diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 00:17:16 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-05 00:17:16 -0800 |
| commit | a1292408e206c8d3b337fac7c7b4112f9020125b (patch) | |
| tree | a233cdc56bee59e35f1664a9bc44567a81fdc415 | |
| parent | ab60b94b1817c3d0217778f13ecf9d031782992d (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50295-8.txt | 12414 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50295-8.zip | bin | 217476 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50295-h.zip | bin | 233534 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50295-h/50295-h.htm | 14742 |
7 files changed, 17 insertions, 27156 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ae3eade --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #50295 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50295) diff --git a/old/50295-8.txt b/old/50295-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 404f45b..0000000 --- a/old/50295-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12414 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Reconstruction and the Constitution -1866-1876, by John Willliam Burgess - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - -Title: Reconstruction and the Constitution 1866-1876 - -Author: John Willliam Burgess - -Release Date: October 24, 2015 [EBook #50295] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RECONSTRUCTION *** - - - - -Produced by Ron Swanson - - - - - -_THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES_ - - -RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION - -1866-1876 - -BY - -JOHN W. BURGESS, PH.D., LL.D. - -PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND DEAN OF THE -FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - - - - -NEW YORK -CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS -1905 - - - - -COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY -CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS - - - - -TROW DIRECTORY -PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY -NEW YORK - - - - -To the memory of - -RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH, - -pupil, colleague, and life-long friend, with grief too deep for words -at his loss, this volume is affectionately inscribed by the Author. - - - - -PREFACE - - -In my preface to "The Middle Period" I wrote that the re-establishment -of a real national brotherhood between the North and the South could be -attained only on the basis of a sincere and genuine acknowledgment by -the South that secession was an error as well as a failure. I come now -to supplement this contention with the proposition that a corresponding -acknowledgment on the part of the North in regard to Reconstruction -between 1866 and 1876 is equally necessary. - -In making this demand, I must not be understood as questioning in the -slightest degree the sincerity of the North in the main purpose of the -Reconstruction policy of that period. On the other hand, I maintain -that that purpose was entirely praiseworthy. It was simply to secure -the civil rights of the newly emancipated race, and to re-establish -loyal Commonwealths in the South. But there is now little question that -erroneous means were chosen. - -Two ways were open for the attainment of the end sought. One was that -which was followed, namely, placing the political power in the hands of -the newly emancipated; and the other was the nationalization of civil -liberty by placing it under the protection of the Constitution and the -national Judiciary, and holding the districts of the South under -Territorial civil government until the white race in those districts -should have sufficiently recovered from its temporary disloyalty to the -Union to be intrusted again with the powers of Commonwealth local -government. - -There is no doubt in my own mind that the latter was the proper and -correct course. And I have just as little doubt that it would have been -found to be the truly practicable course. The people in the loyal -Commonwealths were ready in 1866 to place civil liberty as a whole -under national protection; and not half of the whites of the South -entertained, at that moment, disloyal purposes or feelings. Even the -solid Democratic South was yet to be made; and I doubt most seriously -if it would ever have been made, except for the great mistakes of the -Republican party in its choice of means and measures in Reconstruction. - -I will not, however, enter upon the argument in reference to this -question at this point. That belongs to the body of the book. I will -only add that, in my opinion, the North has already yielded assent to -this proposition, and has already made the required acknowledgment. The -policy of Mr. Hayes's administration, and of all the administrations -since his, can be explained and justified only upon this assumption. -And now that the United States has embarked in imperial enterprises, -under the direction of the Republican party, the great Northern party, -the North is learning every day by valuable experiences that there are -vast differences in political capacity between the races, and that it -is the white man's mission, his duty and his right, to hold the reins -of political power in his own hands for the civilization of the world -and the welfare of mankind. - -Let the South be equally ready, sincere, and manly in the consciousness -and the acknowledgment of its share in past errors, and the -reconciliation will be complete and permanent! - -I have again to express my thanks to my friend and colleague, Dr. -Cushing, for his aid in bringing this volume through the press. I -desire also to acknowledge the courtesy of the New York _Independent_ -for allowing parts of my article on the Geneva Award, published some -years ago in that esteemed journal, to be incorporated in the last -chapter of this book. - -JOHN W. BURGESS. - -323 WEST 57TH ST., NEW YORK CITY, -January 22d, 1902. - - - - -CONTENTS - - PAGE -CHAPTER I - THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - - -CHAPTER II - PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD TO RECONSTRUCTION . 8 - - -CHAPTER III - PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HIS PROCEEDINGS - IN REALIZATION OF IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - - -CHAPTER IV - THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - - -CHAPTER V - THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Continued_) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 - - -CHAPTER VI - THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Continued_) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 - - -CHAPTER VII - THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Completed_) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 - - -CHAPTER VIII - THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 - - -CHAPTER IX - THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 - - -CHAPTER X - RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 - - -CHAPTER XI - PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 - - -CHAPTER XII - "CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN - 1868 AND 1876 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 - - -CHAPTER XIII - THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES . . . . . 280 - - -CHAPTER XIV - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1867 AND - 1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 - - -INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 - - - - -RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION - - - - -{1} - -RECONSTRUCTION - - -CHAPTER I - -THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION - -The Conception of a "State" in a System of Federal Government--The -Different Kinds of Local Government Provided for in the Constitution of -the United States--Local Government Under the Constitution of the -United States--"State" Destructibility in the Federal System of -Government--The Effect on "State" Existence of the Renunciation of -Allegiance to the Union--The Idea of "State" Perdurance--The -Constitutional Results of Attempted Secession. - - -[Sidenote: The conception of a "State" in a system of federal -government.] - -The key to the solution of the question of Reconstruction is the proper -conception of what a "State" is in a system of federal government. This -is a conception which is not easy to acquire, and which, when acquired, -is not easy to hold. The difficulty lies, chiefly, in the tendency to -confound the idea of a "State" in such a system with a state pure and -simple. Until the distinction between the two is clearly seen and -firmly applied, no real progress can be made in the theory and practice -of the federal system of government. Now the fundamental principle of a -state pure and simple is sovereignty, the original, innate, and legally -unlimited power to command and enforce obedience by the infliction of -penalties for disobedience. On the other hand, the nature of a "State" -in a system of federal {2} government is a very different thing. Such a -"State" is a local self-government, under the supremacy of the general -constitution, and possessed of residuary powers. In the federal system -of the United States, it is a local self-government, under the -supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and of the laws and -treaties of the central Government made in accordance with that -Constitution, republican as to form, and possessed of residuary -powers--that is, of all powers not vested by the Constitution of the -United States exclusively in the central Government, or not denied by -that Constitution to the "State." - -[Sidenote: The different kinds of local government provided for in the -Constitution of the United States.] - -It must be kept in mind that this is not the only kind of local -government known in the constitutional law and practice of the United -States. There is, and always has been, since the establishment of the -federal system in 1789, for the larger part of the population which -declared united independence of Great Britain in 1776, another kind of -local government for a part of the United States, a local government -which is not self-government, a local government which is but an agency -of the central Government. In fact, there have been at times three -kinds of local government in the political system of the United States, -viz., local government by the executive department of the central -Government--that is, local government by executive discretion, martial -law--local government as an agency of the legislative department of the -central Government--that is, Territorial government--and "State" -government. That is to say, since 1789 the whole of the United States, -territorially, has never been under the federal system of government, -but has _always_ been partly under federal government and partly under -the exclusive government of Congress, and has _sometimes_ been partly -under federal government, {3} partly under the exclusive government of -Congress, and partly under the exclusive government of the President. - -[Sidenote: Local government under the Constitution of the United -States.] - -The Constitution of the United States recognizes and provides for all -three of these species of local government, and vests in Congress the -power of advancing the population of a district, the confines of which -district shall be determined by Congress itself, from the lower to the -higher forms of local government. While the Constitution does not -expressly impose upon Congress the duty of making or permitting the -change from one kind of local government to another, it impliedly -indicates that Congress shall determine the kind of local government -which the population of any particular district shall enjoy in -accordance with the conditions prevailing, at any given moment, among -them. If the maintenance of law and order requires the immediate -exercise of military power, Congress may, and should, permit the -continuance of the President's discretionary government. If, on the -other hand, this is not necessary, Congress may, and should, confer -civil government, under the Territorial form, and when the population -of a Territory shall have become ripe for local self-government and -capable of maintaining it, Congress may, and should, allow the -Territory to become a "State" of the Union, a Commonwealth. - -[Sidenote: "State" destructibility in the system of federal -government.] - -[Sidenote: The effect on "State" existence of the renunciation of -allegiance to the Union.] - -Such being the nature of a "State" of the Union and such the method of -its creation, what reason is there for speaking of the "States" in a -system of federal government as indestructible? As they emerge from the -status of Territories under the exclusive power of Congress, upon -having attained certain conditions, why may they not revert to the -status of Territories upon having lost these conditions of "State" -existence; nay, why may {4} they not revert to the status of martial -law by having lost all of the conditions of civil government? The -dictum "once a State always a State" in a system of federal government -has no sound reason in it. Under the Constitution of the United States, -every "State" of the Union may through the process of amendment be made -a province subject to the exclusive government of the central -authorities; and when those who wield the powers of a "State" renounce -the "State's" allegiance to the United States, renounce the supremacy -of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws of the central -Government made in accordance therewith, then from the point of view of -political science it will become a state pure and simple, a -sovereignty, if and when it permanently maintains, by its own power or -by the assent of the United States, this attitude against the United -States, but from the point of view of the constitutional law of the -United States it simply destroys one of the fundamental conditions of -local self-government, and gives, thus, warrant to the central -Government to resume exclusive government in the district, and over the -population which has become disorganized by refusing obedience to the -supreme law of the land, as fixed by the Constitution of the United -States. Whether the central Government has the physical power, at a -given moment, to do this or not, is another question. It certainly has, -at the outset, the legal right. The "State" is no longer a "State" of -the Union, nor has it become a state out of the Union. It is simply -nowhere. The land is there and the people are there, but the form of -local government over it and them has been changed from local -_self_-government to a Congressional or a Presidential agency, as the -case may be. - -[Sidenote: The idea of "State" perdurance.] - -[Sidenote: The acceptance of this idea by the Government of the United -States.] - -Neither is there any reason for holding that the old {5} "State" -organization perdures as an abstract something under the forms of -Congressional or Presidential rule, and will emerge of itself when -these are withdrawn. If the "State" form of local government should be -established again over that same district and over the population -inhabiting it, it would be an entirely new creation, even though it -should recognize the forms and laws and obligations of the old "State." -It must be, however, remembered that both the executive and judicial -departments of the United States Government committed themselves fully -to this theory of "State" perdurance as an abstract something -unaffected by the loss of the conditions of the "State" form of local -government through the rebellion of the "State" organization against -the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and -that Congress did the same thing, at first, in some degree. It was this -error which caused all of the confusion in the ideas and processes of -Reconstruction, and we ought, therefore, to rid ourselves of it at the -start, at the same time that we recognize its influence over the minds -of those who engaged in the difficult work of the years between 1865 -and 1876. - -[Sidenote: The constitutional results of attempted secession.] - -From the view which we take of the nature of a "State" in a system of -federal government, and its possible destructibility, there is not much -difficulty in determining the constitutional results of an attempt upon -the part of such a "State" to break away from its connections in that -system. What it does, stripped of all misconception and verbiage, is -simply this: it forcibly resists the execution of the whole supreme law -of the land, and destroys the prime condition of its own existence by -making it necessary for the central Government to {6} assert exclusive -power in the district where this happens. Naturally the executive -department of the central Government must act first, and subdue by -force the force which has been offered against the supremacy of the -Constitution and laws of the United States. After that shall have been -accomplished, the question as to how the population in the rebellious -district shall be civilly organized anew, is one for the legislative -department of the central Government exclusively. Congress may fashion -the boundaries of the district at its own pleasure, and may establish -therein such a Territorial organization of civil local government as it -may see fit, and is limited in what it may do in this respect only by -the constitutional immunities of the individual subject or citizen -under every form of civil government provided or allowed by the -Constitution of the United States. Congress may also enable the -existing population of such a district, or such part of that population -as it may designate, to organize the "State" form of local government, -and may grant it participation in the powers of the central Government -upon an equality with the other "States" in the federal system. These -things are matters in which the President, as the executive power, -cannot interfere. As participant in legislation, however, he may, at -his own discretion, use his powers of recommendation and veto. - -If rebellion against the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the -United States should not be committed by an existing "State" -organization, but by a new organization claiming to be the "State" -organization within the district concerned, the existing organization -remaining loyal, but requiring the aid of the central Government to -maintain its authority, then the withdrawal of that aid by the -President after the accomplishment of its purpose would, of course, -leave the old {7} "State" organization with restored authority, and -Congress would have no function to perform in the re-establishment of -civil government in such a district, or in the readmission of its -population to participation in the central Government. This was the -course followed in Missouri and Kentucky, and it was the course, which, -at first, was attempted in the case of Virginia. In the first two cases -it was entirely correct. In the last it had to be abandoned, for -reasons, and on account of conditions, which will be explained later. - -What we have, therefore, in the theory and history of Reconstruction is -the case of existing "State" organizations forcibly resisting the -execution of the supreme law of the land, and stricken down by the -executive power of the central Government in the attempt, that power -being exercised at its own motion and in its own way. - - - - -{8} - -CHAPTER II - -PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD TO RECONSTRUCTION - -Did Mr. Lincoln Have any Theory of Reconstruction?--Mr. Lincoln's -Plan--Mr. Lincoln's Oath of Allegiance, and the Loyal Class to be -Created by the Taking of this Oath--The Proviso in this Plan--Seward's -Idea of Reconstruction and the Views of Congress and the Judiciary--Ten -Per Centum "State" Governments--Reconstruction in Louisiana under Mr. -Lincoln's Plan--The New Orleans Convention--The Election of a -Governor--The Constitutional Convention of April, 1864, and the -Constitution Framed by it and Adopted by the Voters--Reconstruction in -Arkansas--The Beginning of Resistance in Congress to the President's -Plans--The Wade-Davis Bill--Analysis of this Measure--The President's -Attitude toward the Bill--The President's Proclamation of July 8th, -1864--The Wade-Davis Protest against the President's Proclamation--The -President's Message of December 6th, 1864--The Threatened Schism in the -Republican Party and the Presidential Election of 1864--The Refusal of -Congress to Count the Electoral Vote from any "State" which had Passed -the Secession Ordinance--Reconstruction in Tennessee--The Twenty-second -Joint Rule--Reconstruction in Tennessee Continued--Civil Government -Re-established in Tennessee--The Thirteenth Amendment to the -Constitution of the United States--The Proposition of Amendment as it -Came from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--The Passage of the -Proposition by the Senate--The House Draft--Rejection of the Senate's -Draft in the House--Reconsideration of the Senate's Measure in the -House, and its Final Passage. - - -[Sidenote: Did Mr. Lincoln have any theory of Reconstruction?] - -Some of the ardent admirers of Mr. Lincoln are disposed to dispute the -proposition that he had any theory {9} of Reconstruction. It seems, -however, that they are unconsciously influenced in this by their desire -to escape the conviction that Mr. Lincoln held an erroneous theory of -Reconstruction. It does not seem that one can read impartially Mr. -Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863, without coming to the -conclusion that Mr. Lincoln had a very decided notion on the subject. -It is true that he said that it must not be understood that no other -possible mode of Reconstruction than that proclaimed by him would be -acceptable, but he laid down a very distinct mode, and he said it was -the best he could suggest under existing impressions. