  feeling  of  relief  at  the  restora- 
tion of  civil  government,  and  partly  through  the  promises 
of  Davis  in  the  recent  campaign  that  his  policy  would  be 
moderate,  progressive,  and  for  the  enforcement  of  law  and 
order,  the  new  administration  was  at  first  greeted  with 
general  expressions  of  good-will.  Even  the  Austin  Repub- 
lican announced  that  the  friends  of  A.  J.  Hamilton  would 
thenceforth  recognize  and  support  the  organization  of  which 
Governor  Davis  was  the  leader.  However,  the  true  spirit 
of  the  governor's  "  progressive  "  plans  was  not  revealed 
until  after  the  legislature  met  in  called  session  on  April 
26th. 

In  his  message  to  that  body  the  governor  complained 
of  the  continuance  of  lawlessness  in  many  parts  of  the  state 
and  recommended  that  an  act  be  passed  for  the  enrollment 
in  a  militia  of  all  able-bodied  men  between  the  ages  of 
eighteen  and  forty-five,  except  those  who  should  pay  a  tax 
for  the  privilege  of  exemption.  This  militia  was  to  be 
called  out  only  in  the  event  of  a  general  resistance  to  the 
laws.  For  the  apprehension  of  individual  offenders  or  of 
those  acting  in  small  bodies,  he  recommended  a  system  of 
state  police  reaching  into  every  county.  Both  militia  and 
police  should  be  under  the  control  of  the  governor,  whose 
power  should  be  reinforced  by  a  provision  enabling  him  to 
establish  martial  law  in  any  troublesome  district. 

295]  *)5 


296  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [296 

It  was  not  long  before  an  elaborate  militia  bill  was  re- 
ported in  the  lower  house  and  speedily  carried  over  the  in- 
effective resistance  of  the  minority.  It  contained  all  the 
features  called  for  by  the  governor's  message.  All  able- 
bodied  men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  forty-five  were 
divided  into  two  classes:  the  "state  guard",  composed  of 
all  volunteers  enrolled,  armed  and  regularly  drilled  in  each 
county;  and  the  "reserve  militia",  consisting  of  all  those 
not  enrolled  in  the  guard.  The  governor  was  made  com- 
mander-in-chief  and  empowered  to  appoint  and  commission 
all  general,  field,  company,  and  staff  officers,  and  to  control 
the  organization  of  both  branches  of  the  militia.  He  was 
also  given  full  power  to  call  into  active  service  the  military 
force  of  the  state 

in  time  of  war,  rebellion,  insurrection,  invasion,  resistance  to 
civil  process,  breach  of  the  peace,  or  imminent  danger  thereof, 
.  .  .  [and]  .  .  .  whenever  in  his  opinion  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  is  obstructed  within  any  county  or  counties,  by  com- 
binations of  lawless  men  too  strong  for  the  control  of  the  civil 
authorities,  to  declare  such  county  or  counties  under  martial 
law  and  to  suspend  the  laws  therein  until  the  legislature 
shall  convene  and  take  such  action  as  it  may  deem  necessary. 
.  .  .  The  expense  of  maintaining  the  state  guard  or  reserve 
militia,  called  into  active  service  under  this  section,  may,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  in  the  discretion  of  the  governor,  be  assessed 
upon  the  people  of  the  county  or  counties  where  the  laws  are 
suspended.1 

When  the  bill  went  to  the  senate,  the  eleven  Democrats 
and  three  conservative  Republicans,  headed  by  Senators 
Bowers  and  Webster  Flanagan,  gave  the  fifteen  radical  or 
administration  Republicans  a  long,  hard  fight.  Flanagan 
offered  a  substitute  that  differed  from  the  administration 

1  Gammel,  VI,   185-190. 


297]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  297 

measure  chiefly  in  these  points:  the  militia  officers  were  to 
be  elected  by  the  enlisted  men  or  the  lower  officers;  the 
force  was  to  be  called  out  only  by  the  local  civil  authorities, 
the  district  judge,  justice  of  the  peace,  or  sheriff;  and  no 
provision  was  made  for  the  declaration  of  martial  law 
or  for  quartering  troops  or  assessing  expenses  upon  any 
county.  With  a  majority  of  one  vote,  the  radicals  at  length 
defeated  the  substitute,  on  June  2ist;  and  then,  in  violation 
of  an  agreement,  moved  the  previous  question.  Twelve  of 
the  minority  then  withdrew,  ostensibly  for  consultation, 
thereby  breaking  the  quorum.  They  were  immediately  ar- 
rested, but,  with  the  exception  of  four  who  were  neces- 
sary to  a  quorum,  were,  despite  their  protests,  wholly  ex- 
cluded from  their  seats.  The  original  bill  was  passed  within 
a  few  minutes  afterwards.1  A  few  days  later,  Alford,  one 
of  the  senators  released  in  order  to  secure  a  quorum,  was  ex- 
pelled by  the  "  rump  "  on  the  ground  that  he  had  resisted 
arrest. 

Taking  full  advantage  of  this  happy  situation,  the  radical 
senators  kept  their  fellow-members  under  arrest  for  more 
than  three  weeks,  and  during  that  time  disposed  of  a  num- 
ber of  administration  measures  as  fast  as  they  could  be 
rushed  through  the  lower  house.  One  of  these,  carrying 
out  the  recommendation  of  Governor  Davis,  provided  for 
the  organization  of  a  state  police,  to  consist  of  some  two 
hundred  and  fifty  men  headed  by  a  chief  of  police,  but  com- 
pletely under  the  control  of  the  governor.2  This  measure 
attracted  less  public  attention  and  met  with  less  opposition 
than  the  militia  bill,  evidently  because  it  conferred  no  ex- 
traordinary power  upon  the  executive;  but  it  was  to  prove 

1  House  Journal,  pp.  6,  135,  175 ;  Senate  Journal,  63,  98,  122,  209-227, 
247-249,  252,  261. 

2  House  Journal,   104,   210,   312-14;   Senate  Journal,   170,   251,   275, 
278-79;  Gammel,  VI,  193-195. 


298  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [298 

the  more  dangerous  of  the  two.  Another  act,  passed  at  the 
instance  of  the  governor  with  the  laudable  intent  of  dimin- 
ishing homicides,  put  restrictions  upon  the  indiscriminate 
carrying  of  dangerous  weapons. 

The  determination  of  the  radical  majority  to  fasten  the 
hold  of  their  faction  upon  the  state  in  every  way  possible 
was  manifested  in  a  series  of  acts  vesting  extraordinary 
powers  in  the  governor.  He  was  given  complete  control 
over  the  registration  of  voters,  and  he  was  empowered  to 
appoint  to  a  number  of  offices  which  the  constitution  made 
elective.  These  included  not  only  all  vacated  offices,  but 
those  to  which,  for  certain  reasons,  no  elections  had  been 
held.  For  instance,  the  form  of  the  various  judicial  dis- 
tricts had  first  to  be  determined  by  the  legislature ;  but  even 
when  that  had  been  done,  no  election  was  allowed  for  dis- 
trict attorneys  or  clerks,  and  Davis  was  authorized  to  ap- 
point them  instead.  An  even  more  flagrant  violation  of  the 
principle  of  local  self-government  was  the  extension  of 
the  executive's  appointing  power  to  the  governing  bodies 
of  towns.  New  charters  were  granted  to  a  number  of  cities 
and  towns,  and  in  the  case  of  every  one  of  importance  the 
governor  was  allowed  to  appoint  the  mayor  and  board  of 
aldermen  who  were  to  control  the  other  officials.  The  ex- 
planation of  this  remarkable  arrangement  was  that  the  char- 
ters were  drafted  by  local  radical  politicians,  who  feared  that 
under  the  unrestricted  suffrage  then  existing  they  could 
not  carry  a  municipal  election.1  Not  content  with  these 
partisan  measures  the  radicals  also  passed  an  act  postponing 

1  In  Galveston  when  the  citizens  and  newspapers  protested  against 
the  charter  backed  by  Ruby  and  others,  the  State  Journal  had  the 
temerity  and  bad  taste  to  taunt  the  press  and  the  citizens  with  being 
"  at  the  mercy  of  the  governor  ",  and  to  threaten  them  with  punishment 
at  his  hands  in  the  matter  of  appointments  unless  they  ceased  their 
attacks  upon  his  administration. — Issue  of  July  15,  1870. 


299]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  399 

until  1872  the  regular  elections,  which  for  representatives 
in  Congress  should  have  been  held  in  the  fall  of  1870  and 
for  state  offices  in  I87I.1  The  nominal  purpose  of  this 
change  was  to  make  the  state  and  Congressional  elections 
coincide;  but  the  effect  really  desired  was  to  extend  one 
year  longer  the  lease  of  power  of  the  radicals  elected  in 
1869.  The  State  Journal,  the  official  organ,  frankly  avowed 
that  the  purpose  was  to  prevent  the  offices  from  falling  into 
the  hands  of  the  enemies  of  the  administration.2  By  an- 
other act  the  governor  was  authorized  to  designate  in  each 
judicial  district  a  newspaper  that  should  be  the  official 
organ  and  do  the  public  printing  for  that  district.  No 
public  notice  could  be  legally  advertised  except  in  this 
organ.  The  governor  was  thus  enabled  to  reward  "  loyal  " 
papers  and  to  establish  a  chain  of  organs  that  would  "  radi- 
ate civilization  into  the  darkest  corners  of  the  state  ".  A 
number  of  sheets  that  otherwise  must  have  sunk  were  thus 
kept  afloat;  and  in  a  few  cases  Democratic  journals  were 
willing  to  accept  the  patronage  on  the  terms  required. 