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Lincoln's plan.] - -This plan recognized, in the first place, the continued existence of -the "States" in rebellion as "States" of, and in, the Union. More -exactly, it regarded the rebellion against the United States within -these "States" as the act of combinations of disloyal persons, and not -as the act of the "States" at all. These combinations had subverted the -loyal governments within these "States," but the "States" themselves -were not disloyal, because they could not be. They were impersonal -entities, incapable of committing treason or any other wrong. According -to this view the work of Reconstruction consisted simply in placing the -loyal element in a "State" in possession of the government of the -"State." - -In the second place, therefore, Mr. Lincoln's plan contained the -principle that the work of Reconstruction was an executive problem. It -was the work of the Executive, through the power of pardon, to create a -loyal class in a "State" which had been the scene of rebellion, and it -was the work of the Executive to support that class by the military -power in taking possession of, organizing, and operating, the "State" -government. - -{10} [Sidenote: Mr. Lincoln's oath of allegiance, and the loyal class -to be created by the taking of this oath.] - -And so, Mr. Lincoln undertook to create such a class by constructing an -oath of future loyalty and allegiance to the United States of the -following tenor: "I, ---- ----, do solemnly swear, 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 acts of Congress passed during the existing -rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, -modified, or held void, by Congress or by decision of the Supreme -Court; and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support -all proclamations of the President during the existing rebellion having -reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified by the Supreme -Court. So help me God;" and by ordaining that all persons who would -voluntarily take this oath, unless they had been civil or diplomatic -officers of the "so-called Confederate Government," or military -officers thereof above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in -the navy, or had left seats in the United States Congress or judicial -office under the United States, or had resigned commissions in the army -or navy of the United States, in order to aid in the rebellion, or had -been engaged in treating colored persons found in the United States -service in any capacity, or white persons in charge of them, in any -other manner than as prisoners of war, would be regarded as having -re-established their loyalty and allegiance to the United States. - -And he then undertook to put this class in possession of the functions -and powers of the "loyal State governments" subverted by the rebellion, -by proclaiming and declaring, "that whenever in any of the States of -{11} Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, -Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of -persons, not less than one-tenth in number of the votes cast in such -State at the Presidential election of the year A.D. 1860, each having -taken the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a -qualified voter by the election law of the State existing immediately -before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall -re-establish a State government which shall be republican and nowise -contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government -of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of -the constitutional provision which declares that 'the United States -shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of -government and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on -application of the Legislature, or the executive (when the Legislature -cannot be convened) against domestic violence.'" - -[Sidenote: The proviso in this plan.] - -It is true that Mr. Lincoln was careful to say in this proclamation -that "whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted -to seats, constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective -Houses, and not to any extent with the Executive," but it is plain that -he did not think the Houses could constitutionally use their power of -judging of the qualifications and elections of their members to keep -members from "States" reconstructed upon his plan from taking their -seats on the ground that these "States" had not been properly -reconstructed. - -And it is also true that there occurs in the proclamation another -paragraph which appears to militate against the theory of the -perdurance of a "State" through the period of its rebellion against the -United States. It reads: "And it is suggested as not improper that in -{12} constructing a loyal State government in any State the name of the -State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution and the general -code of laws as before the rebellion be maintained, subject only to the -modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and -such others, if any, not contravening such conditions which may be -deemed expedient by those framing the new State government." - -It certainly may appear from this language that while Mr. Lincoln -regarded it as convenient and desirable that the new "State" should be -considered a continuation of the old "State," yet that he did not look -upon it as absolutely necessary. Still, it seems more probable that -this was only his cautious habit of leaving open a way of escape out of -any position when necessity or prudence might require its abandonment -than that he doubted the correctness of his idea of the -indestructibility of the "States" in spite of the rebellion of a part -of their population, or even of the whole of their population. - -[Sidenote: Seward's idea of Reconstruction, and the views of Congress -and the Court.] - -Mr. Lincoln was not alone in this view of the nature of the "States" of -the Union and the problem of Reconstruction. His able Secretary of -State certainly agreed with him; the resolutions and acts of Congress -down to that time may be better explained upon this theory than upon -any other; and so far as the Supreme Court had dealt with the question, -its dicta, if not its exact decisions, had indicated the same trend of -opinion. The President felt, therefore, no hesitation in applying his -plan in the specific cases that were in a condition for its -realization. - -[Sidenote: Virginia not in need of Reconstruction according to -President Lincoln's view.] - -Before treating of his reconstruction of Louisiana and Arkansas under -this plan, however, there are two points of the proclamation which -should be briefly noticed. {13} The first is the omission of Virginia -from the names of the "States" to which the proclamation should apply. -The reason for this is simple, and easily understood. The President had -always recognized what was called the Pierpont Government at Alexandria -as the true government of Virginia. Virginia, therefore, according to -his view needed no reconstruction. It belonged in the class with -Kentucky and Missouri. - -[Sidenote: Ten per centum "State" governments.] - -The other point is the proposition to found "State" government upon ten -per centum of the population of the "State." Now we know that "State" -government in the federal system of the United States is local -self-government. But local self-government cannot really exist where -the part of the population holding the legal authority does not really -possess the sinews of power; and where the conditions of the society -are democratic, or anything like democratic, one-tenth of the -population cannot really possess the sinews of power. The actual power -to make their government valid, to enable their government to govern -would have to come from the outside. While this may happen under -certain temporary exigencies without destroying local self-government -on the whole, yet it cannot be permitted as a principle upon which to -build a local self-government, a "State" in a federal system. -Provincial governments, Territorial governments may be sustained in -that way, but the distinguishing principle of "State" government -forbids it. It is simply not "State" government when holding in this -way the power to govern, as the principle of its life, no matter what -name we may give it. Upon this point, then, Mr. Lincoln's reasoning was -crude and erroneous, and when applied was destined to result in -mischievous error. - -{14} [Sidenote: Reconstruction in Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln's plan.] - -[Sidenote: The election of members of Congress.] - -As far back as the first week in December of 1862 General Shepley, then -Military Governor of Louisiana, had, by permission from the President, -ordered an election for members of Congress, in the districts over -which his jurisdiction extended. The President had cautioned him -against any choice of Northern men at the point of the bayonet, and had -declared to him that such a procedure would be "disgraceful and -outrageous." The General heeded the warning, and two old citizens of -Louisiana, Messrs. Hahn and Flanders, were chosen, and were admitted by -the House of Representatives to their seats. This happened in February -of 1863, and it was certainly good evidence that the House of -Representatives was, at that moment, resting on the theory of the -perdurance of the "State" of Louisiana throughout the rebellion within -its limits against the United States. - -[Sidenote: The New Orleans convention.] - -[Sidenote: The election of a governor.] - -[Sidenote: The constitutional convention of April, 1864, and the -constitution framed by it and adopted by the voters.] - -Things went no further than this, however, during the year 1863, the -military situation requiring the whole thought and activity of the -Government. On the 8th of January, 1864, however, a convention was held -at New Orleans for the purpose of advancing the work of reconstruction. -This convention requested General Banks to appoint an election for -officers of the "State" government. The General complied, naming the -22d day of February following for the election, and the 4th of March -for the installation of the officers so chosen. Mr. Hahn was elected -and duly installed Governor, and was soon after declared by the -President to be "invested, until further orders, with the powers -hitherto exercised by the Military Governor of Louisiana." The next -step was for the new Governor to order an election of delegates to a -constitutional convention and the assembly of {15} the same in -convention, for the purpose of so amending and revising the -constitution as to make it fit the new conditions created by the war. -This was done in March and April of 1864, and an anti-slavery -constitution was established for Louisiana. The instrument drafted and -proposed by the convention was adopted by the voters. Eight thousand -four hundred and two votes were cast upon the question of adoption, -about sixteen per centum of the vote cast at the Presidential election -of 1860. This brought the action of the voters within the President's -ten per centum rule. The vote was almost five to one in favor of -adoption. The President's scheme was now put to the practical test, -both in Louisiana and Arkansas, during the spring of 1864. - -[Sidenote: The beginning of resistance in Congress to the President's -plan.] - -[Sidenote: The Wade-Davis bill.] - -Congress was, however, by this time becoming convinced that -Reconstruction was a legislative problem, that is, a problem to be -solved by Congressional acts and constitutional amendment. This is -evidenced not only by the fact that neither House would admit -representatives from Arkansas elected under the new "State" -organization to seats, but by the more pronounced attitude expressed in -what is known as the Wade-Davis measure upon the direct question at -issue. These gentlemen, Mr. Benjamin F. Wade and Mr. Henry Winter -Davis, the former the chairman of the "Committee on the Rebellious -States" in the Senate, and the latter the chairman of a committee -having the same name and functions in the House, originated a bill and -carried it through both Houses of Congress, which, for the first time, -embodied the views of Congress on the subject of Reconstruction. This -bill was finally passed on July 4, 1864, and it contained provisions of -the following tenor: The eleven "States" which had passed {16} -secession ordinances were all treated as rebellious communities, and -the President was authorized to appoint a provisional governor for -each. This governor should exercise all the powers of civil government -in the community to which he might be appointed until "State" -government should be recognized by Congress as restored therein. An -oath of future allegiance to the Constitution of the United States was -then prescribed, and the provisional governor in each "State" was -ordered, whenever rebellion in his "State" should be suppressed, to -direct the United States Marshal to enroll all the white male citizens -of the United States, resident within the "State," in the respective -counties of the "State," and give them the opportunity to take the oath -of allegiance to the United States. The bill then directed that when a -majority of such citizens should take this oath, they might be -permitted to elect delegates to a convention, which convention might -take action for the establishment of "State" government. The bill -disqualified all persons who had held any office, civil or military, -"State" or Confederate, in rebellion against the United States, or who -had voluntarily borne arms against the United States, from voting for -delegates, or from being elected as delegates, to the convention. The -bill then provided that the convention thus elected and assembled might -form a "State" constitution, but must insert in it clauses abolishing -slavery, repudiating all debts, "State" or Confederate, created by, or -under the sanction of, the usurping power, and disqualifying all -persons who had held office civil or military, "State" or Confederate, -under the usurping power, except civil offices merely ministerial, and -military offices below the rank of colonel, from voting or being -elected governor or members of the legislature. The bill then provided -for the submission of the constitution so formed to the voters, {17} -and if ratified by a majority thereof, required the provisional -governor to certify the same to the President. It then provided that -the President, after obtaining the consent of Congress thereto, should -proclaim the new "State" government as established, and as the -constitutional government of the "State," after which Representatives -and Senators in Congress, and electors of the President, might be -chosen in said "State." Finally, the bill abolished slavery at once in -all the rebellious "States" and imposed penalties upon all persons -attempting thereafter to hold anyone in involuntary servitude; and -declared all persons who should thereafter hold office civil or -military, "State" or Confederate, in the rebel service, except an -office purely ministerial or under the grade of colonel, not to be -citizens of the United States. - -[Sidenote: Analysis of this measure.] - -A brief analysis of this bill will show that Congress was nearer to -some doctrine on the subject of Reconstruction than was the President. -In the first place, Congress claimed Reconstruction as a legislative -problem. This was undoubtedly the true theory upon that point. In the -second place, Congress required the loyalty to the United States of at -least a majority of the white adult males as the basis of "State" -government, local self-government. That also was undoubtedly true -political theory as has been already explained. In the third place, -Congress asserted the power to abolish slavery within the limits of -those "States" whose legislatures or conventions had passed the -ordinances of secession. That is, Congress dealt with these districts -not as "States" of the Union, but as territories or districts subject -to the exclusive authority of the central Government. Congress was here -beginning, at least, to act upon the idea that the districts in -rebellion did not perdure, as "States," {18} throughout the rebellion, -but had lost thereby the forms, powers and functions of "State" -governments, and were neither out of the Union nor in the Union as -"States," but were under the central Government of the Union as -territory inhabited by a population disorganized as to local -government. This was also sound political science, and the President -ought to have heeded its teachings. - -[Sidenote: The President's attitude toward the bill.] - -[Sidenote: The President's proclamation of July 8, 1864.] - -But he did not. He did not, it is true, veto the bill. He simply -allowed the session to expire without signing it. This having happened -in less than ten days from the time it was submitted to him, the bill -failed, as provided in such cases by the Constitution. He, however, -issued on the 8th of July a proclamation in regard to the subject, in -which he objected to the setting aside of the "free State constitutions -and governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and -Louisiana;" doubted the competency of Congress to abolish slavery -within the "States;" expressed the hope and expectation that this might -be done for the whole country by constitutional amendment; declared his -willingness to have the loyal people in any of the rebellious "States" -reconstruct their governments upon the Congressional plan, if they -should choose to do so; but declared also his unwillingness to commit -himself inflexibly to any single plan of restoration; and virtually -asked the voters to make the difference between himself and Congress -upon the subject an issue in the coming Presidential election. - -[Sidenote: The Wade-Davis protest against the President's -proclamation.] - -This was one of the boldest acts of Mr. Lincoln's career as President, -and it is little wonder that men of so much intelligence, courage and -tenacity as Messrs. Wade and Davis did not allow the proclamation to go -unanswered. Congress had adjourned, as we have seen, before the -appearance of the proclamation. There was, {19} therefore, no way for -Congress as a whole to make immediate answer. Messrs. Wade and Davis -believed that the public interests would suffer if the answer should be -postponed until the next meeting of Congress. They, therefore, issued a -protest against the proclamation over their own names. The protest was -printed in the New York _Tribune_ of August 5, 1864. It was an -intemperate arraignment of the President. It declared, among other -things, that "a more studied outrage on the legislative authority of -the people had never been perpetrated;" that the President had "greatly -presumed on the forbearance which the supporters of his Administration" -had "so long practised, in view of the arduous conflict in which" they -were "engaged and the reckless ferocity of" their "political -opponents;" that he must understand that their support was not of a man -but of a cause; and that he must confine himself to his executive -duties, and leave political reorganization to Congress. - -Such denunciations of the President's purposes could have but one -effect, viz., the strengthening of his hands by the support of the -people, who so generally trusted him, in the election of 1864. It -injured Mr. Davis so much that he failed of even a renomination for his -seat in Congress. - -[Sidenote: The President's message of December 6, 1864.] - -The President, on the other hand, used his triumph with great tact and -moderation. He made no reference, in his message of December 6, 1864, -either to his proclamation or to the protest which had been so fiercely -hurled against it. He simply informed Congress that important movements -had occurred during the year "to the effect of molding society for -durability in the Union;" and that "12,000 citizens in each of the -States of Arkansas and Louisiana" had "organized loyal State {20} -governments, with free constitutions, and" were "earnestly struggling -to maintain and administer them." He also spoke of the gratifying -situation and movements in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee. - -[Sidenote: The threatened schism in the Republican party, and the -Presidential election of 1864.] - -It may be that Mr. Lincoln did not interpret his great victory at the -polls in November preceding as a specific approval of his -Reconstruction policy. In the spring and early summer of 1864, the -Republican party was threatened with schism largely upon the subject of -Reconstruction. Eight days before the meeting of the regular nominating -convention of the party, that is on the 31st of May, some three hundred -and fifty men, representing, or professing to represent, the more -radical element of the party, met in convention at Cleveland, Ohio. -General John Cochrane of New York was made chairman of the body, and -General John C. Frémont and General John Cochrane were nominated by it -for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States. The -twelfth section of the platform provided, "that the reconstruction of -the rebel States belongs to the people, through their representatives -in Congress, and not to the Executive." - -The regular convention met June 7th at Baltimore, and adopted a -platform which took no sides in regard to Reconstruction, but simply -sought to rally all Union men around the President for the purpose of -saving the Union and putting an end to the rebellion. Many war -Democrats took part in it who favored Lincoln's ideas of -Reconstruction, and many Republicans who did not. The Democratic -convention met at Chicago August 27th and adopted a platform which -virtually proclaimed the war a failure, and demanded a cessation of -hostilities preparatory to a compromise with the Confederates. Their -nominee, General McClellan, with whom was {21} associated on the ticket -Mr. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, repudiated the platform but accepted -the nomination and made the race. - -Under the condition of schism in the Republican ranks, his chances -seemed at first fair. But on September 21st, Generals Frémont and -Cochrane, the nominees of the radical Republicans, withdrew from the -contest, and the reunion of the Republican party on the Baltimore -platform was effected. It was thus a question whether the overwhelming -electoral vote for Lincoln and Johnson, two hundred and twelve to -twenty-one for McClellan and Pendleton, meant the approval of Lincoln's -views and acts in Reconstruction, and it certainly behooved the -President to exercise some caution in so interpreting it, especially as -there was no such wide difference in the popular vote, the McClellan -electors having received 1,835,985 votes to 2,330,552 for the Lincoln -electors. There is no question, however, that the President still -believed in the correctness of his method and was determined to pursue -the course upon which he had entered. - -[Sidenote: No change in the views of Congress caused by the -Presidential election.] - -[Sidenote: The refusal of Congress to count the electoral vote from any -"State" which had passed the secession ordinance.] - -Neither was there any sign manifested that Congress would desist from -pressing its views of its own powers in the matter. Both Houses had -refused to admit members from the reconstructed "States," and now they -passed a joint resolution, on February 4th, 1865, which prohibited the -counting of any electoral votes for President and Vice-President in the -election of 1864, from "States" which had passed the secession -ordinance. Elections had been held in Louisiana and also in Tennessee, -and this resolution was intended to prevent the counting of the votes -which the persons chosen electors for Louisiana and Tennessee should -send in. The resolution was sent to the President for his signature. He -{22} hesitated for several days, but approved it at last on the day -that Congress counted the electoral votes, February 8th. In doing so, -however, he addressed a message to Congress informing the two Houses -that he had signed it out of deference to their views, and saying that -"in his own view, however, the two Houses of Congress, convened under -the twelfth article of the Constitution, have complete power to exclude -from counting all electoral votes deemed by them to be illegal; and it -is not competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct that power by -a veto, as would be the case if his action were at all essential in the -matter. He disclaims all rights of the Executive to interfere in any -way in the matter of canvassing or counting electoral votes, and he -also disclaims that, by signing said resolution, he has expressed any -opinion on the recitals of the preamble or any judgment of his own upon -the subject of the resolution." The recitals of the preamble referred -to read thus: "Whereas, the inhabitants and local authorities of the -States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, -Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee rebelled -against the Government of the United States, and were in such condition -on the 8th day of November, 1864, that no valid election for electors -of President and Vice-President of the United States, according to the -Constitution and Laws thereof, was held therein on said day, etc." - -[Sidenote: Reconstruction in Tennessee.] - -Louisiana, which had fulfilled the President's conditions of -reconstruction, was thus included in this list, and also Tennessee, -where by order of Governor Andrew Johnson, the candidate for -Vice-President on the Lincoln ticket, an election of electors had been -held. Tennessee had not, at the time of the counting of the {23} -electoral vote, completed any process of reconstruction. The -convention, called at Governor Johnson's instigation to meet at -Nashville for the purpose of nominating candidates for Presidential -electors, had called a constitutional convention to meet in Nashville -on December 19th, following the Presidential election, for the purpose -of undertaking the work of reconstruction. Hood's advance upon -Nashville delayed its meeting, however, until January 3d. This -convention took the old constitution of Tennessee as its starting-point -and subjected it to a pretty thorough revision in the direction of a -"free State government." It also prescribed a rather stiff test oath -for all persons offering to vote upon the adoption of the amendments, -an oath which not only promised future loyalty to the Constitution of -the United States, such as Lincoln had prescribed, but which also -required the taker of it to swear that he was an active friend of the -Government of the United States, and an enemy of the so-called -Confederate States. The amended constitution had not, however, been -submitted to the voters at the date when Congress counted the electoral -vote, that is, before the 8th of February, 1865, and of course no -"State" government had been elected under the amended constitution. The -vote upon the constitution occurred on the 22d of February, and the -election of the Governor and the members of the Legislature under it -occurred on March 4th. - -The case of Tennessee did not from this point of view appear as strong -as that of Louisiana. But it is difficult to see how the Republicans -could have consistently rejected the vote of Tennessee after having -nominated and elected a citizen of Tennessee as Vice-President of the -United States. It is certainly implied in the Constitution of the -United States that no man is {24} eligible to the office of -Vice-President unless he be at the time of his election a citizen of a -"State" of the Union. The Constitution implies that the Vice-President -shall have the same qualifications as the President; and it distinctly -says that in giving their vote, the electors in each "State" shall vote -for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of -the same State with themselves." If an inhabitant of Tennessee could be -lawfully Vice-President of the United States, it does certainly seem -implied that Tennessee was, at the time, a "State" of the Union in -regular standing. - -However this may have been, the President was certainly correct in -saying that Congress was vested with full power over the count of the -electoral vote, and that the Executive had no control over it -whatsoever. It was a bit of harmless good humor that he signed the -resolution as a perfunctory matter, and it was calculated to improve -the temper of the somewhat irritated members of Congress. - -[Sidenote: The twenty-second joint rule.] - -Congress was not, however, formally notified of the fact that he had -signed the measure until after the counting of the vote had been -finished, and the two Houses met the exigency by the enactment of what -was known as "the twenty-second joint rule," according to which the -consent of both Houses was required to count the electoral vote from -any "State" or any body or place professing to be a "State." As a -matter of fact, the Vice-President, Mr. Hamlin, declared that he had in -his possession returns from the "States" of Louisiana and Tennessee, -but held it to be his duty not to present them, and he did not present -them. He knew that the President had signed the joint resolution, -although Congress had not been officially notified of it, and he acted -under the {25} resolution as law. The joint rule would have required -the presentation of these votes to the joint meeting of the two Houses, -and would have required the concurrence of the two Houses, acting -separately, to have included them in the count. The joint rule was, -therefore, not applied to the case for which it was enacted, but it -remained unrepealed for more than ten years, and then showed itself a -sort of Nemesis to its creators. - -[Sidenote: Reconstruction in Tennessee continued.] - -Tennessee pursued, however, the course of reconstruction upon which she -had set out. Her test oath, as we have seen, required virtually that -the basis of her reorganization should be the men who had _remained_ -loyal throughout the rebellion. It differed thus from Mr. Lincoln's -oath, which rehabilitated those who would promise future loyalty. The -vote in favor of the new constitution, which was the old constitution -of the "State" amended by articles abolishing slavery, nullifying -secession, and repudiating the debt created in aid of the rebellion, -was more than twenty-five thousand, nearly twenty per centum of the -vote for Presidential electors in 1860. This certainly much more than -fulfilled all of Mr. Lincoln's conditions. - -[Sidenote: Civil government re-established in Tennessee.] - -Governor Johnson issued his proclamation on February 25th, 1865, -declaring the adoption of the new constitution, and ordering the -election of the Governor and legislative members under it for March -4th. W. G. Brownlow was chosen Governor. The newly elected legislature -did not meet, however, until April 2d, and Mr. Brownlow was not -inaugurated as civil Governor until April 7th. As Mr. Johnson was -inaugurated Vice-President on March 4th, he had been obliged to lay -down the military governorship on that date, in fact, a few days -before, and Mr. Brownlow had been appointed {26} in his stead. Upon -Brownlow's inauguration as civil Governor, the military régime in -Tennessee was formally ended. Lincoln acquiesced certainly in this -change. - -It remained now for Congress to show its attitude, when the Senators -and Representatives from Tennessee should present themselves for -admission to seats in the two Houses. As this could not happen until -the following December, the history of this point must be deferred -until the events between March 4th and December 4th are related. - -[Sidenote: The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United -States.] - -The experiences of the year 1863 with the slavery problem had convinced -the President and the leaders of the Republican party in Congress that -abolition must be effected by a constitutional amendment. The military -acts of the President in this direction were, as all the purely -military measures of the Executive, temporary, and with the -re-establishment of peace would cease to have force; and it was by this -time pretty clear that but few of the "States" would abolish slavery by -their own act. Already on January 11, 1864, had the proposition for a -constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the length and -breadth of the United States been presented in the Senate by Mr. John -B. Henderson of Missouri, and referred to the Judiciary Committee of -that body for consideration and report. - -The language of the first article of Mr. Henderson's proposition read: -"Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, -shall not exist in the United States." When it came back from the -Judiciary Committee, as reported by Mr. Trumbull, it was called Article -XIII., and read: "Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, -except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been -duly convicted, shall {27} exist in the United States or any place -subject to their jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to -enforce this article by appropriate legislation." - -[Sidenote: The proposition of amendment as it came from the Judiciary -Committee of the Senate.] - -It will be advantageous in our further consideration of this article to -recall briefly the reasons for these divergencies. The language used by -the Judiciary Committee corresponds almost exactly with the wording of -the ordinance of the Northwest Territory of 1787; and it is entirely -evident that the Judiciary Committee had that act in mind when it -reported the article. Mr. Henderson's proposition was that slavery or -involuntary servitude should not exist in the _United States_. He well -understood that it did not require a constitutional amendment to -abolish slavery from those parts of the country where "States" had not -been formed. He knew that Congress could do that. The Judiciary -Committee, however, did not think it wise or necessary to "make two -bites of a cherry." They preferred to make their prohibition apply to -the whole country. They knew that the phrase _United States_ was -capable of being interpreted to mean only that part of the country -where "States" existed, and they preferred and intended to make their -prohibition of slavery extend to the whole country. From abundant -caution they used the words United States, with the additional words -"any place subject to their jurisdiction," in order to cover all -territory over which the flag of the Union should fly in sovereign -power. - -The second section, giving to Congress special power to enforce this -article, seems, at first, unnecessary, because according to the last -paragraph of Section 8, Article I., of the Constitution, Congress is -vested with the authority to make all laws necessary and proper to -carry into execution all the powers vested by the {28} Constitution in -any department or officer of the Government. This abolition of slavery -was, however, a restriction on the "States." It laid a new limitation -upon their powers, and hence it was thought that Section 8 of Article -I. might not apply in the execution of such a provision against the -"States." But if we regard the provision from the point of view of the -rights of an individual to his freedom against any "State" law to the -contrary, then we must see that the amendment does invest the United -States courts with the power to impose the restriction in behalf of the -individual seeking deliverance from the attempt of a "State" to enslave -him or to continue his enslavement. And once the power vested in the -courts to do this the general provision of Article I., Section 8, will -certainly apply. The resolution offered by the Judiciary Committee -passed the Senate by the requisite majority on the 8th of April, 1864. - -[Sidenote: The House draft.] - -During this same period, Mr. William Windom, of Minnesota, offered in -the House of Representatives a resolution upon the subject in the -identical words of the Senate's resolution. It was referred to the -Judiciary Committee of the House, February 15, 1864. While it lay in -the room of the Committee, Mr. Stevens offered a substitute for it, -which read: "Slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment -for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, is forever -prohibited in the United States and all its Territories." This is -another bit of evidence for the proposition that what was meant by the -words "or any place subject to their jurisdiction" in Mr. Trumbull's -resolution was all parts of the country not enjoying "State" government -in local matters. - -[Sidenote: Rejection of the Senate's draft in the House.] - -The Senate resolution was sent into the House on the {29} 31st of May, -and was there lost on June 15th, having received a large majority, -indeed, in its favor, but not a two-thirds majority. - -[Sidenote: Reconsideration of the Senate's measure in the House, and -its final passage.] - -Foreseeing the failure of the resolution at that juncture, Mr. J. M. -Ashley, of Ohio, voted against the measure, although a stanch friend of -it. His purpose was of course to be able to move, at some future and -more propitious time, a reconsideration of the subject. He did not, -however, feel that that time had arrived until after the election and -the military victories of the autumn of 1864 had manifested the temper -of the voters on the question of abolition and demonstrated the power -of the Union to carry such a measure into execution. On the 31st of -January, 1865, Mr. Ashley moved a reconsideration of the Senate -resolution lost in the House on the 15th of the preceding June. -Reconsideration was immediately voted, and the Senate resolution was -then carried by the requisite two-thirds majority. - -The proposed amendment was then sent to the President, who signed it, -February 1st, 1865. Whereupon the Senate immediately passed another -resolution, declaring that it was through an inadvertency that the -measure had been sent to the President for his signature, that asking -the President of the United States to sign a proposed constitutional -amendment was an error, was without precedent in the practice of the -Government, and that the President's approval should not be -communicated to the House. A concurrent resolution was then passed by -the two Houses authorizing the President to submit the proposed article -of amendment to the "States" for ratification. The Secretary of State -immediately sent it to the legislatures of all the "States" which could -be reached by him, and during the summer and autumn to the legislatures -of all the "States;" {30} and the new legislature of Tennessee ratified -it on the 5th of April, 1865, that is, more than a week before -Lincoln's death. - -Such was the condition of things when the assassin's bullet ended the -life of the great and good President and brought the Vice-President, -Mr. Johnson, into the office. - - - - -{31} - -CHAPTER III - -PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HIS PROCEEDINGS IN -REALIZATION OF IT - -The Character of Mr. Johnson--The Radical Nature of Johnson's First -Views on Reconstruction--The Retention of Lincoln's Cabinet by Mr. -Johnson and the Modification of Johnson's Views by Mr. Seward's -Arguments--Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of May 29th, 1865--The -Excepted Classes--The Effect of these Exceptions--The President's -Plan--The Realization of it--The Administering of the -Oath--Reconstruction in North Carolina--The Identity of Johnson's Plan -with that of Lincoln--Reconstruction in Mississippi--Reconstruction in -Georgia--Reconstruction in Alabama, South Carolina and -Florida--Reconstruction in Virginia--Reconstruction in Louisiana, -Arkansas and Tennessee--The Constitutional Conventions of 1865--The -Form of the Work Done in these Conventions, and its Substance--The -Erection of "State" Governments and the Election of Members of -Congress--The Orders of the President Putting the Civil Government of -the United States into Operation Everywhere--The President's First -Annual Message. - - -[Sidenote: The character of Mr. Johnson.] - -Mr. Johnson was a man who rose from very low estate through his own -efforts. He was a man of considerable intellectual power and of great -will power. He was somewhat vain of his success and somewhat piqued by -the social neglect which he had suffered at the hands of the "old -families." He was intensely loyal to the Union, and could regard -secession and rebellion only as treason. Having suffered so much for -his loyalty, he was somewhat moved by considerations of revenge. He was -profoundly stirred by {32} the assassination of Lincoln, and apparently -believed it to have been planned by those high in authority in the -Confederacy; and he was possessed with an intense desire to -re-establish the Union on an enduring foundation. - -[Sidenote: The radical nature of Johnson's first views on -Reconstruction.] - -With such a history behind him, and such a disposition impelling him, -it is not to be wondered at that his policy in regard to Reconstruction -should have been more stringent than that of Mr. Lincoln. In fact it -was feared, even by the more radical Republicans, such, for instance, -as Mr. Wade, that he would be bloody minded in the treatment of the -rebel chiefs. He had, before his accession to the Presidency, declared -so often, and so vehemently, that "traitors should be arrested, tried, -convicted and hanged," that most men were expecting the strict -application of the criminal law to the Confederate leaders. - -[Sidenote: The retention of Lincoln's Cabinet by Mr. Johnson, and the -modification of Johnson's views by Mr. Seward's arguments.] - -Mr. Johnson retained Lincoln's Cabinet, and among them the conciliatory -and persuasive Seward, who, in about six weeks from the night of the -assassination, at which time he himself was seriously wounded, returned -to his work in the State Department. There is no doubt that it was the -influence of Seward which modified the views and purposes of Mr. -Johnson. The compliant spirit manifested at this time by the -Confederate chiefs helped strongly in the same direction. By the 1st of -June, Seward had won Johnson completely for his plan of a rapid and -forgiving reconstruction by the Executive. Congress was not in session, -and the President was not inclined to call an extra session. The late -rebel chieftains were pressing for the political rehabilitation of -their section, and the President now fully believed that he had the -power to proceed with the problem of Reconstruction, and was inclined -to do so. - -{33} [Sidenote: Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865.] - -On the 29th of May, he issued his proclamation of amnesty and pardon to -all persons who, having engaged in rebellion, had failed to take the -benefits of Mr. Lincoln's proclamations of December 8, 1863, and March -26, 1864. To all such persons Mr. Johnson offered his pardon upon their -taking an oath of the following tenor: "I ---- do solemnly swear (or -affirm) in the presence of 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." - -[Sidenote: The excepted classes.] - -He, however, excepted the following classes of persons from the -benefits of the offer: 1st. Those who held or had held, under the -pretended Confederate Government, civil or diplomatic office or agency, -or military office above the rank of colonel in the army and lieutenant -in the navy, or military or naval office of any grade, if educated by -the United States Government in the Military Academy at West Point or -the United States Naval Academy; and all those who held, or had held, -the pretended office of Governor of a "State" in insurrection against -the United States; - -2d. Those who had left seats in the Congress of the United States or -judicial stations under the United States to aid in the rebellion -against the United States, and those who had resigned or tendered -resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United -States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion; - -3d. Those who had, in any way, treated persons found in the service of -the United States, in any capacity, otherwise than lawfully as -prisoners of war; - -{34} 4th. Those who had been engaged in destroying the commerce of the -United States on the high seas, or upon the lakes and rivers separating -the British Provinces from the United States, or in making raids from -Canada into the United States; - -5th. Those who were, or had been, absent from the United States, or had -left their homes within the jurisdiction of the United States, and -passed beyond the military lines of the United States into the -pretended Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; - -6th. Those who, at the time they might seek to obtain the benefits of -the proclamation by taking the oath, were prisoners of war, or under -civil or criminal arrest, and those who had taken the oath of -allegiance to the United States since December 8, 1863, and had failed -to keep it; - -And, finally, those who had voluntarily participated in any way in the -rebellion and were the owners of taxable property to the value of more -than twenty thousand dollars. - -[Sidenote: The effect of these exceptions.] - -These exceptions would have shut out almost all of the leading men of -most of the "States" that passed secession ordinances from the benefits -of the proclamation, except for the subsequent provision in the -proclamation, which ordained that special application might be made to -the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted -classes, and held out the promise that such clemency would be as -liberally extended as might be consistent with the facts of the case -and the peace and dignity of the United States. - -[Sidenote: The President's plan in a sentence.] - -Briefly, the President proposed to pardon the rebel leaders, upon -special personal application, as an act of high executive grace, and to -amnesty every one else in a body; and upon the basis of {35} their -re-established loyalty to use the old electorate of the South in -reconstruction. How he succeeded we will now proceed to relate. - -[Sidenote: The realization of it.] - -[Sidenote: The administering of the oath.] - -In the first place, the machinery for administering the cleansing oath -was made very simple and accessible. Any commissioned officer, civil, -military or naval, of the United States, and any officer, civil or -military, of a loyal "State" qualified by the laws of the "State" to -administer oaths, was declared by the President, through his Secretary -of State, to be competent to administer this oath of loyalty, a copy of -which should be given to the person taking it as his certificate of -restored citizenship, and another copy sent to the State Department at -Washington to be there deposited and kept in the archives of the -Government. - -[Sidenote: Reconstruction in North Carolina.] - -In the second place, and by a second proclamation, issued on the same -day, May 29th, the President appointed a Provisional Governor for North -Carolina, and authorized and commanded him to cause the election of -delegates to, and their assembly in, a constitutional convention of the -"State" for the reconstruction of the "State," and its restoration to -its constitutional relations to the United States. The electorate to be -employed by the Provisional Governor should be those persons who were -qualified to vote by the laws of North Carolina in force immediately -before the 20th of May, 1861, and had taken the oath prescribed in the -first proclamation. - -This second proclamation also commanded the heads of the departments of -the United States Government to put the laws of the United States into -operation in North Carolina, the United States judges to open the -United States courts and proceed to business, and the military officers -in the district to aid the Provisional {36} Governor in carrying the -duties assigned to him into effect, and to abstain from hindering, -impeding, or discouraging, in any manner, the organization of a "State" -government as authorized by the proclamation. - -[Sidenote: The identity of Johnson's plan with that of Lincoln.] - -It will thus be seen that Mr. Johnson's plan of Reconstruction was in -substance the same as that of Mr. Lincoln. It rested upon the theory of -the indestructibility of the "States," their perdurance as "States" -throughout the period of rebellion, the commission of treason and -rebellion by combinations of private persons, the right of the -Executive to withdraw his military powers and put his civil powers in -operation, whenever, in his judgment, the circumstances would warrant -him in so doing, and his authority to recognize the old electorates of -the "States" in which rebellion had existed as the respective -constituent bodies of the "States," upon such terms and under such -limitations as he might prescribe. He did not lay down any rule as to -the numerical proportion which the modified electorates should bear to -the old, in order to make their acts legitimate, as Mr. Lincoln did; -and he did declare in his second proclamation that the North Carolina -convention, when convened, or the legislature that might be thereafter -assembled, should prescribe the qualification of electors, and the -eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws -of the "State," which Mr. Lincoln did not do in his proclamation. But -there is no doubt that Mr. Lincoln would have indorsed this -proposition. He could not have avoided it, while holding the theory -that North Carolina was a "State" simply engaged in amending its -constitution, the theory which his own proclamation apparently set up. -In a word Johnson's policy and acts in reconstructing the "States" in -which secession ordinances had been passed, and rebellion committed, -were {37} but a continuation of those of Mr. Lincoln. If Lincoln was -right so was Johnson, and _vice versa_. - -[Sidenote: Reconstruction in Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, South -Carolina and Florida.] - -On the 13th of June, the President issued a proclamation of like tenor -and containing similar orders for putting the laws of the United States -into operation, and for putting similar machinery in motion for -reconstruction, in Mississippi. He appointed William L. Sharkey -Provisional Governor therein. On the 17th of June, similar steps were -taken for the reconstruction of Georgia, with James Johnson as the -Provisional Governor; on the 21st of June for the reconstruction of -Alabama, with Lewis E. Parsons as Provisional Governor; on the 30th of -June for the reconstruction of South Carolina, with Benjamin F. Perry -as Provisional Governor; and on the 13th of July for the reconstruction -of Florida, with William Marvin as Provisional Governor. - -[Sidenote: Reconstruction in Virginia.] - -Already on May 9th, twenty days before the issue of his proclamation of -amnesty, the President had issued an executive order putting the laws -of the United States in operation in Virginia, and guaranteeing the -support of the United States Government to Governor Francis H. Pierpont -in all lawful measures for the extension and administration of the -"State" government throughout the geographical limits of Virginia. This -meant, of course, that the United States Government recognized the -shadowy loyal "State" government, which had kept up at least a show of -existence throughout the rebellion, as the true "State" government of -Virginia, and that Virginia did not need reconstruction, but only the -extension of the authority of this government throughout her -territorial limits. This was, also, a simple continuation of Mr. -Lincoln's policy, as we well know. - -{38} [Sidenote: Reconstruction in Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee.] - -Of course Mr. Johnson recognized the reconstruction of Louisiana, -Arkansas and Tennessee as effected by Mr. Lincoln; so that by -mid-summer of 1865 the reconstruction of all the "States" which had -passed secession ordinances, except only Texas, had been completed, or -had been put in course of completion. - -[Sidenote: The constitutional conventions of 1865.] - -During the summer, autumn and early winter of 1865, the Provisional -Governors of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, -Georgia, and Florida ordered elections for the choosing of delegates to -constitutional conventions, upon the basis of the old suffrage laws of -the respective "States" once answering to these names, modified by the -requirements of the Presidential pardon, received after taking the oath -of allegiance; and these elections were held and these conventions -assembled. - -[Sidenote: The form of the work done in these conventions, and its -substance.] - -These bodies chose to do their work in the form of amendments to the -old constitutions of the "States," whose constituent powers they -assumed to hold, rather than in the form of new constitutions. Before -the meeting of Congress on the first Monday of December, they had all -passed ordinances, either repealing the secession ordinances of their -respective "States," or pronouncing them null and void; had all voted -amendments to the constitutions of their respective "States" abolishing -slavery; and all, except Mississippi and South Carolina, had passed -ordinances repudiating the debt incurred by their respective "States" -in aid of rebellion against the United States. - -[Sidenote: The erection of "State" governments and the election of -Members of Congress.] - -Before the meeting of Congress also, elections of the members of the -respective "State" legislatures and of "State" officers, and of the -members of the House of Representatives in Congress, had been held by -the {39} Provisional Governors, under the direction of the respective -conventions. And, finally, before the assembly of Congress, these -Legislatures had, with the exception of that of Florida, met, -organized, and elected United States Senators, and, with the exception -of those of Florida and Mississippi, had adopted the Thirteenth -Amendment to the Constitution. The legislature of Florida, not having -met and organized, had not at that date been able to consider the -Amendment. It met on December 18th and elected United States Senators, -and adopted the Thirteenth Amendment on the 28th. The legislature of -Mississippi, on the other hand, rejected the Thirteenth Amendment on -the 27th of November. - -[Sidenote: The orders of the President putting the civil Government of -the United States into operation everywhere.] - -During the same period, the President had by his several proclamations -and orders declared the cessation of armed resistance, the restoration -of intercourse throughout the country, and the raising of the blockade -and the opening of the ports, and had put the different branches of the -civil Government of the United States into operation in all the -"States" which had been the scene of the recent rebellion. He had not, -however, restored the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus in these -regions or in the District of Columbia, and he reserved the right to -have recourse to military control therein in case of necessity. The -Governors of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Florida under the -Confederacy had, in the spring of 1865, assumed to summon the -legislatures, chosen by these "States" while members, or pretended -members, of the Confederacy, to meet together for reconstruction -purposes. The President had, through his military officials, ignored -and prevented all such movements. No farther resistance to his plan of -Reconstruction had been attempted, but he saw {40} plainly that, -without the United States military power to sustain the new "State" -governments, there might be. - -[Sidenote: The President's first annual Message.] - -This was the situation when Congress met on the first Monday of -December, and received President Johnson's first annual Message. This -document contained a disquisition upon the political system of the -United States, as "an indissoluble union of indestructible States," -with the natural conclusion that by attempting secession, the "States" -impaired, but did not extinguish, their vitality, suspended, but did -not destroy, their functions. It then proceeded with a narration of the -facts above stated, in which the President sought to establish, upon -the basis of his power to pardon and withdraw military rule, and to -guarantee a republican form of government to every "State," his -authority to reconstruct "State" government, or at any rate to permit -the pardoned citizens to do so under his direction. - -Finally, this paper contained the official notice to Congress that the -President had admitted the reconstructed "States"--and that would mean -all that had passed the secession ordinance, except perhaps Texas, -whose convention did not assemble until March of 1866--to participate -in amending the Constitution of the United States. The President -concluded his narration and argumentation upon this all-important -subject in these words: "The amendment to the Constitution being -adopted, it will remain for the States whose powers have been so long -in abeyance to resume their places in the two branches of the National -Legislature, and thereby complete the work of restoration. Here it is -for you, fellow citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow citizens of -the House of Representatives, to judge, each of you for yourselves, of -the elections, returns and qualifications of your own members." - -{41} It is entirely evident from all this that the President denied the -power of the Houses of Congress, either separately or jointly, to -prevent the Senators and Representatives from the reconstructed -"States" from taking their seats upon any other grounds than defects in -the election and return, or in the personal qualifications, of the -particular persons under consideration. - - - - -{42} - -CHAPTER IV - -THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION - -The Stevens Resolution--Legislation of the Reconstructed "States" -Concerning the Status of the Freedmen, and the Freedmen's -Bureau--Vagrancy, Apprenticeship, and Civil Rights in the Reconstructed -"States"--The View Taken of this Legislation by the Republicans--The -Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution--The -Demand of the Senators- and Representatives-elect from the -Reconstructed "States" to be Admitted to Seats in Congress--The Joint -Committee of the Two Houses of Congress on Reconstruction--Thaddeus -Stevens's Ideas on Reconstruction--Mr. Shellabarger's Theory of -Reconstruction--Mr. Sumner's Theory of Reconstruction. - - -[Sidenote: The Stevens resolution.] - -So soon as the House of Representatives had elected its Speaker, Mr. -Colfax, and other officers, and before the reception of the President's -Message, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens presented a resolution which proposed the -selection of a joint committee of the House and Senate to inquire into -the condition of the "States," which formed the so-called Confederate -States, and to report by bill or otherwise, whether, in the judgment of -the Committee, these "States," or any of them, were entitled to be -represented in either House of Congress, and which provided that "until -such report shall have been made and finally acted upon by Congress, no -member shall be received into either House from any of the so-called -Confederate {43} States." The House passed this resolution by an -overwhelming majority; and then adjourned without allowing a motion by -Mr. Niblack of Indiana, to the effect that "pending the question as to -the admission of persons claiming to have been elected representatives -to the present Congress from the States lately in rebellion, such -persons be entitled to the privileges of the floor of the House," the -usual privilege accorded contestants, to come to a vote. - -[Sidenote: The view of the House that Reconstruction could not be -effected by the Executive.] - -The view of the House was thus manifest from the start. It was that -Reconstruction could not be effected by the Executive Department of the -Government, but was a problem for Congress, and that this was a matter -entirely separate from the power of each House to judge of the -elections, returns and qualifications of its members, a matter to be -decided by the whole Congress prior to the consideration of the -question of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members -of each House. In a word, it was the question of the admission, or the -readmission, of "States" into the Union, or more correctly the question -of the establishment or re-establishment of the "State" system of local -government upon territory of the United States under the exclusive -power of the central Government. - -[Sidenote: Passage of the Stevens resolution as a concurrent -resolution.] - -There is no question that in sound political science the House was -entirely correct in its theory, and that the objection of the Senate to -that part of the Stevens resolution which provided that no member -should be received into either House from any of the so-called -Confederate States until the report of the Committee on Reconstruction -should have been finally acted on by Congress, as trenching upon the -exclusive power of the Senate to judge of the elections, returns and -qualifications of its members, rested upon a confounding of the {44} -function of Congress to admit "States" into the Union with the power of -each House to judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of -those claiming to represent "States" or constituencies in "States" -about whose position in the Union there was no question. The Senate -finally swung into line, however, by passing this part of the House -resolution as a concurrent resolution instead of as a joint resolution. - -[Sidenote: Legislation of the reconstructed "States" concerning the -status of the freedmen, and the Freedmen's Bureau.] - -There were two other considerations which moved the Republicans in -Congress to assume this attitude in regard to Reconstruction. One was -the legislation of the "States" reconstructed by the President -concerning the status and the rights of the freedmen. On the 3d of -March preceding, Congress had passed an act organizing a bureau in the -War Department for the care of refugees and freedmen in the districts -in rebellion or in the territory embraced in the operations of the -army. This bureau was officered by a chief commissioner and assistant -commissioners for each of the "States" declared to be in insurrection. -These officers were authorized to take possession of the abandoned -lands within these "States," and other lands belonging to the United -States, and parcel them out to the loyal male refugees and freedmen, -not more than forty acres to each, and protect them in the use and -enjoyment of the same for the term of three years. They were also -authorized to issue under the direction of the Secretary of War -provisions, clothing and fuel to such loyal refugees and freedmen as -were destitute. - -[Sidenote: The administration of the Freedmen's Bureau.] - -There is no question that this was a most humane measure. It would have -been a moral outrage for the Government of the United States to have -taken the slaves away from the support and protection accorded {45} -them by their masters, and to have thrown them upon their own resources -without any means of sustenance during the transition into the new -status. But there is also no question that this measure was so -administered as to do the race for whose benefit it was intended almost -as much harm as good. When the Government began to furnish them with -food, clothes, fuel and shelter gratis, they, like the children that -they were, conceived of this, to them, very agreeable state of things -as something that was to last forever, as the New Jerusalem. They -gathered about the depots of the Freedmen's Bureau and could not be -induced to go away in search of work or livelihood. The belief became -quite general that the Government intended to give every man forty -acres of land and a mule, and otherwise to support him permanently. The -danger was that the newly emancipated would quit work altogether and -throw themselves entirely upon the charity of the United States -Government. Many did do so, and formed thus a sort of privileged class -throughout the whole South under the special protection of the -Government of the United States. - -[Sidenote: Vagrancy, apprenticeship and civil rights in the -reconstructed "States."] - -When, now, the newly reorganized "States" came to assume jurisdiction -over matters concerning the freedmen, they found themselves driven to -some legislation to prevent the whole negro race from becoming paupers -and criminals. It was in the face of such a situation that the -legislatures of these "States" passed laws concerning apprenticeship, -vagrancy and civil rights, which were looked upon at the North as -attempts to re-enslave the newly emancipated, and served to bring the -new "State" governments at the South into deep reproach. - -[Sidenote: Examination of these vagrancy acts, etc.] - -It must be remembered, however, that at the time of the passage of the -Stevens resolution by the House of {46} Representatives, only two of -Mr. Johnson's reconstructed "States" had passed any laws upon these -subjects. These two were Mississippi and South Carolina; and a close -examination of the text of these enactments will hardly justify the -interpretations placed upon them by the radical Republicans. The South -Carolina Preliminary Act came first in the order of time. It provided -that "all free negroes, mulattoes, and mestizos, all freedwomen, and -all descendants through either sex of any of these persons, shall be -known as _persons of color_, except that every such descendant, who may -have of Caucasian blood seven-eighths, or more, shall be deemed a white -person; that the statutes and regulations concerning slaves are now -inapplicable to persons of color; and although such persons are not -entitled to social or political equality with white persons, they shall -have the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property, to make -contracts, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to sue and be sued, and -to receive protection under the law in their persons and property"; and -"that all rights and remedies respecting persons or property, and all -duties and liabilities under laws civil and criminal, which apply to -white persons, are extended to persons of color, subject to the -modifications made by this act and the other acts hereinbefore -mentioned." - -The acts to which this one was preliminary were not passed until the -latter half of December, and could not have served, except by -prevision, as grounds for the Stevens resolution. Moreover there was -little in this Act which was really calculated to arouse any pronounced -hostility at the North. It evidently recognized the emancipation of the -former slaves, and the prohibition of future slavery, as fixed facts, -and provided for substantial equality in civil rights between persons -of color {47} and white persons. The discriminations which it referred -to, rather than made, were those of a social and political nature, -matters which to that time had been controlled, if controlled at all, -wholly by the "States," except of course in those parts of the country -in which "States" had not been erected. - -[Sidenote: The Mississippi Acts.] - -The Mississippi acts were all passed in November. They were the acts -which were before the view of Congress and the country in the beginning -of December, 1865, and, with the exception of the South Carolina -Preliminary Act just commented on, the only ones. They require, -therefore, a somewhat fuller treatment. They consist of "An Act to -regulate the relation of master and apprentice relative to Freedmen, -Free Negroes, and Mulattoes, passed November 22, 1865"; the "Vagrant -Act of November 24, 1865"; an "Act to Confer Civil Rights on Freedmen -and for other purposes," passed November 25, 1865; a supplementary Act -to this, passed November 29, 1865; and another supplementary Act, -passed December 2, 1865. - -The first Act provided that freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes under -the age of eighteen years, being orphans, or the children of parents -who could not, or would not, support them, should be apprenticed by the -clerk of the Probate court in the county where found to competent and -suitable persons, and on such terms as the court should direct; under -the restrictions, that the former owner of the minor should be selected -by the court as the master or mistress if, in the judgment of the -court, he or she were competent and suitable; that the terms fixed by -the court should have the interest of the minor particularly in view; -and that the apprentice should be bound by indenture, to run, in the -case of males, until the completion of the twenty-first year, {48} and, -in the case of females, until the completion of the eighteenth year. - -This Act further provided that in the management and control of -apprentices, the master or mistress should "have power to inflict such -moderate corporal chastisement as a father or guardian is allowed to -inflict on his or her child or ward at common law," but that in no case -should "cruel or inhuman punishment be inflicted." - -It furthermore provided, that in case of desertion by the apprentice, -he might be apprehended and brought before a justice of the peace, who -might remand him to his master or mistress, and might, on the refusal -of the apprentice to return, commit him to jail, on failure to give -bond, until the next term of the County court, which court should -inquire into the matter, and determine whether the apprentice had left -the service to which he was bound without good cause or not, and -should, in the one case, compel the return to service by ordering the -infliction of the necessary penalties, and in the other, should order -the discharge of the apprentice, and enter "judgment against the master -or mistress for not more than one hundred dollars, for the use and -benefit of the apprentice." - -The second Act provided, that "all free negroes and freedmen in the -State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in -January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or -found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or -night time, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen, free -negroes, or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free -negroes, or mulattoes on terms of equality, or living in adultery or -fornication with a freedwoman, free negro or mulatto, shall be deemed -vagrants, and on conviction thereof, shall be {49} fined in the sum of -not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro or mulatto, fifty -dollars, and in the case of a white man, two hundred dollars, and -imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, the free negro not -exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months." - -It further provided, that in case the freedman, free negro or mulatto -should not pay the fine within five days from the time of its -infliction, the sheriff of the proper county should hire him or her out -to any person who would for the shortest period of service pay the fine -and all costs, giving the preference, however, to the employer of the -freedman, negro or mulatto, if there should be any, and, if no person -would hire the same, should hold him or her to be dealt with as a -pauper. It also provided that the freedman, free negro, or mulatto -refusing or failing to pay a tax should be dealt with by the sheriff in -the same manner. - -And it provided, finally, that the same duties and liabilities existing -among white persons in the "State" to support indigent whites should -attach to freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in regard to the support -of colored paupers, and that in order to carry out the same a poll tax, -not exceeding one dollar a head, should be levied on every freedman, -free negro, and mulatto, between the ages of eighteen and sixty years, -and should be collected and paid into the hands of the treasurers of -the counties to be used in the support of colored paupers. - -The third Act provided, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes might -acquire, hold, and dispose of, personal property in the same manner and -to the same extent as white persons, and might sue and be sued in all -the courts of the "State" as white persons, but that they should not -rent or lease lands or tenements except in {50} incorporated towns or -cities, and under the control of the corporate authorities. - -It provided, further, for the intermarriage of freedmen, free negroes -and mulattoes, and for the legalization of all previous and existing -cohabitations between them, and the legitimation of the issue -therefrom; but it forbade intermarriage between them and white persons, -under penalty of life imprisonment, and it defined freedmen, free -negroes and mulattoes as comprehending all of pure negro blood, and all -descended from negroes to the third generation inclusive, although one -parent in each generation should have been white. - -It provided, further, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes should -be competent as witnesses in all civil cases, in which they themselves -or other freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes were parties or a party -to the suit, and in criminal cases where the crime charged was alleged -to have been committed by a white person or persons upon or against the -person or property of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto. - -It provided, further, that every freedman, free negro and mulatto -should have a lawful home and employment, and should have written -evidence thereof in the form of a license from the police authorities -to do irregular or job work, or in the form of a written contract for -labor. It required that all contracts made with freedmen, free negroes -and mulattoes for labor for a longer period than one month should be in -writing, a copy of which should be furnished to each party, and that if -the laborer should quit the service of the employer before the -expiration of the term fixed in the contract, he should forfeit his -wages for that year up to the time of quitting. - -It provided, further, for the arrest of any freedman, free negro, or -mulatto quitting the service of an employer, and for the determination -of the question whether {51} the quitting was for good cause or not, -and for the disposition to be made of the deserter. - -It provided, further, that enticing or persuading freedmen, free -negroes or mulattoes to desert from their legal employment, or -employing deserters from contract labor knowingly, or giving or selling -them food, raiment or other thing knowingly, should be a misdemeanor -punishable by fine, or by imprisonment in case the fine should not be -paid. - -It provided, further, that no freedman, free negro or mulatto, unless -in the military service of the United States, or licensed thereto by -the police authorities, should keep or carry arms, ammunition or -murderous weapons, and that every civil and military officer should -arrest any such person found in possession of such articles, and commit -him for trial. - -It provided, further, that "any freedman, free negro, or mulatto -committing riots, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief and cruel -treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures, language -or acts, or assaults on any person, disturbance of the peace, or -exercising the functions of a minister of the gospel without a license -from some regularly organized church, or selling spirituous or -intoxicating liquors, or committing any other misdemeanor," should be -fined or imprisoned, and, upon failure to pay the fine in five days' -time after conviction, should be publicly hired out to the person who -would pay the fine and costs for the shortest term of labor from the -convict. - -And it provided, finally, that "all the penal and criminal laws now in -force in this State, defining offences, and prescribing the mode of -punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free -negroes or mulattoes, be and the same are hereby re-enacted, and -declared to be in full force and effect, against {52} freedmen, free -negroes and mulattoes, except so far as the mode and manner of trial -and punishment have been changed or altered by law." - -[Sidenote: The Mississippi legislation a fair sample of the subsequent -legislation in other "States."] - -This is a fair sample of the legislation subsequently passed by all the -"States" reconstructed under President Johnson's plan. In fact, in the -legislatures of several of them, bills containing substantially these -provisions were under consideration when Congress met, and it was fair -to suppose that they would be enacted. Congress had thus in the first -week of December, 1865, substantially before it what the reconstructed -"States" proposed to do in reference to the status and rights of the -former slaves, and in reference to the relations between the negro and -the white man in the future. - -As yet, we must remember, the Thirteenth Amendment had not been -proclaimed as adopted, in fact had not been adopted, on the basis of -the calculations of Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, the officer who -alone could proclaim adoption; and the abolition of slavery rested upon -the military power of the President, and on the acts of the "States" -themselves, the first of which is temporary as to its effects, and the -second of which might be reversed by the "States" at pleasure. - -[Sidenote: The view taken of this legislation by the Republicans.] - -[Sidenote: This legislation from the point of view of natural justice.] - -The Northern Republicans professed to see in this new legislation at -the South the virtual re-enslavement of the negroes. This was an -extreme view of it, although it certainly did not give the negro equal -civil right with the white man, or anything approaching that, to say -nothing of failing to offer him any prospects of ever participating in -political functions. Of course it would be an abstract assumption to -say that the negro ought, at the moment of his emancipation, to have -had equal civil right with the white man. Civilized man can be safely -{53} intrusted with a much larger civil liberty than the barbarian or -the semi-barbarian. There is no question also that much severer -penalties for the commission of the same crime are necessary among a -barbarous race or class than among a civilized race or class. From -these points of view this Mississippi legislation does not appear as -far from what was natural and even necessary as Mr. Stevens and his -followers made it out. The law of apprenticeship was not severe, and, -if justly and sincerely executed, it would probably have been -beneficial to the young negroes, deprived of the care given them up to -that time by master or mistress, and now thrown upon themselves without -a cent of money or a particle of property, most of them knowing no -parent except a mother as poor as themselves, and entirely unacquainted -with the new conditions of life now confronting them. - -The law of vagrancy was severer. But it is easy to see that a -reasonable execution of that law had as much help as harm in it for the -former slave. It would have preserved him against idleness, -drunkenness, and thievery, although it did curtail largely his liberty -of action. It was, undeniably, the third act, which came so near to the -re-enactment of the old slave code in regard to crimes and misdemeanors -committed by negroes, that gave the greatest offence. Almost every act, -word, or gesture of the negro, not consonant with good taste and good -manners, as well as good morals, was made a crime or misdemeanor, for -which he could first be fined by the magistrates, and then consigned to -a condition almost of slavery for an indefinite time, if he could not -pay the fine. There is no question that the "States" of the Union had -at that moment the power under the Constitution of the United States to -do these things. At that time the determination of the criminal law, -both {54} as to the definition of crime, the fixing of penalties, and -the fashioning of procedure, was almost entirely a function of the -"States," and there was no provision in the Constitution of the United -States which required the "States" to treat their own inhabitants with -equality in regard to their civil rights and obligations. - -Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising that the -Republicans of the North strongly felt that the freedom of the negro -had not yet been sufficiently guaranteed to render the acknowledgment -of the resumption of "State"-powers by the communities so lately in -rebellion against the United States for the upholding of negro slavery -safe and wise. - -[Sidenote: Correctness of the Republican position.] - -It was certainly natural, and it was just and right, that the party in -power in Congress should have considered it their duty to so amend the -Constitution of the United States, before according "State"-powers to -the communities lately in rebellion, as to reap the just fruits of -their triumph over secession and slavery. It was certainly their duty -to the country to secure the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and -any further amendment, necessary to accomplish this result, before -putting the recently rebellious communities in a position to defeat the -same. And it is certainly not strange that the Republicans should have -feared that the Democrats of the North in Congress would soon be found -fraternizing with the Senators and Representatives from the -reconstructed "States," and that it was their duty to secure "perpetual -ascendancy to the party of the Union," before admitting the Senators -and Representatives from these "States" to participation in public -power. Properly interpreted this only meant that loyal men must govern -the country. But it did not follow that only Republicans were loyal -men, and that the loyal Democrats of the North would follow {55} the -recently disloyal Democrats of the South in legislating upon the issues -of the war. Republicans were likely to commit this fallacy in their -reasoning. Many of them did commit it. And the result of it was to -intensify partisanship at the expense of statesmanship. - -[Sidenote: The ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the -Constitution.] - -Just two weeks after the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House -of Representatives, Mr. Seward announced the adoption of the Thirteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In making this -announcement, he declared that there were thirty-six "States" in the -Union, and that the legislatures of twenty-seven "States," just -three-fourths, the necessary number, had voted its adoption; and among -those voting to adopt, he counted the legislatures of Virginia, -Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia -and Alabama. - -It is to be remarked, however, that had he counted none of the "States" -that had passed secession ordinances, either in the whole number, or in -the three-quarters necessary to adopt, the Amendment would in that case -also have been adopted. There would have been, in that case, -twenty-five "States" in the Union, and of these nineteen had adopted -the Amendment. And if any controversy had arisen over the use of -fractions in making nineteen three-fourths of twenty-five, this would -have been quickly overcome by the fact that the legislatures of four -more of the loyal "States" adopted the Amendment soon after Mr. -Seward's declaration, making twenty-three out of twenty-five. It will -not, of course, be disputed that, if the "States" that passed secession -ordinances should have been counted in arriving at the whole number of -"States" in the Union, those of them adopting the Amendment should also -have been counted in making out the three-fourths majority {56} -necessary to adoption, and that if, on the other hand, they should have -been excluded in arriving at the whole number, they should also have -been excluded in making up the three-fourths majority. In other words, -it does not matter from which point of view we regard the subject, the -Amendment was regularly and lawfully adopted. It must be admitted, -however, that Mr. Seward followed in this most solemn procedure, the -amending of the Constitution, the Presidential plan of Reconstruction, -and gave great encouragement to the Senators- and Representatives-elect -from these reconstructed "States" to expect that they would have the -aid and influence both of the Democrats in Congress, and of the -Administration, in securing their seats. - -[Sidenote: The demand of the Senators- and Representatives-elect from -the reconstructed "States" to be admitted to seats in Congress.] - -They had gone to Washington and, bearing themselves confidently from -the first, they now became defiant in demanding their rights. Many of -them were men who, less than twelve months before, had been in arms -against the United States, and one of them was the person who was the -Vice-President of the Confederacy at the moment of its downfall, Mr. -Alexander H. Stephens. Such an attitude on his part and their part -roused again great bitterness of feeling among the Republicans, many of -whom conscientiously thought that the real deserts of such persons were -the penalties of treason. Moreover, the legislatures of some of the -other "States" reconstructed under the President's plan enacted, during -December, January and February, measures concerning the status and -rights of the emancipated slaves similar to those passed by the -legislature of Mississippi, and in some respects even more illiberal -than those passed by that body; and it was evident that all of them -would finally stand upon the same general ground in regard to this -subject. - -{57} This was the situation in the last week of February, 1866, when -the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent with the Stevens resolution -in the House, denying seats to any of the claimants from the "States" -lately in insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on -Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon. Four of the -Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Dixon and Norton went -against their party associates in this question, but there was still a -two-thirds majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to combat the -Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to construct and enforce a -Congressional plan. - -[Sidenote: The Joint Committee of the two houses of Congress on -Reconstruction.] - -As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred with the House in -regard to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided for the -appointment of a Joint Committee on Reconstruction, at the time it was -passed by the House. The members of the Committee were chosen soon -after the passage of this part of the Stevens resolution by the Senate. -They were, from the Senate, Messrs. Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Howard, -Johnson and Williams, all Republicans except Mr. Reverdy Johnson of -Maryland, and from the House, Messrs. Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, -Conkling, Grider, Morrill, Rogers, Stevens and Washburne, all -Republicans except Grider of Kentucky and Rogers of New Jersey. The -Republicans had given themselves a larger representation on the -Committee than their numerical relation to the Democrats warranted, but -there is no reason to think that the report of the majority would have -been in any respect different, if that relation had been more strictly -observed. - -[Sidenote: The activity of Congress in the interim between the -appointment of the Committee on Reconstruction and the Report of the -Committee.] - -This Committee sat for about six months before making its final report. -During this period, however, several propositions issued from it, and -two great {58} measures of statute law were passed by Congress, all of -which must be more nearly considered in order to keep the thread of the -narrative of Reconstruction. Moreover the debate upon the subject of -Reconstruction was at the same time in progress and the view of the -subject held by the leading Republicans was becoming more clear and -fixed. - -[Sidenote: Thaddeus Stevens's ideas on Reconstruction.] - -Mr. Stevens opened this debate in the House on the 18th of December -(1865). In a powerful speech, he developed anew his doctrine that the -territory once covered by the "States," which had seceded from the -Union, was nothing now but a conquered district, whose future condition -depended upon the will of the conqueror. If "States" should ever be -erected there again, it must be accomplished, he contended, by virtue -of that provision in the Constitution which declares that "new States -may be admitted by Congress into this Union." This theory involved the -admission that secession had been temporarily successful. This Mr. -Stevens frankly acknowledged. He said: "Unless the law of nations is a -dead letter, the late war between the two acknowledged belligerents -severed their original contracts, and broke all the ties that bound -them together." - -[Sidenote: Contradiction between Stevens's view and the view of the -Administration.] - -This was the extreme doctrine on the one side. It was in blunt -contradiction to the doctrine upon which the Administration was acting, -the doctrine that the attempt at secession was entirely abortive, and -that the "States" where it was attempted were still in the Union _as -"States,"_ and had never been anywhere else or anything else, in fact -could not be; that the rebellion was the work of private individuals -combined as truly against the real "States" in which it existed as -against the {59} United States; and that, therefore, the overthrow of -these combinations and the cessation of the military rule of the -President must be followed by the resumption on the part of the -"States" concerned of all their rights and powers of local -self-government and of participation in the United States Government, -as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, unimpaired, and -without any action whatever on the part of Congress. Mr. Raymond -represented this view on the floor of the House of Representatives. He -was a Republican of the Seward school, and sympathized entirely with -his patron upon this subject. It was a great embarrassment to him that -the Democrats immediately gave in their adherence to this view. It -helped to prevent him from gaining any following at all for it among -the Republicans. - -But while the Republicans of the House repudiated entirely Mr. -Raymond's principles, the great mass of them were not able to accept -Mr. Stevens's view of the temporary validity of secession, and the -temporary existence of the Southern Confederacy as a foreign power. -Their feelings and instincts required a principle of reconstruction -which, at the same time that it did not recognize secession as having -any validity for the shortest moment, yet regarded the "States" in -which it was attempted, as having thereby become something other than -"States" of the Union, and as requiring the assent of Congress to the -rightful resumption of that status. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Shellabarger's theory of Reconstruction.] - -It was Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, who did more than anybody else to -give the proper logical interpretation to these feelings and invent the -theory of Reconstruction on which the Republicans could plant -themselves. Briefly stated that theory was that, while secession was a -nullity legally from the beginning, and could not take the territory -{60} occupied by the "States" attempting it, or the people inhabiting -that territory, out of the Union, or from under the rightful -jurisdiction of the United States Government and Constitution for one -instant, yet it worked the loss of the "State" status in the Union, and -from a legal point of view left this territory and the inhabitants of -it subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States -Government, a status from which they could be relieved only by the -erection of "States" anew upon such territory, an operation which could -be effected, under the Constitution of the United States, only by the -co-operation of Congress with the loyal inhabitants of such territory. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Sumner's theory of Reconstruction.] - -[Sidenote: The Republicans in Congress almost unanimously in favor of -the Shellabarger-Sumner plan.] - -This was sound political science and correct constitutional law. It -could not fail to command the assent of the great majority of the -Republicans in the House and in the country. This same doctrine was, at -the same time, developed in the Senate by Mr. Sumner, Mr. Fessenden and -Mr. Wilson, and it was easy to see that it had become the theory of the -Republican party in Congress long before the final report of the -Committee on Reconstruction promulgated it. Even Stevens and his -radical followers were in line with it in so far as practical results -were concerned. That is, the Republicans all stood together on the -principle that Reconstruction could only be effected by Congressional -acts, since it was tantamount to a conferring, or reconferring, of the -"State" status upon a population at the moment subject to the exclusive -jurisdiction of the Government of the United States. This meant that -the entire Republican party in Congress, with the exception of the four -members of the Senate already named, and of Mr. Raymond and one other -in the House (and this constituted a majority of two-thirds in each -House) would antagonize the plan of Executive Reconstruction {61} -devised by Lincoln and Seward and persisted in by Johnson and, to that -moment, by his cabinet. How far the Republicans in Congress would go in -the attempt to set aside Executive Reconstruction depended chiefly upon -the moderation of the President, and the sincerity of the people in the -South. It depended also in some degree, to say the least, upon what -would be necessary to keep the Republican party, which conceived itself -to be the only really loyal party to the Union, in power. - -There is no doubt that the Sumner-Shellabarger theory of Reconstruction -was correct. The only question was how exacting Congress would be in -realizing it. Under such a situation it behooved the President to act -with great caution and moderation, and to do nothing to provoke a -conflict in which he was certain to be worsted. And it also behooved -the people of the South to make no opposition to the bestowal of a -large measure of civil liberty upon the freedmen, nor to such an -adjustment of the basis of political representation as would not -necessitate negro suffrage, and not to insist upon sending to Congress, -at the outset, the men who had made themselves particularly obnoxious -to loyal feeling. How both the President and the persons in authority -at the South disregarded these considerations of prudence, and how the -position assumed by them upon these subjects drove Congress into more -and more radical lines, is the further subject of the next three -chapters. - - - - -{62} - -CHAPTER V - -THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Continued_) - -The Freedmen Codes in the South--The Reports of Grant and Schurz in -Regard to the Status in the South--The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of -1866--The President's 22d of February Speech--The Civil Rights -Bill--The Veto of the Bill--The Veto Overridden--The Fourteenth -Amendment--The Discussion of the Propositions in Congress--The -President's Attitude toward the Proposed Amendment--Mr. Seward's Acts -in Regard to Ratification--The Requirement that the Ratification of the -Proposed Amendment should be the Condition of the Admission of the -Senators- and Representatives-elect to Seats in Congress--The Tennessee -Precedent. - - -[Sidenote: The Freedmen codes in the South.] - -We have reviewed the acts of the new legislature of Mississippi -concerning the civil status of the freedmen. It is sufficient to say -that during the winter of 1865-66, the other reconstructed legislatures -followed the example of the legislature of Mississippi. These movements -forced upon the Republican party in Congress the conviction that the -civil rights of the freedmen must be secured by national law. As yet -there existed only the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution upon -which to base Congressional statutes, and this, as we know, simply -abolished and prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude, and -empowered Congress to pass appropriate laws for the execution of the -Amendment. By virtue of the war powers still exercised by the -Administration several of the Union Generals, as we shall see, had set -aside this legislation in {63} some of these reconstructed "States." -But, of course, it was well understood that this was only a temporary -remedy. During the month of January, 1866, the Republicans in Congress -became convinced that the newly organized "States," with the exception -of Tennessee, were consciously developing freedmen's codes which would -not differ greatly from their old slave codes. - -[Sidenote: The reports of Grant and Schurz in regard to the status in -the South.] - -The President had sent General Grant and General Carl Schurz on tours -of inspection and inquiry through the South, during the late summer and -autumn of 1865; and Congress now asked the President to impart to it -the information thus gathered. The two reports were quite -contradictory. General Grant said that he drew the conclusion from his -observations that "the mass of thinking men of the South accept the -present situation of affairs in good faith." He also indicated that the -officers of the Freedmen's Bureau were a useless set of men, dangerous -to the peace and prosperity of the South, and recommended that the -military officers in the different districts should be put in charge of -the bureau. - -Mr. Schurz, on the other hand, reported that his conclusions from his -observations were that there was no loyalty among the leaders and the -mass of the people in the South, except such as consisted in submission -to necessity; that they were consciously attempting in their new -legislation to establish a new form of slavery, distinct only from the -old chattel slavery; and that this could be prevented only by national -law and national control, at least for many years to come. - -General Grant's visit had been a flying one, and his inquiries upon the -subject were secondary only to his other business. On the other hand, -General Schurz had journeyed deliberately, and his inquiries were the -chief, if not the sole, purpose of his visit. Moreover, {64} General -Schurz was a keener observer in regard to such matters than General -Grant, and a much better reasoner. - -[Sidenote: The attitude of Congress toward the reports.] - -Despite, therefore, the great popularity and influence of General -Grant, Congress was inclined to place more credence in the report of -General Schurz. While its Committee on Reconstruction was deliberating, -it, therefore, most naturally set itself about doing what it could, -under the Thirteenth Amendment, and also under its still existing war -powers, in behalf of the civil rights of the freedmen. - -[Sidenote: The Freedmen's Bureau bill of 1866.] - -The first measure it attempted was one to enlarge the powers of the -Freedmen's Bureau. This supplementary project originated with the -Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and was presented in the Senate on -the 12th of January, 1866. The new bill proposed to increase the -personnel of the bureau and expand the powers vested in it as provided -in the law of March 3d, 1865, in the following most important respects: - -First, While the law of March 3d, 1865, provided for the appointment of -a commissioner and ten assistants as the entire personnel of the -Bureau, the new bill authorized the appointment of a commissioner, -twelve assistant commissioners, and the appointment or detail of an -agent for each county or parish throughout the section where the Bureau -might operate. - -Second, While in the law of March 3d, 1865, the Bureau rather appeared -to be under the civil administration of the President, the new bill -placed it distinctly under the military administration of the -President, and authorized the President to extend "military -jurisdiction and protection over all of the officers, agents, and -employees of the Bureau." - -Third, While the law of March 3d, 1865, confined the powers of the -Bureau to the giving of aid to {65} refugees and freedmen and the -distribution of abandoned and confiscated lands among them, the new -bill proposed, in addition to this, to vest in the Bureau the power to -build school houses and asylums for the freedmen, and the most -wide-reaching jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases where -equality in civil rights and status, and in the application of -penalties, was denied, or the denial thereof attempted, on account of -race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and it authorized -military protection in all such cases to be extended to the suffering -party. In a single sentence, this bill provided a sort of palatine -jurisdiction over the freedmen in the section lately the scene of -rebellion. - -[Sidenote: The passage of the bill.] - -It was a stiff measure even for the transition period from war to -peace. It cannot be justified constitutionally as anything but a war -measure. It is true that the Thirteenth Amendment, just adopted, could -be interpreted as giving Congress the power to prohibit inequalities in -civil rights and in criminal punishments, as the incidents of slavery -or involuntary servitude, and to extend the ordinary jurisdiction of -the constitutional courts of the United States over all cases where the -attempt to apply such inequalities should be made. But it certainly did -not give Congress the power, under any ordinary circumstances, to -create a new system of courts, subject to the Executive, officered by -military men, and armed directly with military power to enforce -decisions. It was, as has been said, a war measure, and nothing else. -The question was reduced simply to this: Ought the Congress of the -United States to enact a new war measure, after armed resistance had -ceased everywhere, except perhaps in some parts of Texas? Was it sound -policy, was it good morals, to do so, when the people in the sections -lately in rebellion were settling down into the pursuits of peace, even -though Congress might {66} legally have the right to do so? The bill -was debated long and carefully in the Senate by all of the leading -members, and the opinion finally prevailed among them that it was a -measure necessary to preserve and protect the freedom of the newly -enfranchised. It passed the Senate by a vote of 37 to 10, and the House -by a vote of 136 to 33. - -[Sidenote: The veto upon it.] - -On the 10th of February (1866) it was sent to the President for his -signature. In a Message, dated the 19th of February, the President put -his veto upon this bill. The document was a strong and sound -presentation of reasons for his dissent. He said he could not approve -of a war measure, with an indefinite term, when the authority of the -United States was not disputed in any part of the country, when the -rebellion was at an end, and when the country had returned, or was -returning, to the pursuits of peace. He referred to the fact that the -law of March 3d, 1865, was still in operation, and claimed that it -furnished him with all the extraordinary powers necessary to protect -the freedmen. He called attention to the army of officials which this -proposed law would create, and to the enormous expense which it would -entail. And he denied the constitutional power of the Government of the -United States to assume functions for negroes which it had never been -authorized to assume for white men. There is little question now that -the President was correct about this matter, and that the Congress was -both reckless and aggressive, not to say vindictive. But it is -questionable whether the President did not himself lessen unnecessarily -his influence with his party in Congress, by his unqualified opposition -to any strengthening of the measure of 1865. He might have returned the -bill with the suggestion that it should have a definite limit as to the -time it should run, and have {67} expressed his willingness to sign a -bill which should be so limited. Johnson was blunt in his honesty. But -Seward was his adviser, and Seward was, above everything, politic. It -would seem that he either failed to advise with his usual sagacity in -this case, or that his advice was unheeded. - -[Sidenote: The veto effective.] - -For this once the President's arguments convinced enough of the -Senators to deprive the bill of the support of the necessary majority -to carry it over his veto, even so stanch a Republican as ex-Governor -Morgan of New York voting against the bill after its return. The -Republican majority was deeply chagrined, not to say discouraged, and -the President was injuriously encouraged to enter upon the struggle -with Congress over the question of Reconstruction. - -[Sidenote: The President's 22d of February speech.] - -On the evening of the 22d of February, three days after his successful -veto, the President made a most important speech from the steps of the -White House to a large popular meeting assembled to congratulate him -upon his victory. He was betrayed by his elation and warmth into an -abusive denunciation of his enemies, once, and only a few months -before, his best friends. He went so far as to declare that Stevens and -Sumner and Phillips and others like them were, in his opinion, laboring -as assiduously to destroy the fundamental principles of the government -as were the leaders of the rebellion. After such an open challenge, the -contest was nearly unavoidable. It was not avoided, whatever might have -been the possibilities of re-establishing harmony. And it cannot be -denied that, from this moment, personal rancor against the President -filled the heart of Stevens, at least, if not of the others. The -President's utterances were, indeed, highly exasperating, and it would -have required a very large measure of public virtue to have ignored -them. - -{68} [Sidenote: The Civil Rights Bill.] - -As a part of the same plan for securing the civil rights of the -freedmen against the hostile legislation of the President's -reconstructed "States," the Judiciary Committee of the Senate reported -a Civil Rights bill to the Senate one day before it reported the -Freedmen's Bureau bill, that is, on the 11th of January. The right of -way, so to speak, was, however, given to the latter bill, and Congress -was nearly two months longer in perfecting the former than the latter. -This Civil Rights bill certainly avoided many of the most serious -objections which could be truthfully made against the Freedmen's Bureau -bill. It was not a war measure in a time of peace. It did not provide a -privileged jurisdiction for any class, and it did not create an army of -new officials to drain the Treasury and increase the patronage of the -President. - -The purpose of it was simply to establish equality in the enjoyment of -civil rights for all citizens of the country and to make all persons -born in the country and not subject to any foreign power citizens. The -substantial part of the bill, as perfected, read: "All persons born in -the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding -Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United -States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to -any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a -punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, -shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United -States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give -evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and -personal property, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and -proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by -white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and -penalties, and to {69} none other, any law, statute, ordinance, -regulation or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding." - -This is simply equality for all before the law. It conferred no -political privilege and no social equality. It was fairly within the -power of Congress to pass such a measure, by interpreting broadly the -Thirteenth Amendment, without having any recourse to the idea of war -powers. Slavery was nothing but extreme inequality in civil rights -between master and servant. The prohibition of slavery and involuntary -servitude could, therefore, most certainly be held to be the -prohibition of all of these incidents. - -The remaining provisions of the bill did nothing more than fix -penalties for violating, or attempting to violate, civil equality as -thus defined, designate the officers charged with the duty of -prosecuting the offenders, and establish the jurisdiction for the trial -of such cases. - -The penalties were somewhat grave. They might be as severe as a fine of -one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for a year, or both, in the -discretion of the courts. But they were not cruel or unusual, and were, -therefore, within the power of Congress to prescribe. The officers -authorized and required to institute proceedings against violators of -the law were the district attorneys, marshals and deputy marshals of -the United States courts, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit -and Territorial courts of the United States, the officers and agents of -the Freedmen's Bureau, and every other officer whom the President might -see fit to empower thereto. And the jurisdiction established for the -trial of such cases was that of the United States courts, upon which -was conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction in any case under the -law, and to which any case touching these subjects commenced in a -"State" court could {70} be removed on motion of the defendant. But all -these things were authorized by a liberal construction of the -Thirteenth Amendment, which expressly vests in Congress the power to -make all laws necessary and proper to enforce the prohibition of -slavery throughout the whole country. - -[Sidenote: The measure sound from the points of view of modern -jurisprudence and modern political science.] - -It was, indeed, a great change in the system of the jurisprudence of -the United States that the central Government should define and protect -civil equality within the States. But it was a change which history had -forced upon the country, and the sovereign power of the nation had -deliberately legalized it. There is no question now that it was sound -political science, too, and that it was required by public morality. -Real civil liberty is always national. Its concepts and principles -spring out of the national consciousness of rights and wrongs. And -civil equality is the first principle of modern justice, the most -pressing behest of the public morality of the age. Moreover, this -measure did not militate against the President's plan of -Reconstruction. He could have accepted it without compromising that -plan in the slightest, and it was a monumental blunder on his part that -he did not do so. - -[Sidenote: The veto of the