However,  not  all  the  important  acts  of  this  session  were 
for  the  building  of  a  party  machine.  The  laws  of  the  late 
provisional  and  military  governments  were  declared  in 
force  until  superseded  by  new  ones,  and  all  state  and  county 
officers  were  authorized  to  act  under  them.  The  gover- 
nor's message  had  given  especial  attention  to  the  frontier, 
and  one  of  the  first  measures  enacted  provided  for  raising 
and  equipping  twenty  companies  of  rangers  for  service 
against  the  Indians;  while  a  later  act  authorized  the  sale 
of  $750,000  of  seven  per  cent,  state  bonds  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  new  force.  An  attempt  was  made  to  or- 
ganize a  general  system  of  public  schools  under  a  state 

1  Gammel,  VI,  302-313. 

2  Issue  of  July  15,  1870. 


300  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [300 

superintendent  of  education,  the  schools  of  each  county  to 
be  managed  by  the  county  police  court ;  but  popular  hostility 
to  the  admission  of  negroes  to  the  public  schools,  coupled 
with  inefficient  management  by  the  courts,  rendered  the 
plan  in  large  measure  a  failure. 

The  subject  of  state  aid  to  railroads  occupied  much  time 
and  attention.  No  less  than  fifty-two  bills  were  introduced 
for  the  incorporation  or  relief  of  as  many  railroad  com- 
panies. The  two  most  prominent  of  these  bills  were  for 
aiding  the  International  and  the  Southern  Pacific,  both 
trunk  lines.  The  latter  had  first  been  chartered  in  1852, 
and  again  in  1856,  and  had  built  into  the  state  some  forty- 
six  miles  before  the  war.  It  was  now  proposed  to  renew  its 
forfeited  land  grants  and  in  addition  to  donate  to  the  com- 
pany $16,000  of  seven  per  cent,  gold-bearing  state  bonds 
for  every  mile  of  road  built.  The  bill  passed  with  little 
opposition  in  either  house,  but  was  vetoed  by  Governor 
Davis  on  the  ground  that  the  new  constitution  forbade  any 
grant  of  land  except  to  actual  settlers,  and  that  the  terms 
of  the  proposed  bond  issue  were  unsatisfactory.  In  his  first 
message  he  had  favored  liberal  charters  to  railroads,  but 
had  opposed  the  old  practice  of  granting  subsidies.  The 
senate  repassed  the  bill,  but  in  the  house  it  failed  of  the 
necessary  two-thirds  by  three  votes.  The  International  bill 
was  more  successful.  It  carried  no  land  grant,  but  donated 
$16,000  of  eight  per  cent,  bonds  for  every  mile  of  road,  and 
attempted  to  protect  these  bonds  by  a  provision  that  the 
bonded  debt  of  the  state  for  internal  improvements  should 
never  exceed  twelve  millions  of  dollars.1  This  was  the 
only  railroad  subsidy  that  received  the  governor's  approval. 
Rumor  had  much  to  say  of  improper  influences  at  work  to 
secure  the  passage  of  these  bills;  but  conclusive  proof  is 

1  Gammel,  VI,  606-612. 


301  ]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  301 

lacking,  and  the  crying  need  for  railroads,  especially  for 
trunk  lines,  affording  outlets  to  the  north  and  east,  would 
partially  account  for  the  strong  support  given  them  by  mem- 
bers of  all  parties. 

2.   The  Growth  of  the  Opposition. 

Long  before  the  legislative  session  closed,  a  widespread 
and  powerful  opposition  had  begun  to  gather  against  the 
radical  policies.  The  conservative  Republicans,  who  at 
first  had  manifested  a  willingness  to  accept  the  result  of  the 
recent  struggle  by  aligning  themselves  with  Davis's  admin- 
istration, found  their  advances  repulsed  or  coldly  accepted 
and  made  the  subject  of  the  irritating  sarcasm  of  the  ad- 
ministration journals.  Though  continuing  their  support 
half-heartedly  for  a  time,  they  were  soon  hinting  at  the 
necessity  for  a  conference  of  the  Hamilton  Republicans.1 
In  the  meantime  the  radicals  were  rapidly  presenting  the 
opposition  with  issues  upon  which  to  organize.  The  militia 
bill  precipitated  a  most  acrimonious  discussion,  that  was 
further  embittered  by  the  arrest  and  temporary  exclusion 
of  the  opposition  minority  in  the  senate.  Not  a  newspaper, 
except  those  dependent  upon  administration  patronage,  fav- 
ored the  bill.  Governor  Davis's  significant  declaration  that 
"  a  slow  civil  war  "  was  going  on  in  Texas ;  the  eagerness 
with  which  the  administration  organs  exploited  every  op- 
portunity to  picture  the  state  as  overwhelmed  with  lawless- 
ness; and  the  submission  to  the  legislature  by  Newcomb, 
secretary  of  state,  of  a  report  to  the  same  effect — were  all 
regarded  as  evidences  of  a  radical  scheme  to  subject  the 
state  to  military  power. 

Although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  state-police  act  did  not 
arouse  much  opposition  at  first,  the  operations  of  the  force 
that  was  immediately  organized  under  it  further  inflamed 

1  Austin  Republican,  June  14  and  28,  1870. 


302  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [302 

the  feeling  against  the  radicals.  It  can  not  be  denied  that 
a  certain  necessity  existed  for  some  measure  of  this  kind; 
for  a  number  of  districts  were  still  infested  by  desperadoes 
against  whom  the  local  officials  seemed  powerless.  Nor 
can  it  be  denied  that  the  new  police,  able  to  concentrate  at 
any  point  and  unaffected  by  local  considerations,  did  much 
valuable  service  in  cleaning  out  infested  regions.  But  they 
did  not  confine  themselves  to  these  legitimate  and  praise- 
worthy services.  Some  of  the  worst  desperadoes  in  the 
state  took  service  in  the  police,  and  under  the  shield  of 
authority  committed  the  most  high-handed  outrages:  bare- 
faced robbery,  arbitrary  assessments  upon  helpless  com- 
munities, unauthorized  arrests,  and  even  the  foulest  murders 
were  proven  against  them.1  Undoubtedly  the  governor  and 
his  adjutant-general,  Davidson,  had  been  grossly  imposed 
upon ;  and  they  willingly  removed  the  worst  offenders  when 
the  evidence  of  their  guilt  became  overwhelming.  That, 
however,  did  not  make  the  police  popular;  for  they  were 
used  so  often  to  enforce  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  governor, 
that  they  became  the  very  emblems  of  despotic  authority. 
Nor  did  the  fact  that  many  of  them  were  negroes  lessen  the 
irritation  and  uneasiness  that  their  presence  always  pro- 
duced. 

The  manner  in  which  the  governor  exercised  the  extra- 
ordinary if  not  wholly  unconstitutional  appointive  powers 
vested  in  him  by  the  legislature  constituted  another  griev- 
ance. Although  many  of  his  appointments,  especially  to 
judicial  offices,  were  excellent,  others  were  of  a  more  than 
doubtful  character,  due  partly  to  a  lack  of  good  material 

1  Especially  notorious  were  Captains  Jack  Helm  and  C.  S.  Bell, 
who  were  in  the  habit  of  arresting  persons  against  whom  they  had  a 
grudge  and  killing  them  for  "  attempting  to  escape."  For  accounts  of 
particularly  atrocious  murders,  see  the  Austin  Daily  Republican,  Nov. 
i  and  18;  also  Oct.  10,  12  and  25;  and  Tri-Weekly  State  Gazette,  Oct. 
12  and  Nov.  25,  1870. 


303]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  303 

within  the  radical  ranks,  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  those 
best  qualified  frequently  refused  to  accept  office  under  a 
radical  administration. 

But  the  heaviest  indictment  against  Davis  was  that  he 
had  built  up  in  the  interest  of  his  faction  an  essentially  one- 
man  power ;  for  he  had  so  shaped  the  laws  and  the  adminis- 
tration, that  his  power  over  the  people  of  Texas  was  as 
truly  military  as  that  wielded  by  the  recent  commanders  of 
the  Fifth  Military  District.  In  actual  fact  the  liberty  and 
life  of  every  citizen  lay  in  the  governor's  hands.  It  is  not 
easy  to  prove  that  Davis  consciously  intended  to  abuse  this 
power;  on  the  contrary  it  would  seem  that  what  others  re- 
garded as  an  abuse  he  considered  a  necessary  extension  of 
authority.  It  must  be  remembered,  in  justice  to  him,  that 
he  viewed  his  administration  not  solely  as  a  return  to  local 
self-government,  but  as  a  continuation  by  the  state  of.  the 
national  process  of  reconstruction.  He  knew  that  his  party 
was  a  minority  of  the  voting  population  of  Texas,  and  he 
had  no  confidence  in  the  disposition  of  the  white  majority 
to  abide  by  the  laws,  especially  those  establishing  the  civil 
and  political  rights  of  the  negroes,  unless  overawed  by  mil- 
itary power. 