bill.] - -On the 27th of March, he sent his veto of the bill into the Senate. It -was a weak argument throughout. He objected to making the freedmen -citizens by an act of Congress, while eleven of the thirty-six "States" -were unrepresented in Congress, and made out that it was a -discrimination in favor of the ignorant negro against the intelligent -foreigner not yet naturalized. He objected to the extension of the -powers of the central Government in behalf of civil equality within the -"States" as destructive of the federal system of government, and as -degrading to the {71} legislators and officials of the "States." He did -not deny that the proposed measure might be sustained as constitutional -under the Thirteenth Amendment, but maintained that it was unnecessary -for the execution of the provisions of the Amendment. He objected, -further, to the number of officers and agents authorized to institute -proceedings under the measure, to the fee which they should receive, -and to the power of the President to order the courts of the United -States to migrate from one place to another when necessary for the -prompt administration of justice. And he objected, finally, to the -power vested in the President to use the land and naval forces and the -militia to prevent the violation, and enforce the due execution, of the -measure. - -Now all this was easily answered from the point of view which Congress -and the North had now firmly taken, viz.: that the eleven former -"States" in which rebellion had for so long prevailed were not -"States," although the territory formerly occupied by them, and the -population formerly inhabiting them, were within the United States and -were subject to the jurisdiction of the central Government; that the -rebellion had demonstrated that the central Government must be -intrusted with a large increase of powers in protecting civil equality -and civil liberty; and that the sovereign Nation had willed this in the -enactment and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the bill.] - -Really there was but one thing in the bill susceptible of successful -criticism, and that could be explained so as to avoid it. It was the -ninth section, which authorized the President to use military power in -execution of the law. The language would permit the President to use -the military before bringing the matter before the courts and securing -a decision. It would permit the President to use the military as the -{72} primal, instead of the final, agency for executing the law. It -appeared to be in this respect a real force bill, that is a bill in -which the Executive is empowered to use the military, not for the -enforcement of judicial decision in aid of the marshals, deputies, -constables, and their posses, which is the customary order in time of -peace, but for the execution of the law in the first instance, before -decision rendered or trial had. But it was entirely clear that what was -meant in this section of the bill was that, when combinations too -powerful to be dealt with by the courts and their officers should -undertake to prevent the execution of the law, the President might use -the military to overcome them. Under such an interpretation, this -provision was justifiable and proper, certainly so in a transition -period from a condition of general rebellion against the laws of the -United States to that of gradual, and only gradual, acquiescence in -their enforcement. - -[Sidenote: The President's blunder.] - -[Sidenote: The veto overridden.] - -The President most decidedly lost his chance of rehabilitating himself -with his party, and leading it in the work of Reconstruction, by not -signing this bill. He sinned against the Southerners themselves in not -doing so. His veto of it made them believe that they could count upon -the Administration, the Administration Republicans, and the whole -Democratic party of the North, in denying equal civil rights to the -freedmen, and that such a combination must eventually triumph. They, -therefore, persisted in their course of exceptional legislation against -the freedmen in the South, and in their arrogant demands for the -immediate admission to seats in Congress of the very men who had led -the rebellion for four years against the sovereignty and Government of -the United States. It is amazing that they did not see that the large -Republican majority in Congress would {73} be driven to the alternative -of seeing the work of four years of terrible sacrifice undone or of -securing its permanence by making such changes in the organic law as -would effect it, while yet they had the power. On the 6th of April, the -Senate overrode the President's veto of the Civil Rights bill, and on -the 9th the House did likewise. - -[Sidenote: The Fourteenth Amendment.] - -While, as we have seen, the President did not exactly deny the -constitutionality of the bill, the Democrats in Congress, and the -Southerners seeking seats in Congress, did. There was, therefore, but -one course left open to the Republican majority, and that was to make -what they considered to be the incidents of the Thirteenth Amendment -express provisions of the Constitution. There were also several other -things which had become clear in the course of the debates in the Civil -Rights bill and the Freedmen's Bureau bill. - -In the first place, it was seen that the emancipation of the slaves -would increase the representation in Congress and in the Presidential -electoral college from the old slave "States" by two-fifths whenever -the Southern communities should be recognized as "States" again, and -that too without the admission of the emancipated persons to the -exercise of political suffrage. It was certainly to be apprehended -that, with such increased representation, the Southern members and the -Northern Democrats would constitute a majority in Congress and in the -electoral college, and might proceed not only to repeal the Civil -Rights Act, and all acts in behalf of the freedmen, but also to throw -the Confederate debt or a part of it upon the United States, or -establish pensions for Confederate soldiers, or even repudiate the debt -of the Union made in defence of its own life. While the danger of these -things was, probably, somewhat {74} exaggerated, still it would not -have been becoming for men of prudence and patriotism to have failed to -provide against them. Really there was but one thing to do, and that -was to enact, and secure the adoption of, another amendment to the -Constitution covering these points, while the power to do so still -existed. - -[Sidenote: The political provision in the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment.] - -It would be an agreeable thing to the writer of this period of American -history, were he able to record that the principal matter which -occupied the thought and attention of the Committee on Reconstruction -was how to secure the necessary civil rights of the freedmen. But in -the interest of exact truth he is compelled to forego this pleasure. -The first thing which that Committee considered and recommended to the -Houses of Congress was the political matter of a redistribution of the -representation in the House of Representatives and in the Presidential -electoral college. On the 22d of January (1866) the Committee reported -to the two Houses the following proposition as an amendment to the -Constitution of the United States: "Representatives and direct taxes -shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included -within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the -whole number of persons in each State--excluding Indians not -taxed--provided, that whenever the elective franchise shall be denied -or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of -such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation." -For nearly six weeks both the Committee and Congress were occupied in -the discussion of this proposition. In a slightly modified form it was -adopted in the House, but, at last, on the 9th of March, it came to -vote in the Senate, and not having received the necessary two-thirds -majority, it was abandoned as a separate measure, and {75} merged into -the general article containing the regulations of all the points to -which reference was made above. - -It was Monday, April 30th, before the Committee was ready to report the -entire article, which took the name of the Fourteenth Amendment to the -Constitution. The article as presented to the Houses of Congress by the -Joint Committee on that day read as follows: - -"Sect. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge -the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor -shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without -due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the -equal protection of the laws. - -"Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States -which may be included within this Union according to their respective -numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding -Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise -shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than -twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for -participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation -in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of -such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not -less than twenty-one years of age. - -"Sect. 3. Until the 4th day of July in the year 1870, all persons who -voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and -comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives -in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-President of the -United States. - -"Sect. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay -any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be -incurred, in aid of {76} insurrection or war against the United States, -or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor. - -"Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate -legislation, the provisions of this Article." - -[Sidenote: Defects in the first draft of the Amendment.] - -The chief difficulties with these provisions were, first, that they did -not define who were the citizens of the United States; second, that -while they disfranchised for two or three years all who had voluntarily -taken part in the rebellion, they did not disqualify anybody from -holding office or legislative mandate on account of such conduct; and -third, that while they forbade the payment of any debt or obligation -incurred in aid of rebellion, they did not guarantee those incurred in -the suppression of such rebellion. - -[Sidenote: The discussion of the propositions in Congress.] - -The discussion in Congress upon these provisions lasted through the -month of May and well into June. At last in the second week of June, -the two Houses arrived at an agreement upon the modifications which -seemed proper and necessary, and the Article as thus perfected was -adopted by the necessary two-thirds vote in each branch. - -[Sidenote: The final draft agreed upon.] - -The first section had been modified by the incorporation into it of a -sentence which defined citizenship of the United States. It reads: "All -persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the -jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the -State wherein they reside." This cleared up all difficulties in -determining who the persons were, whose privileges and immunities were -to be protected against "State" action. It also settled the question, -forever, as to whether citizenship of the United States or citizenship -of the "State" is primary. There is no doubt that in that clause of the -original {77} Constitution which declares that the Constitution of the -United States, and the laws of Congress made in accordance therewith, -and the treaties made under the authority thereof, are the supreme law -of the land, no matter what may be found in "State" constitutions or -laws to the contrary, primary allegiance of all citizens and persons to -the United States was established and required, but the advocates of -"State" sovereignty always contended that, because there was no express -clause in the Constitution defining citizenship, and declaring the -citizenship of the United States primary, citizenship was primarily of -the "State," and, hence, allegiance was due primarily to the "State" by -all its inhabitants. It was very proper and very desirable that this -contention should be set at rest. - -The language of the second section had been revised so as to make its -meaning more clear, but it had not been changed at all as to its -meaning. It reads in its perfected form: "Representatives shall be -apportioned among the several States according to their respective -numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding -Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the -choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United -States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial -officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is -denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one -years of age, _and citizens of the United States_, or in any way -abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the -basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion -which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number -of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." - -For section third, denying suffrage until 1870 to all {78} persons who -had given aid voluntarily to the rebellion, Congress had substituted an -entirely new resolution, which rendered the Confederate chieftains -ineligible to office instead of disqualifying the rank and file for -suffrage. It reads as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or -Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, -or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or -under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of -Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any -State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, -to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in -insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to -the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each -House, remove such disability." - -This was certainly a wise change. It certainly could not be contended -that disqualifications for holding office and legislative mandate -violated any so-called natural right. It was better that whatever -punishments of a political nature might fall upon the Confederates -should strike the leaders, rather than the followers. And it was not a -severe punishment which required that, for a time at least, the people -inhabiting the communities lately in rebellion should choose as their -representatives to the National legislature and to the Presidential -electoral college, and as their "State" officers, men not identified -with the rebellion so closely as to have been among its leaders. It is -difficult to see how the Confederate leaders could have been required -to suffer less, and have been rebuked at all for their acts. - -Finally, section four was supplemented by a sentence which declared -that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized -by law, including debts {79} incurred for payment of pensions and -bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall -not be questioned." The last words of the section were also somewhat -modified in the direction of greater emphasis, but the meaning remained -the same. As thus perfected, the section declared the validity of all -the existing obligations of the United States, and repudiated all -obligations whatsoever assumed in aid of rebellion, and all claims for -the loss or emancipation of any slave. This covered the ground -completely in regard to the security of the public obligations of the -United States both from the positive and negative side, and it -prevented both Congress and the "States" from ever recognizing, in the -future, the claim for any relief from the natural consequences of -unsuccessful rebellion, and the right to any compensation for -deprivation of property in man. - -As Congress passed these propositions by the necessary two-thirds -majority they were not submitted to the President at all, it being -considered that his disapproval, if given, would avail nothing against -such a majority. This has been the custom from the first in -Congressional propositions of amendment, and it is now too late to -dispute its regularity. But it is easy to see that the President might -support a veto of such propositions by such reasoning as to make it at -least possible that sufficient votes might be changed from affirmative -to negative upon them, to finally defeat them; and it is certainly true -that the Constitution requires that every bill, order, resolution, or -vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of -Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) -shall be presented to the President and is subject to his approval or -veto, no matter by what majority it may have been passed. - -{80} [Sidenote: The President's attitude toward the proposed -amendment.] - -However, President Johnson had no opportunity to express himself -officially or make himself officially felt in regard to this Amendment. -It was pretty well understood that he did not view it with favor while -it was pending, and it soon became manifest that he was advising its -rejection by the "States." - -[Sidenote: Mr. Seward's acts in regard to ratification.] - -Mr. Seward issued his notification of the passage of the amendment by -Congress to the "State" legislatures for their ratificatory action on -the 16th of June. He sent the same to the legislatures of all the -"States," that is, to the legislatures of those bodies claiming to be -"States" under the President's plan of Reconstruction, as well as to -the legislatures of those "States" which had never pretended to secede -from the Union. This was, again, certainly a recognition of all these -bodies as "States" of the Union by the executive branch of the -Government, at least. - -[Sidenote: The requirement that the ratification of the proposed -Amendment should be the condition of the admission of the Senators- and -Representatives-elect to seats in Congress.] - -On the other hand, the Reconstruction Committee of Congress had -reported a bill along with the Article of Amendment, which virtually -proposed to make the ratification of the proposed Amendment by the -respective legislatures of the reconstructed Southern communities the -condition of the admission of the Senators- and Representatives-elect -from them to seats in Congress. That is, it was proposed that Congress -should make its recognition of the reconstructed bodies as "States" -conditional upon their ratification of the Article of Amendment. Or -perhaps some of those supporting this proposition would have preferred -the statement that it was proposed that Congress should make its -recognition of the reconstructed governments of the "States" in which -secession had {81} been attempted conditional upon the ratification of -the Amendment by the legislative departments of these reconstructed -governments respectively. - -[Sidenote: The absurdity of the condition.] - -No matter how it might have been stated, it was an absurdity. The true -theory on this point was that held by Mr. Stevens, viz., to consider -only those "States" which had never attempted secession, those "States" -which had never been members of the Southern Confederacy, as -constituting the "States" of the Union at that moment, and all other -territory and people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -as being under the exclusive government of the central Government; to -amend the Constitution by a three-fourths majority of these loyal -"States"; and then to admit these reconstructed communities as new -"States" into the Union with its amended Constitution. - -The amended Constitution would then have the same power over them as if -the Amendment had been ratified by them. In fact, their petition for -admission or recognition as "States" of the Union with the amended -Constitution would imply their assent to the Amendment as well as to -every other part of the Constitution. The more moderate Republicans -feared that the Southern communities would not feel obligated by a -Constitution amended in this way. It is difficult to see why they -should not. The Southern statesmen knew that Congress had no power -under the Constitution to require of new "States" obedience to anything -as a condition of their admission to the Union, but the Constitution as -it was at the moment of their admission. Looked at from the point of -view of the present, it would certainly appear that the exaction of -such an unlawful promise, imposing such a degrading discrimination, -would have been far more exasperating than anything else which could -have been invented or imagined. - -{82} Enough of them saw this to prevent Congress from enacting the bill -proposed by the Reconstruction Committee into a law, and when the -proposed Amendment went to the legislatures of the "States," there was -no requirement attending it which appeared to deprive any legislature, -or body claiming to be a legislature, of its discretion in dealing with -the subject. - -[Sidenote: The precedent set by Tennessee.] - -As a matter of fact, however, the legislature of Tennessee ratified the -proposed Amendment within about a month after receiving the Article -from Secretary Seward, and Congress thereupon passed the following -joint resolution and sent it to the President for his signature: -"Whereas in the year 1861 the government of the State of Tennessee was -seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the -United States, and the inhabitants of said State, in pursuance of an -act of Congress, were declared to be in a state of insurrection against -the United States; and whereas said State government can only be -restored to its former political relations in the Union by consent of -the lawmaking power of the United States; and whereas the people of -said State did, on the 22d of February, 1865, by a large popular vote, -adopt and ratify a constitution of government whereby slavery was -abolished and all ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted -under the same were declared void; and whereas a State