By  midsummer  the  two  wings  of  the  Republicans  were 
openly  at  war  again,  and  the  Democrats  were  planning  to 
take  advantage  of  the  growing  hostility  to  the  radical 
regime.  However,  the  rapid  and  spontaneous  development 
of  the  spirit  of  opposition  outran  the  slower  if  more  method- 
ical organization  of  party,  and  was  generally  manifested 
in  mass  meetings  that  bore  no  party  affiliation.  Some  of 
the  more  astute  politicians,  indeed,  were  not  anxious  to 
draw  party  lines  at  this  time  lest  it  should  divide  and 
weaken  the  anti-radical  forces ;  hence  a  movement  was  early 
set  on  foot  to  unite  the  conservatives  and  the  Democrats 
on  a  liberal  platform  under  which  "  dead  issues  ",  such  as 


304  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [304 

negro  suffrage,  should  be  buried.  A  considerable  body  of 
extreme  Democrats,  however,  bitterly  opposed  any  fusion 
and  demanded  a  straightout  Democratic  organization  and 
platform,  with  none  of  the  old  issues  eliminated.1 

On  July  Qth  a  group  of  prominent  men  representing  all 
parties,  including  several  legislators  who  had  been  elected 
on  the  radical  ticket,  met  at  Austin  to  organize  the  opposi- 
tion. A  week  later  they  issued  a  public  address,  reviewing 
and  condemning  in  the  strongest  terms  the  Davis  policies, 
and  presented  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  Texas  a  peti- 
tion to  Congress  for  a  guarantee  of  a  republican  form  of 
government.2 

Whatever  Governor  Davis  had  gained  earlier  by  the  ad- 
hesion of  former  conservatives  and  Democrats,  was  now 
offset  by  defections  in  his  own  party.  He  quarreled  with 
the  comptroller,  Bledsoe,  over  the  manner  of  endorsement 
of  the  new  frontier  bonds,3  with  the  result  that  they  were 
placed  on  the  market  without  the  signature  of  either  the 
comptroller  or  the  treasurer.  Their  validity  was  questioned. 
they  could  not  be  sold,  and  it  became  impossible  to  pay  or 
equip  the  companies  raised  for  the  protection  of  the  fron- 
tier; the  United  States  refused  to  accept  the  services  of  the 
rangers  or  to  furnish  them  supplies  ;  the  Indians  raicjed  un- 
checked, and  the  blame  was  laid  on  the  governor.  United 
States  Senator  Morgan  Hamilton  had  from  the  first  op- 
posed Davis's  frontier  policy  and  had  much  to  do  with  dis- 


most  important  Democratic  journals  advocating  fusion  were 
the  Houston  Telegraph  and  the  Galveston  News;  the  State  Gazette 
led  the  opposition  to  it.  For  an  able  argument  for  fusion,  see  a 
speech  of  W.  M.  Walton  in  Austin  Republican,  Oct.  4,  or  Tri-Weekly 
State  Gazette,  Oct.  12,  1870. 

2  Austin  Republican,  July  14,  26,  27,  28;   Tri-Weekly  State  Gazette, 
July  25,  1870.     Among  those  participating  were  J.  W.  Throckmorton, 
B.  H.  Epperson,  J.  L.  Haynes,  W.  M.  Walton,  and  Webster  Flanagan. 

3  Supra,  p.  299. 


305]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  305 

crediting  the  bonds  in  the  New  York  market;  and  now  the 
administration  journals  attacked  Hamilton  viciously  and 
drove  him  into  the  anti-Davis  camp,  whence  he  retaliated 
with  a  scorching  letter  against  the  printing  law.  His  col- 
league, J.  W.  Flanagan,  who  had  brought  so  much  strength 
to  the  radical  ticket  in  east  Texas  the  year  before,  balked 
at  the  militia  and  police  bills  and  was  soon  numbered  with 
the  anti-administration  forces.1  Nevertheless  the  governor 
persisted  in  his  policy  and  in  his  methods  of  enforcing  it; 
he  continued  the  arbitrary  use  of  the  state  police,  and  dis- 
played an  unnecessary  readiness  to  try  the  experiment  of 
martial  law,  which  only  increased  anger  and  apprehension.2 
In  the  special  elections  ordered  for  the  last  of  November  to 
fill  vacancies  in  the  legislature  it  was  clear  enough  that  a 
reaction  against  radicalism  had  set  in,  for  the  Democrats 
and  conservatives  captured  several  districts  that  had  gone 
for  the  radicals  the  year  before.8 

In  some  districts  the  conservatives  and  Democrats  had 
agreed  upon  a  fusion  policy,  in  others  they  had  not  been 
able  to  agree;4  but  as  it  became  clear  that  the  conservatives 

1  Austin  Republican,  July  14,  16,  18;  Aug.  2,  27,  Sept.  6,  8,  10,  30, 
1870;  State  Journal,  Aug.  4,  1870. 

2  In  commenting  upon  an  order  of  Davis  that  persons  arrested  by 
the    police    for    attempting    to    evade    the    quarantine    regulations    of 
Houston  be  tried  by  court  martial,  the  Austin  Republican  said:    "The 
attempt  to  try  a  citizen  by  martial  law  is  a  naked  usurpation  and  one 
that  no  citizen  of  this  State  will  submit  to.     General  Davis  may  order 
a  dozen  courts  martial,  if  it  may  please  him  to  be  guilty  of  so  much 
folly,  but  he  will  never  try  any  man  in  Texas  by  his  courts.    The  day 
that  E.  J.  Davis  attempts  to  execute  the  findings  of  any  court  martial 
against  any  citizen  of  this  State  will  be  the  blackest  day  in  the  calendar 
of  his  life."— Oct.  11,  1870. 

3  Two   of   these  counties,   Houston  and   Cherokee,   were  threatened 
with   martial    law   because   of    alleged   intimidation   of   voters.     State 
Journal,  Dec.  17,  18,  28,  1870. 

4  At    Seguin    a    fusion    convention,    December    9,    nominated    John 
Hancock  for  congress. — Austin  Republican,  Dec.  24,  1870. 


306  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [306 

were  too  weak  to  stand  alone,  that  they  would  not  go  back 
to  the  support  of  Davis,  and  that  Davis  himself  would  never 
be  able  to  stem  the  current  of  reaction  setting  so  strongly 
against  him,  the  anti-fusion  Democrats  were  able  to  carry 
through  their  plans  for  an  outright  Democratic  organiza- 
tion. On  November  22d  a  call  was  issued  for  a  state  con- 
vention of  the  party  to  be  held  in  Austin  on  January  23, 
1871.  "  This  call  may  result  in  the  inauguration  of  a  popu- 
lar movement  in  which  all  good  citizens  may  join,"  said  the 
conservative  organ,  which  urged  its  friends  to  "  stand  and 
wait  'V 

When  the  convention  met  the  liberal  element  was  in  con- 
trol; and,  though  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  Democracy 
were  reaffirmed,  the  platform  adopted  made  no  mention  of 
"  dead  issues  ",  but  invited  "  all  good  citizens,  whatever 
may  have  been  their  past  political  preferences  ",  to  help 
drive  from  power  the  radicals,  whose  objectionable  and  ex- 
traordinary measures  were  condemned  seriatim.  A  thor- 
ough state  organization  was  planned,  with  general  and 
county  committees;  and  provision  was  made  for  the  estab- 
lishment in  Austin  of  a  central  party  organ,  which  made 
its  appearance  in  July  as  the  Democratic  Statesman.2  The 
conservative  Republicans  generally  appear  to  have  acceded 
to  the  one-sided  alliance;  for  the  Austin  Republican  ac- 
cepted the  platform,  though  without  enthusiasm — "  the 
people  of  Texas  care  nothing  for  party  or  for  party  names/' 
A  week  later  this  organ  of  the  helpless  Jack  Hamilton  fac- 
tion ceased  publication. 

In  the  meantime  the  Twelfth  Legislature  had  met  for 
what  it  was  pleased  to  term  its  first  regular  session.  The 
governor  informed  the  houses  that  the  work  of  reorganiza- 

1  Austin  Republican,  Nov.  28,   1870. 

*  Austin  Republican,  Jan.  26,  1871 ;  Ann.  Cyc.  1871,  pp.  734-735- 


307]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  307 

tion  had  been  largely  performed,  that  the  people  generally 
were  aiding  the  officers  in  re-establishing  order,  and  that 
an  improved  condition  of  affairs  was  manifest.  More  than 
ninety  thousand  citizens  had  been  enrolled  in  the  militia; 
objectionable  persons  had  been  removed  from  the  state 
police,  and  this  force,  though  small,  had  made  978  arrests 
during  the  previous  six  months.1  No  further  radical  legis- 
lation of  a  public  character  was  recommended  and  none 
of  moment  was  enacted  at  this  session.  Notice  was  taken, 
however,  of  Morgan  C.  Hamilton's  quarrel  with  the  admin- 
istration, and  a  resolution  was  passed  declaring  invalid  his 
election  to  the  United  States  Senate  twelve  months  before 
for  the  full  term  beginning  in  1871,  on  the  ground  that  the 
legislature  had  then  been  without  the  proper  authority. 
General  J.  J.  Reynolds,  still  stationed  in  Texas,  was  elected 
to  the  place;  but  Hamilton  contested  the  seat  and  won,  the 
Senate  rejecting  Reynolds.2 

The  worst  measure  of  the  session,  and  perhaps  the  worst 
ever  passed  by  any  Texas  legislature,  was  one  granting  to 
two  parallel  railroads,  the  Southern  Pacific  and  the  Mem- 
phis, El  Paso  and  Pacific,  $6,000,000  of  thirty-year  eight 
per  cent,  state  bonds,  under  the  sole  condition  that  the  roads 
unite  at  a  point  about  halfway  across  the  state.  It  was 
provided  that  these  bonds  might  later  be  exchanged  for 
public  land  at  the  rate  of  twenty-four  sections  for  every 
mile.8  Since  the  roads  were  already  claiming  sixteen  sec- 
tions under  an  old  act  they  ran  a  good  chance  of  getting  a 
total  gift  of  over  twenty-two  millions  of  acres.  The  gov- 
ernor sent  in  an  indignant  veto  message,  exposing  the  char- 
acter of  the  grant  and  showing  that  it  would  entail  an  an- 

1  Senate  Journal,  I2th  Legislature,  1871,  pp.  23-39. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  ist  sess.  42nd  Cong.,  pp.  4,  168,  169. 

8  A  "  section  "  is  six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  a  square  mile. 


308  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

nual  tax  upon  the  people  heavier  than  was  demanded  for 
the  support  of  the  state  government ;  but  his  veto  was  over- 
ridden almost  without  discussion.  In  counting  up  the 
charges  against  Davis's  administration,  not  a  suspicion  can 
rest  against  his  financial  honesty,  of  which  this  veto  message 
is  an  enduring  monument.1  An  effort  was  made  by  some 
of  the  more  scrupulous  radicals  to  repeal  the  act  postponing 
the  general  state  elections  to  1872,  but  in  caucus  the  ma- 
jority decided  in  favor  of  the  postponement,  and  Speaker 
Evans,  who  refused  to  be  bound  thereby,  was  removed  and 
W.  H.  Sinclair  elected  in  his  stead.2 

The  legislature  adjourned  May  3ist  to  meet  again  on 
September  i2th.  Meanwhile,  preparations  were  making  for 
the  Congressional  campaign.  In  each  of  the  four  districts 
radical-Republican  and  Democratic  candidates  were  named 
by  their  respective  conventions,  and  the  excitement  attending 
this  first  battle  under  an  unrestricted  suffrage  was  inten- 
sified by  factional  disturbances  within  the  ranks  of  each 
party.  The  unprecedented  expenses  of  the  state,  the  ab- 
normal tax  rate,  and  the  prospect  of  another  session  of 
legislative  extravagance  could  not  fail  to  prove  effective 
weapons  against  the  radicals;  and  a  group  of  prominent 
citizens  of  both  the  anti-radical  parties  issued  a  call  for  a 
state  taxpayers'  convention  to  be  held  at  Austin  to  protest 
against  exorbitant  public  expenditures.3  The  call  met  with 
a  ready  response.  County  taxpayers'  meetings  were  held 
in  all  parts  of  the  state,  delegates  were  selected  and  a 
widely  representative  body  met  at  the  capital  on  September 
22d.  Ex-Governor  E.  M.  Pease  was  elected  president,  and 
committees  were  appointed  on  general  business,  to  gather 

1  Senate  Journal,  pp.  1217-1222.     For  the  act,  Gammel,  VI,  1623-1628. 

2  House  Journal,  1474-82;  Daily  State  Journal,  May  9,  10,  and  12,  1871. 

3  Democratic  Statesman,  August  12,  1871. 


309]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  309 

tax  statistics,  and  to  confer  with  the  governor.  Davis,  how- 
ever, refused  to  recognize  the  convention  in  any  way  and 
headed  a  counter-demonstration  of  several  hundred  ne- 
groes.1 The  report  of  the  committee  on  statistics  dis- 
closed that  the  rate  for  state  taxes  alone  had  risen  from 
fifteen  cents  in  1860  and  in  1866  to  two  dollars  and  seven- 
teen and  one-half  cents  on  the  one  hundred  dollars  valua- 
tion, exclusive  of  that  levied  to  pay  interest  on  the  bonds 
donated  to  the  International  and  the  Southern  Pacific  rail- 
roads, which  would  equal  about  sixty  cents  additional,  and 
exclusive  also  of  a  two-dollar  poll  tax.2  The  convention 
did  much  to  consolidate  the  opposition  and  to  direct  it  upon 
a  most  vulnerable  point  of  attack. 

As  the  election  drew  near  and  it  became  evident  that  the 
result  would  be  close,  the  excitement  increased.  Governor 
Davis  issued  on  August  9th  an  election  order,  designed  to 
secure  peace  and  decorum  at  the  polls,  but  so  unnecessarily 

1  Democratic  Statesman,  Sept.  23,  and  26,  1871. 

2  The  rate  per  $100  valuation  was  made  up  as  follows : 

General  property  tax,  state   $0.500 

county    0.250 

Roads  and  bridges   0.250 

School-houses  0.125 

Special  school  tax i.ooo 

Frontier-bond  interest  0.050 

Total    $2.175 

The  poll  taxes  were: 

For  schools $1.00 

"    roads  and  bridges   i.oo 

Total   $2.00 

There  were  also  occupation  and  license  taxes.  Because  of  the  ques- 
tionable validity  of  the  one  per  cent,  school  tax  the  committee  advised 
the  people  to  refuse  to  pay  it.  See  reports  in  full  in  Democratic  States- 
man, Oct.  3  and  5,  1871. 


3io  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [3IO 

stringent  as  to  aggravate  still  further  the  feeling  against 
him.1  The  election  took  place  at  the  county  seats,  from 
October  3rd  to  6th.  The  polling  booths  were  surrounded 
by  armed  militiamen  and  state  police,  many  of  them  ne- 
groes, and  the  voters  were  required  to  deploy  in  single  file 
through  a  narrow  plank  lane  under  the  eyes  of  Davis's  offi- 
cials. Nevertheless,  the  Democratic  candidates  for  Congress 
were  all  successful.  In  the  first  district,  W.  S.  Herndon 
defeated  G.  W.  Whitmore,  16,172  votes  to  11,572;  in  the 
second  district,  J.  C.  Conner  defeated  A.  M.  Bryant,  18,285 
to  5,948 ;  in  the  third,  D.  C.  Giddings  beat  Wm.  T.  Clark 
by  23,374  to  20,406;  and  in  the  fourth,  John  Hancock  was 
successful  over  E.  Degener  by  17,010  to  12,636  votes.2 

Notwithstanding  the  precautions  taken,  or  perhaps  be- 
cause of  them,  serious  disturbances  amounting  to  intimida- 
tion occurred  in  several  counties,  and  in  others  the  cry  of 
fraud  was  raised  by  both  sides.  The  board  of  state  can- 
vassers threw  out  the  votes  of  several  counties,  but  changed 
the  result  only  in  the  third  district,  where  Clark  was  de- 
clared elected  over  Giddings.  The  latter  contested  the  seat, 
however,  and  after  a  long  struggle  obtained  it,  despite  the 
efforts  of  Davis,  who  seems  to  have  been  actuated  by  a 
private  grudge  against  him.3  Limestone  and  Freestone 
counties,  where  there  was  the  greatest  disorder,  Davis  de- 
termined to  punish  with  severity ;  they  were  declared  under 
martial  law,  issuance  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was 

1  The  order  is  printed  in  the  Daily  State  Journal,  Aug.  10,  1871 ;  also 
in  Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  II,  pp.  191-192. 

2  Ann.   Cyc.,   1871,  p.   736.     Whitmore,   Clark,  and  Degener,   Repub- 
licans, had  been  elected  in  1869.     Conner,  Democrat,  was  the  only  in- 
cumbent retained. 

8  Cong.  Globe,  2nd  sess.,  42nd  Cong.,  p.  3385.  Giddings  was  seated 
on  May  13,  1872.  For  this  contest  consult  index  to  proceedings  of 
this  session  under  "  Contested  Elections,  Texas." 


3 1 1  ]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  O VERTHRO W  3  x  x 

prohibited,  an  assessment  of  $50,000  was  levied  upon  Lime- 
stone, and  state  troops  were  quartered  there.1  The  legis- 
lature, however,  which  was  again  in  session,  called  upon 
him  for  the  reasons  for  his  action,  and  on  November  6th 
passed  a  resolution  disapproving  it  as  unnecessary  and  un- 
called for,  because  the  courts  were  unobstructed  and  the 
legislature  in  actual  session.2  Ten  days  later  the  governor 
revoked  his  proclamation.  This  was  by  no  means  the  first 
time  Davis  had  made  use  of  the  power  the  militia  law 
granted  him.  Earlier  in  the  year  Walker  and  Hill  counties 
had  been  subjected  to  this  treatment,  because  of  local  dis- 
turbances; and  in  the  former  a  man  was  tried  arv4c°n-  f 
demned  to  the  penitentiary  by  military  commission. 

Disagreements  between  certain  of  the  administration  offi-? 
cials  gave  no  end  of  satisfaction  to  the  Democrats.  Gov- 
ernor Davis  and  Comptroller  Bledsoe  had  been  quarreling 
ever  since  their  induction  into  office,  but  at  last  on  one  point 
they  agreed.  Bledsoe  refused  to  countersign  the  Interna- 
tional Railroad  bonds,  asserting  his  belief  that  their  issu- 
ance was  unconstitutional.  Davis  had  always  opposed  them, 
but  the  treasurer,  G.  W.  Honey,  took  the  opposite  view, 
and  a  lively  quarrel  ensued.  In  May,  1872,  while  Honey 
was  away,  Davis  declared  that  he  had  vacated  the  office 
of  treasurer,  appointed  B.  Graham  to  the  position  and  with 
the  aid  of  the  state  police  took  possession.  Honey  tried  to 
regain  possession,  but  the  governor  prevented  him,  alleging 
that  a  shortage  in  accounts  of  the  office  had  been  dis- 
covered. The  question  was  fought  out  in  the  courts;  the 
missing  money  was  shown  to  have  been  lent  to  a  local 
bank,  but  Graham  was  retained  in  the  treasurership.  In 

1  Proclamation  of  October  pth  in  Daily  State  Journal,  Oct.  u,  1871. 

2  Ann.  Cyc.,  1871,  p.  732.    For  the  evidence  adduced  by  Davis,  see 
House  Journal,  I2th  Legis.,  adjourned  session,  pp.  191-211;  Daily  State 
Journal,  Oct.  13,  1871.    The  evidence  was  strong,  but  wholly  ex  parte. 


3I2  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [3I2 

November,  Adjutant-General  James  Davidson,  head  of  the 
police  force,  absconded  with  about  $30,000  of  the  state's 
funds.  The  opposition  di'd  not  fail  to  charge  the  governor 
with  responsibility  and  complicity  in  the  defalcation,  but 
not  the  slightest  proof  of  personal  dishonesty  on  the  part 
of  Davis  was  found.  It  seems  true,  however,  that  he  arbi- 
trarily and  needlessly  allowed  unbonded  officers  who  were 
in  his  confidence  to  handle  large  sums  belonging  to  the  state, 
and  to  that  extent  made  Davidson's  defalcation  possible. 

Toward  the  middle  of  1872  public  attention  was  cen- 
tered once  more  upon  national  politics.  The  Texas  Repub- 
licans met  in  convention  at  Houston  in  May  to  nominate 
candidates  for  Presidential  electors  and  Congressmen  at 
large,  and  to  select  delegates  to  the  national  convention  of 
their  party.  The  platform  endorsed  President  Grant  and 
instructed  the  delegates  to  support  him  for  renomination ; 
denounced  the  nomination  of  Horace  Greeley  by  the  Lib- 
eral Republicans  at  Cincinnati ;  and  applauded  the  meas- 
ures of  Governor  Davis's  administration,  especially  with 
regard  to  public  free  schools,  internal  improvements,  and 
the  defence  of  the  frontier.  The  Democrats,  who  met  in 
Corsicana  in  June,  re-affirmed  their  platform  of  the  pre- 
vious year,  denounced  the  Republican  administrations  in 
state  and  nation,  expressed  approval  of  the  action  of  the 
Liberal  Republicans,  and  promised  to  support  whatever 
course  the  Baltimore  convention  should  take.  On  state 
matters  they  promised  support  to  the  public  schools  and 
protection  to  the  frontier,  but  condemned  the  granting  of 
money  subsidies  by  the  state  to  private  corporations.1  Some 
of  the  extreme  Democrats  refused  to  follow  the  lead  of 
Greeley  and  accepted  O'Conor  as  their  Presidential  candi- 
date; and  the  split  in  the  organization  was  here  and  there 

1  Ann.  Cyc.,  1872,  p.  765,  ?66. 


-513]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW 

carried  into  the  local  campaign  now  being  hotly  waged  for 
control  of  the  new  legislature.  Another  question,  a  sec- 
tional one,  that  involved  some  political  trading,  was  the 
selection  of  a  state  capital. 

There  should  have  been  no  doubt  of  the  result;  for  the 
Congressional  election  of  the  year  before  had  shown  that 
the  Democrats  had  a  clear  majority  in  the  greater  part  of 
the  state.  Moreover,  a  number  of  radicals  had  become 
dissatisfied  with  Governor  Davis,  whom  they  now  regarded 
as  responsible  for  the  increase  of  Democratic  strength,  and 
as  too  great  a  burden  for  the  Republicans  to  carry.  The 
election  was  held  November  5th  to  8th.  Greeley  received 
a  majority  of  19,020  over  Grant;  all  the  Democratic  nomi- 
nees for  Congress  were  successful;  and  the  Democrats 
secured  a  decided  majority  in  the  legislature. 

3.  Election  of  1873  and  the  End. 

The  end  of  Republican  rule  was  now  in  sight,  provided 
the  Federal  government  should  not  interfere.  With  an  un- 
friendly legislature  the  governor  would  find  his  policies 
greatly  hampered  if  not  wholly  blocked,  and  in  another 
year  his  present  term  would  end.  The  Democrats  indulged 
in  threats  of  impeachment,  but  when  the  Thirteenth  Legis- 
lature met,  January  14,  1873,  tne  idea  nac^  been  abandoned. 
Davis's  message  was  mild  and  conciliatory,  but  the  Demo- 
crats had  a  program  to  carry  out:  they  promptly  repealed 
the  public  printing  law  and  the  state-police  act,  and  so 
amended  the  militia  act  as  to  deprive  the  governor  of  any 
extraordinary  powers  derived  therefrom.1  The  "  enabling 
act  "  under  which  Davis  had  appointed  officers  whom  the 
constitution  made  elective,  the  registration  and  election 

1  Gammel,  VII,  456,  468,  493.  A  new  act  was  passed  to  regulate 
public  printing,  but  it  carefully  avoided  the  bad  features  of  the  former 


314 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 


laws,  and  the  school  law  were  either  repealed  or  shorn  of 
their  objectionable  features.  In  every  case,  except  the  three 
last  named,  the  governor  withheld  his  consent,  and  the  new 
act  passed  over  his  veto  or  became  a  law  by  his  failure  to 
return  it  within  the  constitutional  five  days.  Another  act 
of  importance  provided  that  the  next  general  election  for 
governor  and  all  other  state  and  county  officers  should  be 
held  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  December,  1873  J  an^  to  tms  tne 
governor  assented.  The  rest  of  the  work  of  the  Thirteenth 
Legislature  need  not  be  detailed;  sufficient  it  is  to  say  the 
members  have  been  styled  the  "  liberators  of  Texas." 

Preparations  were  now  making  for  the  final  struggle. 
In  August  the  Republicans  held  their  state  convention  in 
Dallas,  dominated  by  Governor  Davis  ;  they  nominated  him 
for  re-election,  offered  a  liberal  platform,  and  denounced 
the  acts  of  the  recent  legislature.  The  Democrats  held  a 
large  and  enthusiastic  convention  in  Austin  early  the  next 
month  and  nominated  Judge  Richard  Coke  and  R.  B.  Hub- 
bard  for  governor  and  lieutenant-governor.  The  lengthy 
platform  expressed  confidence  in  the  outcome  of  the  elec- 
tions ;  congratulated  the  people  upon  the  repeal  of  the  "  op- 
pressive, odious  and  unconstitutional  acts  "  of  the  radical 
Republicans;  promised  that  the  government  should  be  ad- 
ministered in  no  retaliatory  spirit,  but  in  the  interest  of 
every  citizen  regardless  of  color,  station,  or  politics;  of- 
fered encouragement  to  immigration  and  to  railroads,  and 
protection  to  the  frontier;  and  advocated  the  calling  of  a 
constitutional  convention.1 

As  the  time  of  election  approached  the  greatest  excite- 
ment prevailed.  As  in  1869,  the  chief  reliance  of  Davis 
was  upon  the  negro  vote,  and  the  old  organization  of  the 
Loyal  League,  which  had  been  zealously  kept  up  during  all 

1  Ann.   Cyc.,    1873,  pp.   737-739.    The  constitutional   convention  was 
held  in  1876  and  adopted  the  constitution  now  (1910)  in  force. 


315]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW 

this  time,  was  made  the  most  of.  To  everyone,  however, 
except  Davis  himself,  the  result  was  never  in  doubt.  Stub- 
bornly refusing  to  believe  himself  beaten,  he  carried  the 
fight  into  those  eastern  counties  where  the  heavy  black  popu- 
lation had  made  radicalism  most  hated  and  himself  de- 
nounced and  threatened  as  the  chief  exponent  of  negro 
domination.  But  his  personal  courage  did  not  avail  him. 
The  whites  were  determined  that  E.  J.  Davis  should  never 
again  rule  over  Texas,  that  radical-carpetbag-negro  domi- 
nation was  to  be  ended.  It  was  in  a  sense  a  revolution. 
There  is  no  shadow  of  a  doubt  of  fraud  and  intimidation  at 
this  election.  "  Davis  negroes  "  were  in  many  communities 
ordered  to  keep  away  from  the  polling  places,  while  white 
men  under  age  were  voted.  On  the  other  hand  negro 
Democrats  were  threatened  by  Loyal  Leaguers.1  The  total 
vote  was  surprisingly  large;  85,549  votes  were  cast  for 
Coke  and  42,663  for  Davis.  All  the  new  state  officials  were 
Democrats,  as  were  the  great  majority  of  the  legislators  and 
the  county  officers. 

But  the  radicals  were  not  done.  Even  after  making  lib- 
eral allowance  for  irregularities  at  the  polls,  there  was  no 
question  that  the  verdict  of  the  people  was  against  them; 
but  that  alone  would  not  have  mattered,  for  theirs  had 
always  been  a  minority  rule.  It  was  now  determined  to 
have  the  courts  set  aside  the  election,  and  then,  if  necessary, 
to  appeal  to  Grant  for  assistance.  A  test  case  was  provided 
in  a  habeas  corpus  proceeding  before  the  state  supreme 
court  to  release  from  the  custody  of  the  sheriff  one  Joseph 
Rodriguez,  a  Mexican,  charged  with  voting  more  than  once 
in  the  election.  The  constitution  provided  that  "  all  elec- 
tions .  .  .  shall  be  held  at  the  county  seats  of  the  several 

1  These  statements  have  often  been  made  by  Democrats  who  knew 
of  the  circumstances. 


3i6  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS  [3x6 

counties  until  otherwise  provided  by  law;  and  the  polls 
shall  be  open  for  four  days  .  .  ."  1  It  was  well  known  that 
the  four-day  period  was  intended  to  apply  only  so  long  as 
the  elections  should  be  held  at  the  county  seats;  and  when 
the  last  legislature  provided  for  holding  them  in  the  various 
precincts,  only  one  day  was  allowed.  But  the  radicals  now 
made  the  point  that  the  two  clauses  above  quoted,  because 
of  the  semicolon  that  separated  them,  were  wholly  distinct 
provisions,  and  that  the  recent  election  had  been  an  illegal 
one  because  not  held  for  four  days.  The  court  sustained 
this  view,  Rodriguez  was  released,  and  the  election  was  de- 
clared void.2  Moreover,  Davis  announced  that  he  would 
not  give  up  his  office  until  April  28,  1874,  four  years  from 
the  date  of  his  inauguration,  or  until  a  successor  should  be 
legally  elected  and  installed,  and  by  proclamation  ordered 
the  recently-elected  officers  and  legislators  not  to  attempt 
to  exercise  their  functions.3 

The  Democrats  had  no  thought  of  yielding  to  the  court 
or  the  governor.  At  the  proper  time  the  newly-elected  state 
officers  and  legislators  arrived  in  Austin,  and  on  January 
1 2th,  the  night  before  the  legislature  was  to  convene,  a 
conference  of  the  Democratic  leaders  was  held.  It  had  been 
discovered  that  Davis  had  planned  armed  resistance  and 
that  a  body  of  negro  militia  was  at  hand  to  prevent  the 
Democrats  from  taking  possession  of  the  capitol.  Late 
that  night  the  Democrats  took  possession  of  the  upper 
stories  of  the  building;  the  negro  militia  held  the  lower.  In 
the  meantime  Davis  had  telegraphed  Grant  for  military  as- 

1  Art.  3,  sec.  6.     See  Gammel,  VII,  p.  399- 

2  Ex  parte  Rodriguez,   39  Texas  Reports,   pp.   709.    This  is  known 
among  lawyers  as  the  "  semi-colon  decision  " ;  and  so  odious  has  it  been 
that  no  lawyer  likes  to  cite  any  opinion  delivered  by  this  court.     See 
Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  II,  201. 

3  Ann.  Cyc.,  1873,  pp.  739-74O. 


317]  RADICAL  RULE  AND  ITS  OVERTHROW  317 

sistance,  but  the  President  wisely  refused.  Next  morning 
the  two  houses  convened  and  sent  a  joint  committee  to 
Davis,  who  declined  to  recognize  the  legislature.  The  sec- 
retary of  state,  Newcomb,  refused  to  give  up  the  election 
returns,  until  Davis  so  far  yielded  as  to  allow  them  to  be 
taken  under  protest.  This  was  done  on  the  1 5th.  The  votes 
were  counted  and  Coke  and  Hubbard  duly  inaugurated. 
Davis  still  held  out;  he  ordered  another  company  of  militia 
to  his  aid,  the  Travis  Rifles,  but  it  obeyed  the  command  of 
the  new  Democratic  adjutant-general,  McCulloch,  instead; 
and  he  appealed  once  more  to  the  Federal  government  and 
was  again  refused.  During  all  this  time  Austin  was  full  of 
greatly-excited  armed  citizens,  who  were  with  difficulty 
restrained  from  attacking  the  negro  militia.  Finding  it 
useless  to  resist  further,  Davis  gave  in  on  the  I7th  and  re- 
tired. Coke  took  possession,  and  the  radical  regime  was  at 
an  end.1  Thus,  nine  years  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War 
and  nearly  four  years  after  Texas  had  been  readmitted  to 
the  Union,  the  state  was  once  more  really  in  the  hands  of 
her  own  people. 

The  administration  of  Davis  was  responsible  for  more  of 
the  bitterness  with  which  the  people  of  Texas  have  remem- 
bered the  reconstruction  era  than  all  that  happened  from 
the  close  of  the  war  to  1870.  In  fact  the  word  reconstruc- 
tion recalls  to  most  people  first  of  all  the  arbitrary  rule  of 
this  radical  governor;  and  certainly  the  name  of  no  Texan 
has  gone  down  to  posterity  so  hated  as  his.  But  after  all, 
Davis  has  not  been  fairly  judged.  He  was  self-willed,  ob- 
stinate, pig-headed  almost  beyond  belief;  a  most  intense 
and  narrow  partisan,  who  could  see  nothing  good  in  an 

1  The  account  here  given  is  taken  -from  that  of  O.  M.  Roberts  in  the 
Comprehensive  History  of  Texas,  II,  pp.  201-207,  and  Ann.  Cyc.,  1873, 
PP-  739-741-  A  slightly  different  account  is  that  of  T.  B.  Wheeler  in 
the  Quarterly  of  the  Texas  State  Hist.  Ass'n.,  XI,  pp.  56-63. 


318  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TEXAS 

opponent  and  nothing  evil  in  a  friend.  Surrounded  by  a 
group  of  the  most  unprincipled  adventurers  that  ever  dis- 
graced a  government,  he  suffered  from  their  advice  and 
their  acts.  Yet  his  administration  was  his  own  and  he 
guided  it  with  the  iron  hand  of  a  martinet;  he  had  no 
regard  for  the  popular  will,  he  consulted  no  desires  but  his 
own,  and  he  was  absolutely  devoid  of  tact.  But,  apparently 
without  scruples  in  matters  purely  political,  Davis  was  per- 
sonally honest.  He  never  descended  to  the  vulgar  level  of 
greed  and  dishonesty  so  common  to  his  satellites ;  it  can  not 
be  shown  that  he  ever  diverted  one  cent  of  public  money  to 
his  own  pocket.  More  than  that,  he  strove  to  give  the  state 
an  honest  financial  administration  and  to  save  it  from  spolia- 
tion and  bankruptcy ;  and  of  this  his  vetoes  of  railroad  sub- 
sidies is  proof  enough.  It  is  true  he  caused  the  expenditure 
of  great  sums  in  other  directions,  and  there  was  much  scan- 
dal in  the  handling  of  the  funds,  but  in  this  last  Davis  was 
not  personally  implicated.  And  it  may  be  said  of  his 
policies  with  regard  to  police,  internal  improvements,  and 
the  schools,  that  it  was  not  so  much  the  end  he  had  in  view 
as  the  methods  he  employed  that  aroused  resistance  and 
hatred.  In  many  respects  he  was  the  best  of  the  faction 
that  nominated  him  for  governor  in  1869;  but  no  man  could 
have  been  worse  fitted  by  temperament  for  the  delicate 
task  before  the  local  Republicans  at  that  time.  When  cir- 
cumstances demanded  the  most  painstaking  moderation  in 
order  to  overcome  the  effect  of  the  Congressional  policy, 
E.  J.  Davis  and  his  radical  associates  succeeded  only  in 
plunging  the  Republican  party  in  Texas  into  irretrievable 
ruin. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


i.  MANUSCRIPT  SOURCES. 

Executive  Correspondence. — Letters  to  the  governors,  filed  in  the 
office  of  the  secretary  of  state,  Austin.  Voluminous;  the  best  source 
for  general  conditions. 

Reconstruction  Correspondence  of  Generals  Griffin  and  Reynolds. 
Filed  with  the  above,  but  in  separate '  boxes ;  contains  letters,  copies 
of  orders  and  other  official  documents  not  accessible  elsewhere.  Many 
are  concerned  with  the  Freedmen's  Bureau. 

Executive  Records. — Register  books,  containing  governors'  proclama- 
tions, copies  of  important  letters,  and  reports  from  other  heads  of 
administration;  and  the  letter-books  of  the  secretary  of  state. 

No  records  of  this  period  remain  in  the  offices  of  the  attorney- 
general,  treasurer,  and  comptroller,  all  having  been  consumed  in  the 
great  fire  of  1881  which  destroyed  the  old  capitol  building. 

Johnson  Papers,  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  Contain  a  great  many 
valuable  letters  to  President  Johnson  on  affairs  in  Texas,  from 
both  sides. 

Roberts  Papers,  in  the  History  vault,  University  of  Texas.  Letters 
to  O.  M.  Roberts;  also  fragments  of  an  autobiography,  pamphlets  and 
a  few  newspapers. 

2.  PRINTED  SOURCES. 

Newspapers. — The  Texas  State  Library  and  the  Swante  Palm  collec- 
tion at  the  University  of  Texas  contain  the  most  extensive  files.  Few 
however,  are  complete.  These  may  be  supplemented  by  files  in  the 
Carnegie  libraries  at  Houston  and  San  Antonio  and  in  the  offices  of 
the  Galveston  News  and  the  San  Antonio  Express.  The  newspapers 
that  have  been  most  useful  are:  the  Southern  Intelligencer  (R)  l,  the 
State  Gazette  (D),  Flake's  Bulletin  (R),  Galveston  News  (D),  Gal- 
veston Civilian  (D),  Houston  Telegraph  (D),  San  Antonio  Herald 
(D),  San  Antonio  Express  (R),  Texas  Republican  (D),  Austin  Repub- 
lican (:R),  Houston  Union  (R),  Houston  Times  (D),  State  Journal 
(R),  Democratic  Statesman  (D).  Nearly  all  of  these  are  fairly  com- 
plete. Fragmentary  files  of  others  are  also  to  be  found. 

The  Townsend  Library,  a  vast  collection  of  clippings  from  the 
principal  New  York  papers,  in  the  Columbia  University  Library,  covers 

1  R  means  Radical  or  Republican ;  D  means  Conservative  or  Democrat. 
319]  319 


320  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [32O 

the  civil  war  and  reconstruction  and  contains  many  references,  not 
always  accurate,  to  affairs  in  Texas. 

Pamphlets. — Throckmorton's  Address  to  the  People  of  Texas,  re- 
viewing and  defending  his  administration,  is  in  the  State  Library;  the 
constitution  proposed  for  "  West  Texas,"  and  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Tax  Payers'  Convention  are  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Texas ; 
A.  J.  Hamilton's  Memorial  was  lent  by  Mrs.  W.  W.  Mills  of  Austin. 

Public  Documents. — Gammel,  Laws  of  Texas,  vols.  v,  vi,  and  vii; 
contains  all  the  legislative  acts  and  resolutions,  and  the  constitutions 
of  1866  and  1869.  The  Convention  Journals  of  1866  and  1868-69  con- 
tain full  accounts  of  the  proceedings,  except  the  debates.  The  House 
and  Senate  Journals  of  the  nth,  I2th  and  I3th  Legislatures.  The 
Official  Records,  War  of  the  Rebellion,  give  by  far  the  fullest  in- 
formation concerning  the  war  and  are  valuable  for  the  "break-up" 
also.  The  various  Congressional  publications  are  indispensable;  the 
Congressional  Globe,  the  House  and  Senate  Executive  Documents,  Com- 
mittee Reports,  etc.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presi- 
dents, VI.  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  XIII  and  XIV.  Fleming, 
Documentary  History  of  Reconstruction,  vol.  i.  Texas  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  vols.  30-39. 

Books  and  Periodicals. — There  is  no  satisfactory  general  account  of 
Texas  during  this  period.  The  best  is  by  O.  M.  Roberts  in  the  Com- 
prehensive History  of  Texas,  vol.  ii,  a  collaborative  work  edited  by 
Dudley  G.  Wooten.  A  few  pages  each  are  given  in  the  histories  of  the 
state  by  John  Henry  Brown,  Thrall,  and  Geo.  P.  Garrison.  Scanty  refer- 
ences are  in  John  H.  Reagan's  Memoirs,  and  F.  R.  Lubbock's  Six  Decades 
in  Texas.  iR.  H.  Williams,  With  the  Border  Ruffians,  an  unreliable 
account  of  conditions  about  San  Antonio  and  on  the  Rio  Grande 
during  the  war,  barely  reaches  this  period.  W.  W.  Mills,  Forty  Years 
in  El  Paso,  has  a  few  helpful  sketches.  A  Pioneer  History  of  Wise 
County,  by  C.  D.  Gates,  contains  some  material  of  local  interest  and 
value.  E.  L.  Dohoney's  An  Average  American  reflects  conditions  in  East 
iexas.  Of  value  for  railroad  problems  and  legislation  is  C.  S.  Potts, 
Railroad  Transportation  in  Texas  (University  of  Texas  Bulletin,  no. 
119,  1909).  Professor  Dunningfs  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Recon- 
struction contains  valuable  chapters  on  the  process  of  reconstruction  in 
the  south,  with  several  references  to  Texas.  The  Texas  Almanac,  1857- 
1873,  is  full  of  valuable  statistics.  Applet  on' s  Annual  Cyclopaedia  for 
these  years  frequently  gives  concise  information  and  documents  not 
easily  accessible  elsewhere.  In  the  Quarterly  of  the  Texas  State 
Historical  Association  have  been  published  three  helpful  articles  :  "  The 
Ku  Klux  Klan,"  by  W.  D.  Wood,  vol.  ix,  pp.  262-268;  "Reminiscences 
of  Reconstruction  in  Texas,"  by  T.  B.  Wheeler,  vol.  xi,  pp.  56-65 ;  and 
"The  Experiences  of  an  Unrecognized  Senator,"  by  O.  M.  Roberts, 
posthumously  published,  vol.  xii,  pp.  87-147. 


INDEX 


Ab  initio,  doctrines  of,  95-98,  176- 
180,  206-211,  264. 

Alexander,  Wm.,  attorney-general, 
under  A.  J.  Hamilton,  59;  under 
E.  M.  Pease,  173;  resigns,  178. 

Amendments  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth,  rejected,  118-120; 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth,  adopted, 
290. 

Amnesty,  oath  of,  58. 

Andrews,  Gen.  C.  C.,  district  com- 
mander, 78. 

Apprenticeship  law,  122-123. 

Armstrong,  James,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1868,  200. 

Armstrong,  M.  L.,  258,  289. 

B 

Bacon,  W.  P.,  161. 

Ballinger,  W.  P.,  peace  commis- 
sioner, 37. 

Bell,  Judge  James  H.,  secretary  of 
state,  59,  264,  265. 

Bennett,  A.  J.,  259. 

Bledsoe,  A.,  comptroller,  285,  304, 
311. 

Bowers,  state  senator,  296. 

Branch,  A.  M.,  representative  to 
Congress,  117. 

Brenham,  burning  of,  127. 

Burford,  Nat.  M.,  speaker  eleventh 
legislature,  115. 

Burnet,  David  G.,  elected  toU.  S. 
Senate  in  1866,  115. 

Burnett,  J.  R.,  245,  263. 

Butler,  J.  P.,  289-90. 


Cave,  E.  W.,  secretary  of  state,  20. 

Caldwell,  Judge  C.,  150,  174,  189; 
delegate  to  convention  of  1868, 
200,  206,  214,  217,  240,  242. 

Chilton,  Geo.  W.,  elected  to  Con- 
gress, 117. 

Civil  authorities,  relations  with 
321] 


military,  under  Hamilton,  77  ff.; 
under  Throckmorton,  126-138, 
149  ff . ;  under  Pease,  183-187. 

Clark,  W.  T.,  elected  to  Congress, 
286. 

Coke,  Richard,  Judge,  61;  nom- 
nated  governor,  314;  takes  seat, 
317. 

Committee  of  public  safety,  17. 

Conditions  in  Texas  during  war, 
21  ff. 

Confederacy,  admission  of  Texas  to, 
21 ;  break-up  of,  27  ff.;  property 
confiscated,  41 ;  status  of  acts  de 
facto  of,  103-105. 

Congress,  representatives  to,  in 
1866,  117-118. 

Conner,  J.  C.,  286. 

"  Conscript  Law,"  21. 

Conservatives  (Democratic),  in 
election  of  1866,  108  ff.;  in 
eleventh  legislature,  114  ff.;  167, 
173,  188,  194,  197-199;  (Repub- 
lican) appeal  to  Congress,  261  ff.; 
opposition  to  Radicals,  301  ff.; 
fusion  with  Democrats,  305. 

Constitutional  convention  of  1866, 
85  ff.;  work  of,  89  ff.;  of  1868, 
200  ff . 

Constitution  of  1866,  validity  of, 
176-180;  of  1868,  reports  of  com- 
mittees on,  225-228,  work  on, 
251-257;  printing  of,  255,260. 

Cotton,  trade  during  war,  24;  con- 
fusion about,  41-44. 

Courts  under  provisional  govern- 
ment, 59-61. 

D 

Dalrymple,  W.  C.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1866,  86. 

Davis,  Col.  E.  J.,  expedition 
against  Laredo,  26 ;  delegate  to 
convention  of  1866,  89,  93  ;  dele- 
gate to  convention  of  1868,  200; 
president  of,  201  ff.;  249,  258-9, 
263,  272;  campaign  for  governor- 
ship, 273  ff.;  governor,  285  ff. 

321 


322 


INDEX 


Debt,  public,  in  1866,  102. 

Degener,  E.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1866,  87,  of  1868,  200, 206; 
286. 

Division  of  state,  106,  212-216,  243- 
250,  263,  264,  265. 


Economic  conditions  during  war, 
28. 

Ector,  Judge  M.  D.,  174. 

Education,  255,  299. 

Elections:  of  1866,  io8ff.;  registra- 
tion for  election  of  1868,  161, 
165,  193-197;  presidential,  235  ff.; 
of  1869,  280,  283  ff.;  of  1873,  313. 

Emancipation  proclamation  in 
Texas,  40. 

Epperson,  B.  H.,  in  election  of 
1866,  108,  111-112;  candidate  for 
U.  S.  Senate,  115;  representa- 
tive to  Congress,  117. 

Evans,  A.  J.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1868,  200,  206,  207;  289. 

Evans,  IraH.,  289,  308. 

Evans,  Lemuel  Dale,  delegate  to 
convention  of  1868,  200,  213,  254, 
290. 

!**£•;>'    -  T71  .-<«•»..  . 

Flanagan,  J.  W.,  delegate  to'coiT- 
vention  of  1866,  89;  convention 
of  1868,  200,  204,  207;  249,  263; 
nominated  lieutenant  governor, 
272,  elected,  285;  elected  U.  S. 
Senator,  290;  305.  $£'f  •. . '.. 

Flanagan,  Webster,  204,  207,  296, 
304. 

Frazier,  C.  A.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1866,  89,  95. 

Freedmen,  status  of,  44 ff.;  suffrage, 
86-88,  101,  119-120;  labor,  70  ff.; 

121. 

Freedmen's  Bureau,  70  ff.;  organ- 
ization, 72;  courts,  76-77,  80, 
100,  120;  work,  75-77,  121-123, 
126,  129-130,  132,  138  ff.;  173. 

Frontier,  83-84,  126,  137,  299,  304. 


"General   Orders,    no.    40,"   181, 

l85,  222. 

Giddings,  D.  C.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1866,  89;  elected  to 
Congress,  310. 


[322 

Graham,  B.,  treasurer,  311. 

Granger,  Gen.  Gordon,  in  com- 
mand at  Galveston,  40. 

Grant,  Pres.,  effect  of  election  of, 
239;  indorses  radicals,  275. 

Greeley,  Horace,  269,  312. 

Gregory,  Gen.  E.  M.  organizes 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  72-77 ;  re- 
port of  Bureau  affairs,  134. 

Griffin,  Gen.,  129,  133;  succeeds 
Gen.  Kiddoo,  140;  contest  with 
Throckmorton,  145-161;  death, 
174. 

H 

Hamilton,  A.  J.,  elected  to  Con- 
gress, 13  ;  opposes  secession,  20; 
provisional  governor,  55  ff . ;  mes- 
sage to  convention  of  1866,  91- 
93;  in  election  of  1866,  in;  118, 
171;  opposes  ab  initio,  179,  267; 
delegate  to  convention  of  1868, 
200  ff.;  delegate  to  Washington, 
261  ff . ;  campaign  for  governor- 
ship, 268-282. 

Hamilton,  M.  C.,  177  ;  delegate  to 
convention  of  1868,  200  ff.;  261, 
270,  290;  senator,  290,  304. 

Hancock,  John,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1866,  89,  96,  100;  can- 
didate for  senate  in  1866,  115; 
elected  to  Congress,  310. 

Hancock,  Gen.  Winfield  S.,  mili- 
tary policy,  180  ff.;  controversy 
with  Pease,  183-187. 

Harper's  Ferry  raid,  effect  of,  in 
Texas,  13. 

Haynes,  J.  L.,  274,  278. 

Heintzelman,  Gen.,  commander  in 
western  Texas,  137. 

Henderson,  ex-governor,  delegate 
to  convention  of  1876,  89. 

Holt,  Judge  J.  J.,  174. 

Honey,  G.  W.,  state-treasurer, 
285,  311. 

Houston,  Sam.,  elected  governor, 
13;  deposed,  20. 

Hubbard,   R.   B.,  lieut. -governor, 
,  317. 


[reland,  John,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1866,  89. 
'  Iron  clad"  test  oath,  116. 


323] 


INDEX 


323 


Johnson,  M.  T.,  Col.,  delegate  to 

convention  of  1866,  87. 
Johnson,  Pres.,  proclamation,  56; 

101,  106,  109,  in,   112,  125,  126, 

137,  MS,  M6,  157,  180. 
Jones,  Geo.  W.,  elected  lieutenant 

governor,  108,  112. 
"  Jury  Order,"  155-165. 

K 

Keuchler,  Jacob,  commissioner, 
285. 

Kiddoo,  Gen.,  assistant  commis- 
sioner for  Texas,  121,  124,  129, 
130-140. 

Ku  Klux  Klan,  192,  232. 


Labor :  conditions,  44  ff.;  laws, 
123-124. 

Latimer,  A.  H.,  delegate  to  con- 
ventipn  of  1866,  89,  94;  174,  282. 

Laughlin,  provost-marshal-gen- 
eral, 49. 

Lawlessness,  33-36,  67-68,  127, 
135,  160,  175,  187-192;  report  of 
committee  on,  217-225,  245-247; 
230-233,  261,  295. 

Lee  and  Peacock  war,  232. 

Legislature,  the  eleventh,  114  ff. 

Lindsay,  Livingston,  delegate  to 
convention  of  1868,  200,  206. 

Loyal  Union  League,  166,  173, 
179,  192,  233,  314 

44  Loyalty  and  disloyalty,"  62  ff. 

M 

Magruder,  Gen.,  25,  37. 

McCormick,  A.  P.,  delegate  to 
convention  of  1868,  200,  255. 

Mexico,  the  Confederacy  and,  32; 
exodus  to,  after  war,  39. 

Military:  board,  24 ;  operations  in 
Texas,  25-26;  relations  with  civil 
authority,  77  ff.;  commanders, 
149  ff.;  conflict  with  civil  author- 
ity, 150-161;  rule,  radical,  171  ff.; 
commissions,  183,  187. 

Militia,  295-297,  310,  316. 

Mills,  W.  W.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1868,  213,  215;  276. 

Mower,  Gen.,  commander  Fifth 
Military  District,  178,  181. 


Murrah,  Gov.,  called  legislature, 
36;  effort  to  secure  terms  of 
peace,  37. 

N 

Newcomb,    James    P.,   205,    209, 
243,  247,  249,  280,  286,  301,  317. 
New  Orleans  conference,  37-39. 


Paschal,  I.  A.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1866,  89,  90. 

Pease,  ex-Gov.  E.  M.,  nominated 
for  governor  in  1866,  108;  de- 
feated, 112;  166,  167;  appointed 
governor,  169, 171  ff.;  message  to 
convention  of  1868,  202-204;  245; 
in  campaign  of  1871,  275;  in  Tax- 
payers' Convention,  308. 

"Personal  No.  2,"  277. 

Police,  state,  295,  297,  301,  313. 

Provisional  government,  the  state 
under,  55  ff. 

R 

Radicals,  in  election  of  1866,  108  ff . ; 
in  eleventh  legislature,  114  ff.; 
organization  after  reconstruction 
acts,  166,  167,  172  ff.;  in  conven- 
tion of  1868,  200  ff.;  appeal  to 
Congress,  261  ff.;  overthrow  of, 
295  ;  convention  of  1873,  312. 

Railroads,  subsidies  for,  216,  300, 

307. 

Reagan,  John  H.,  open  letter  of, 
87 ;  open  letter  on  freedmen's 

COUrtS,   I2O-I2I. 

Reconstruction  acts,  145  ff.;  second 
supplementary  act,  168. 

Reconstruction  convention  of  1868, 
200  ff.;  second  session,  242  ff.; 
final  act  of,  288  ff. 

Reeves,  R.  A.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1866,  89. 

Republican  conventions,  166,  209, 
270-272,  314. 

Reynolds,  J.  J.,  Gen.,  succeeds 
Gen.  Griffin,  175;  178,  228-238, 
245,  265,  266;  alliance  with 
Davis,  274,  277;  in  final  recon- 
struction, 283  ff. 

Roberts,  O.  M.,  president  of  seces- 
sion convention,  16;  delegate  to 
convention  of  1866,  89 ;  elected 
to  U.  S.  Senate,  115-118. 


324 


INDEX 


[324 


Robertson,  R.  L.,  case  of,  81. 

Rodriguez,  Joseph,  case  of,  315. 

Rose,  Col.  I.  T.,  80. 

Ruby,  G.  T.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1868,  200,  206,  279. 

Runnels,  H.  R.,  governor,  12; 
delegate  to  convention  of  1866, 
89. 


Saunders,  X.  B.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1866,  89,  95. 

Secession,  n  ff.;  disposition  of  or- 
dinance of,  94-98. 

Shelby,  Gen.  Joe,  35. 

Sheridan,  Gen.,  command  of  south- 
west, 39;  official  report,  134,  169; 
commander  of  Fifth  Military  Dis- 
trict, 149-161,  removal  of,  180  ff. 

Sibley,  Gen.  H.  H.,  expedition  of , 

25- 

Slavery,  11-12;  declared  at  an  end 
in  Texas,  40. 

Smith,  Col.  Ashbel,  peace  com- 
missioner to  New  Orleans,  37; 
119. 

Smith,  Maj.  G.  W.,  127. 

Smith,  Geo.  W.,  murder  of,  231. 

Smith,  Gen.  Kirby  E.,  29,  36. 

Smith,  R.  K.,  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1868,  200,  206. 

Stanley,  Gen.  David  S.,  report  of, 
69. 

State  government,  restoration  of, 
108  ff.;  provisional,  149  ff. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  military  bill  of, 
145;  214. 

Stribling,  Judge  Thomas  H.,  161, 
265,  277,  note. 

Strong,  Gen.  Wm.  E.,  on  condi- 
tions in  Texas,  69. 

Suffrage,  101,  240,  252-255. 


Taxpayer's  convention.the  308-309. 

Throckmorton,  J.  W.,  opposes 
secession,  17;  delegate  to  conven- 
tion of  1866,  89 ;  nominated  gov- 
ernor, 108;  elected,  112;  inaug- 
ural address,  113;  administration, 
126  ff.;  conflict  with  military, 
149-161 ;  removal,  169;  Address 
to  People  of  Texas,  170. 

Tracy,  J.  G.,  286,  270. 

Truman,  Ben.  C.,  statements  of, 
83,  94- 

Twiggs,  Maj. -Gen.,  D.  E.,  sur- 
render of,  17-18. 

u 

Unionists,  in  the  confederacy,  22; 
associations,  65;  violence  shown 
toward,  66-70,  135;  in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  89,  95. 

Union  League,  see  Loyal  Union 
League. 

V 

Varnell,  — ,  244,  263. 
Vaughan,  F.  A.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1868,  200. 
Victoria,  negro  troops  at,  130. 

W 

Wheelock,  Lieut.  E.  M.,  educa- 
tional work  for  freedmen,  76. 

Whitmore,  G.  W.,  delegate  to  con- 
vention of  1868,  200,  206;  elected 
to  Congress,  286;  defeated,  310. 

Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  elected  to  U.  S. 
Senate,  13. 

Wilson,  Robert,  county  judge, 
report  of,  136. 

Wright,  Gen.  H.  G.,  department 
commander,  78,  84. 


VITA 


CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDELL  was  born  at  Salado,  Bell 
County,  Texas,  on  April  4,  1877.  His  primary  educational 
training  was  received  in  the  public  schools  at  that  place.  In 
1898  he  graduated  at  the  Thomas  Arnold  High  School. 
After  two  years  of  teaching  he  entered  the  University  of 
Texas  in  1900,  where  he  received  the  degrees  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  in  1903  and  Master  of  Arts  in  1904.  In  1903-04 
he  was  Fellow  in  History. 

In  I9O4~'O5  he  was  University  Fellow  in  American  His- 
tory in  Columbia  University,  and  the  following  year,  while 
continuing  his  graduate  studies  there,  taught  in  Columbia 
and  Barnard  Colleges  as  Assistant  in  History.  At  Columbia 
he  studied  under  Professors  Dunning,  Osgood,  Burgess, 
Robinson,  Shepherd,  Goodnow,  and  J.  B.  Moore,  and  at- 
tended Professor  Dunning' s  seminar  in  later  United  States 
History. 

Since  September,  1906  he  has  been  Instructor  in  History 
in  the  University  of  Texas.  In  1907  he  became  Corres- 
ponding Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  Texas  State  His- 
torical Association  and  in  1908  he  was  elected  a  Fellow  in 
the  same  body.  He  has  published  several  articles,  parts  of 
this  dissertation,  on  Reconstruction  in  Texas  in  the  Quar- 
terly of  that  Association,  and  has  contributed  two  articles, 
Texas  in  the  Confederacy  and  Texas  in  the  New  Nation, 
1865  to  the  Present,  to  the  co-operative  history,  The  South 
in  the  Building  of  the  Nation. 

325