government has -been organized under said constitution which has ratified the amendment -to the constitution abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by -the thirty-ninth Congress" (the Fourteenth Amendment) "and has done -other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty: Therefore, _Be it resolved -by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled_, That -the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former practical -relations to the {83} Union, and is again entitled to be represented by -Senators and Representatives in Congress." - -[Sidenote: The Tennessee precedent.] - -These proceedings made it certain that, while Congress had failed to -pass any formal act making the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment a condition precedent to the readmission of the other -"States" which had been in rebellion, Congress would not readmit any of -them which did not do this. Tennessee, it was thought, had sinned the -least of all, and, therefore, should be readmitted on lightest terms. -More might be righteously required of the others, but not less. - -[Sidenote: The President's message in regard to the rehabilitation of -Tennessee.] - -The President signed the resolution, but accompanied the same with a -short message in which he made a rather telling criticism upon the -procedure of submitting proposed constitutional amendments to bodies -not already "States" in the Union, and warned Congress against -construing his approval as committing him to all of the statements of -fact contained in the preamble to the resolution, or to the doctrine -that Congress had any right "to pass laws preliminary to the admission -of duly qualified Representatives from any of the States." These latter -words manifest the fact that the President was still holding on to the -idea that the whole function of Congress in Reconstruction consisted in -the power of each House to judge of the election and qualifications of -its members. - - - - -{84} - -CHAPTER VI - -THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Continued_) - -The Reports of the Committee on Reconstruction--The Idea of a New -Electorate as the Basis and Condition of Reconstruction--The Freedmen's -Bureau Act of July 16th, 1866--The Disaffection in the Cabinet--The New -Orleans Riot--The Issue of Reconstruction in the Campaign of 1866--The -Congressional Election of 1866--The President's Final Proclamation -Declaring the Civil War Ended--The October Elections--The President's -Message of December 3d, 1866--Rejection of the Proposed Fourteenth -Amendment by the Legislatures of the Reconstructed "States." - - -[Sidenote: The reports of the Committee on Reconstruction.] - -Two days after the transmission of the Fourteenth Amendment to the -"State" legislatures, the Joint Committee of Congress on Reconstruction -made its final report, or rather reports, since there were two of them, -one being signed by all the Republican members of the Committee, and -the other by all the Democratic members. - -[Sidenote: The majority report.] - -The majority report was an able defence of the view, that by rebellion -and attempted secession the eleven "States" in which these things -happened had lost their "Statehood" and had become disorganized -communities, but that while they could and had destroyed "State" -government, and placed themselves outside of the Union so far as -exercising the powers and privileges of "State" local government was -concerned, they could not, and had not, escaped the obligations of the -Constitution and the authority of the {85} central Government. The -exact language of the report on this point was: "The Constitution, it -will be observed, does not act upon States, as such, but upon the -people; while, therefore, the people cannot escape its authority, the -States may, through the act of their people, cease to exist in an -organized form, and thus dissolve their political relations with the -United States." The doctrine is here more clearly expressed than in -other places, but even here there is a confusing modification contained -in the words "in an organized form." It would have been much clearer if -they had been entirely omitted. The framers of the report were -evidently haunted by that spectre of an abstract, unorganized "State," -which has played such havoc with good sense in some of the subsequent -decisions of the Supreme Court, and which is nothing more than a -Platonic idea. - -Based upon this doctrine, the majority report naturally vindicated the -exclusive right of Congress in the work of Reconstruction, which work -was virtually the admission of new "States" into the Union. It, -furthermore, demonstrated that the situation in these disorganized -sections was one largely of exhausted disloyalty only, and that all -that the inhabitants of them had done under the President's -Reconstruction policy was directed toward putting the same men in power -who had led in the rebellion and toward denying civil, to say nothing -of political, rights to the freedmen. - -And its final conclusion was, "that Congress would not be justified in -admitting such communities to a participation in the government of the -country without first providing such constitutional or other guarantees -as would tend to secure the civil rights of all citizens of the -Republic; a just equality of representation; protection against claims -founded in rebellion and crime; a temporary restoration of the right of -suffrage to those {86} who have not actively participated in the -efforts to destroy the Union and overthrow the Government; and the -exclusion from positions of public trust of at least a portion of those -whose crimes have proved them to be the enemies of the Union, and -unworthy of public confidence." - -As we have seen, the proposed Fourteenth Article of Amendment had -provided for all of these things, except the direct conferring of -suffrage on anybody. With this exception, it had gone even further, in -its provision declaratory of citizenship, and in its protection of the -public debt of the Union. - -[Sidenote: The minority report.] - -The report of the minority, that is of the three Democrats, was written -by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. It was, as a lawyer's brief, an -able presentation of the view that a "State" of the Union can never -become anything else than a "State," no matter what may be the -character, deeds, attempts or disposition of the people who inhabit it, -and is at all times entitled to the same powers, rights and privileges, -under the Constitution of the United States. It was, however, the -veriest dry bones of legal reasoning, the veriest sophistry of juristic -abstraction. There was no political science in it, no common sense in -it, and it ended with an unfortunate and irritating defence of -President Johnson's personal loyalty, which had not been in the -slightest degree impugned by the majority. - -[Sidenote: The idea of a new electorate as the basis and condition of -Reconstruction.] - -The majority report indicated, at least, that Congress might require -something more than adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by the -communities lately in rebellion before they would be recognized as -having been restored to their proper relations in the Union as -"States," and entitled to representation in Congress. At the moment, -however, it is probable that a prompt adoption of {87} the proposed -Amendment by any of the reconstructed legislatures would have been -followed by a joint resolution on the part of Congress similar to that -enacted in the case of Tennessee. There is no doubt that many of the -more radical members of Congress had been long considering the question -of creating an entirely new electorate in the South as the only proper -basis for reconstruction, and that some of the conservatives, from -being opponents of this idea at the beginning of the year, had, by the -middle of it, begun, at least, to waver. To those who could read the -signs of the times correctly, it was manifest that a rejection of the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment by these communities would lead Congress -forward upon that line. The President ought to have understood this, -when Mr. Raymond voted for the proposed Amendment in the House. He -ought to have done all in his power to influence the reconstructed -communities to adopt the proposed Amendment, no matter whether the -submission of it to them by the Secretary of State of the United States -logically involved their recognition as "States" of the Union by the -Administration at Washington, or not. They were not in a position to -exact the precise conclusion of a logical process in their favor, -especially as it was based on a fallacious premise, and the President -did both himself and them a great wrong in not discouraging them from -so doing. - -[Sidenote: The Freedmen's Bureau Act of July 16th, 1866.] - -A few weeks later Congress scored another victory over the President, -one which did much toward wiping out the defeats of February 19th and -21st. It passed another Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and then repassed it -July 16th, over the President's veto. This bill was framed with the -purpose in view of avoiding those features of the bill, successfully -vetoed by the President on February 19th preceding, {88} which had -influenced certain Republicans to sustain the President's veto. The -differences between the two measures consisted in the following points. -The first bill had no definite time limit; the second would expire in -two years from the date of its passage. The first bill vested -jurisdiction in the Freedmen's Bureau over the civil rights of freedmen -and refugees in all parts of the United States. The second vested the -bureau with jurisdiction over loyal refugees and freedmen without -mention of place. The first vested a most sweeping power in the Bureau -to give all kinds of aid and support to the destitute refugees and -freedmen. The second contained only the more moderate provision of the -original law of March 3d, 1865, on that subject. Finally the first gave -the Bureau jurisdiction over the civil rights of freedmen and refugees, -not only when the deprivation of them was the consequence of rebellion, -but when it was effected by _any local law_, ordinance, police -regulation or other regulation. The second, on the contrary, limited -the jurisdiction of the Bureau to those cases where the deprivation was -the consequence of rebellion. - -[Sidenote: The veto of the measure.] - -The President could not, however, see much difference between them. He -claimed that his objections to the first bill were valid against the -second. The second measure, he contended, was only a war measure for a -definite period, in a time of peace. It was the prolongation for a -definite time of military jurisdiction over civil matters, when the -civil courts both "State" and Union were open and in the unhindered -discharge of their business. And he held the ground that Congress had -no more constitutional power to create, or perpetuate, military -jurisdiction over civil matters for a definite period in time of peace -than for an indefinite period. He referred to the fact that the Civil -Rights measure, just passed over his veto, met all {89} the points -provided for in the Freedmen's Bureau bill, and affirmed that all of -the provisions of that law would be executed by him through ordinary -civil means, in so far as they should not be repealed by Congress or -declared unconstitutional by the courts. - -[Sidenote: Correctness of the President's views.] - -From the point of view of to-day it is difficult to see why the -President was not right. There is no doubt that the Freedmen's Bureau -with its powers, jurisdiction and charities, was a far greater source -of irritation in the South than was the presence of the United States -army. While its superior officers were generally men of ability and -character, a large number of the subalterns were canting hypocrites and -outright thieves. They kept the negroes in a state of idleness, beggary -and unrest, and made them a constant danger to the life and property of -the whites; and their veritable tyranny over the white population did -more to destroy Union sentiment among the whites and make them regard -the United States Government in a hostile light than anything which had -happened during the whole course of the rebellion. It was an -institution which ought to have been dispensed with the instant that -the necessity which called it into existence passed away. The law of -March 3d, 1865, had still about eight months to run, and Congress would -be in session again four months before it would expire. There was ample -opportunity for prolonging the law, and that law, it was to be -presumed, was less needed in 1866 than in 1865. It took all of the -party discipline of the Republicans to prevent sufficient disaffection -in their ranks to sustain the President's veto. On the merits of the -question alone they could not have done it. They were in error, and -many of them knew it, but they were now in to fight the President and -they must stand together. - -{90} [Sidenote: The veto overridden.] - -The veto of the bill was dated July 16th, and the two Houses repassed -it over the veto on the same day. The new law was to be executed -through the War Department, as the original measure had been, and the -Secretary of War had begun to manifest that indecent hostility to the -President which disgraced the last years of the Administration. The -President was largely cut off from even the knowledge of what was -taking place in the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau, and Mr. -Stanton now managed it in such a manner, whether intentional or not, as -to cause the greatest possible friction between the Government and the -whites of the South, and thus to retard the process of Reconstruction -and to destroy what had been already accomplished in that direction. - -[Sidenote: Disaffection in the Cabinet.] - -[Sidenote: Stanton's attitude toward the President.] - -Besides Stanton, three other members of the Cabinet had showed their -disaffection toward the President's policy. They were Mr. Speed, the -Attorney-General, Mr. Dennison, the Postmaster-General, and Mr. Harlan, -the Secretary of the Interior. During the course of the month (July) -these three gentlemen resigned their offices, and were replaced by Mr. -Stanbery, Mr. A. W. Randall, and Mr. O. H. Browning. Their sense of -propriety would not permit them to retain high office under the -President while differing with him so widely in regard to the -fundamental question of Reconstruction. Mr. Stanton, however, took a -different view of his duty. He seemed to feel that he was under -obligations to his country to remain in the President's Cabinet, at the -head of the most important branch of the Administration at that moment, -and protect the country against the purposes of the President. He was -sustained in this view by the Republican majority in Congress, which -soon entered upon its course of depriving {91} the President of his -military control even, by transferring his functions to the Secretary -of War and the General of the army. To the men of the present day, Mr. -Stanton's conduct appears, at least, lacking in a proper sense of -delicacy. It may be regarded in an even more serious light. It may be -looked upon as a conspiracy with the Republican majority in Congress to -rob the President of his constitutional prerogatives, to change the -form of government from the presidential system to the parliamentary -system of administration. It is difficult to find any sufficient -defence for Mr. Stanton's course. It is impossible to clear him of the -appearance of great egotism or of great greed of office, in not -resigning along with his dissatisfied colleagues. - -The President knew of this difference of feeling between himself and -his War Secretary at the time of his reorganization of the Cabinet in -July, and would undoubtedly have been glad to receive his resignation, -but he did not ask for it. The newspapers which sustained the -Administration did, however, and predicted that it would be -forthcoming. The Republican leaders, on the other hand, encouraged -Stanton to hold on to the office, and represented to him that the -welfare of his country demanded the sacrifice of his personal feelings -in the matter. - -[Sidenote: The opinion and feeling in the North concerning the -condition of things in the South.] - -It was now generally proclaimed throughout the North that the rebel -chieftains had repossessed themselves of the reconstructed "State" -governments and were making use of "State" powers to re-enslave the -freedmen. It was also proclaimed that the life and property of Union -men, of whatever race, at the South were utterly insecure, and that at -least a thousand men had been murdered in that section within a year's -time, without any considerable number of the {92} murderers having been -brought to justice. And it was asserted that the President of the -United States had deserted the party of the Union, the party which had -elevated him to the chief magistracy of the land, and was now -conspiring with his old party friends, the Democrats, in both the North -and the South, to drive the Republican party from power and restore the -régime of the Democracy of 1860. - -[Sidenote: The New Orleans riot.] - -At this moment a horrible tragedy was enacted in New Orleans which -seemed to give verification to some, if not all, of these statements. -It seems that the late Confederate leaders resident in Louisiana, -having received pardon from the President of the United States upon -fulfilling the conditions of the President's amnesty proclamation, had -got possession in 1864 of the reconstructed "State" government of -Louisiana, with the exception of the governorship and some of the -judicial offices. The constitution of 1864, made by sincere Union men, -did not exactly suit them, and the legislature in the spring of 1866 -took into consideration a bill for calling another convention together -for the purpose of framing a new constitution, but the Administration -at Washington frowned upon the movement and the legislature abandoned -it. In like manner, the men who formed and established the constitution -of 1864 were displeased with the fact that the "State" government under -it had been captured at the polls by the old electorate of Louisiana, -reinstated through the President's amnesty. They also wanted to change -the constitution, to so change it as to create an electorate which -would bring them back into power again. This meant negro suffrage. Just -before the convention of 1864 adjourned, it passed a resolution vesting -in the presiding officer of the convention the power, and imposing on -him the duty, of reconvoking the {93} convention in case the -constitution framed by it should not be ratified at the polls, or for -any other necessary reason, for the purpose of taking such measures as -might be needful for forming civil government in Louisiana. - -Of course, when the constitution framed by the convention was adopted -by popular vote and a "State" government was set up under it, common -sense and common honesty would hold that the convention had been -finally dissolved, no matter how the wording of the resolution might be -forced in the opposite direction. The men of "'64" saw in this wording -their only chance, however, to rescue the "State" government from the -hands of the amnestied electorate, and in their desperation they were -determined to attempt to make use of it. A number of the members of the -old convention got together informally on the 26th of June. The -president of the old convention did not call them together, and he -would not preside at the informal meeting. He made some trivial excuse; -but there cannot be much doubt in regard to his real reason. This -informal meeting then proceeded to elect a _pro tempore_ president, -Judge Howell, an office-holder under the constitution of 1864. It was -this man who issued the proclamation of July 7th, reconvoking the old -convention of 1864. The time appointed by him was the 30th of July at -noon, and the place designated by him was the Mechanics' Institute -Building at New Orleans. The men called together were the members of -the old convention, but to provide for any vacancies that might have -happened or might happen in the former membership of this old body, -Judge Howell called on the Governor, Mr. Wells, to issue writs of -election. The governor did so, and ordered an election of such -delegates to be held September 3d. He thus manifested his approval of -the movement. - -{94} Naturally the party of the amnestied viewed this scheme for -depriving them of the "State" government by means of a new -constitution, framed by a defunct convention, and certain to contain a -provision for negro suffrage, with the most intense hostility. They -were not placated either by being referred to the consideration that -the constitution framed by this convention must be submitted to the -suffrages of the existing electorate, and must be ratified by a -majority of the same, before it could be put into operation. They had a -suspicion that the whole thing was instigated by the wicked Republicans -at the North, and that the voting upon such a proposed constitution -would be controlled by them through the military of the United States -Government. - -They, therefore, resolved to nip the plan in the bud by preventing the -assembly of the convention, or forcing it to disperse if it did -assemble. The mayor of the city, Mr. Monroe, the same who was mayor -when the Union army entered the city in 1862, applied to the General in -command of the United States troops in Louisiana, General Absalom -Baird, to know what attitude the military authorities would take toward -the convention, and informed General Baird that he intended to disperse -the convention if it should attempt to assemble without having the -approval of these authorities. General Baird was acting for General -Sheridan, who was absent from his post, and he replied with much more -caution than he would probably have done had he been alone responsible. -He told Mayor Monroe that he thought the Governor of the "State," -rather than the mayor of the city, was the man to interfere with the -assembly of a body professing to be a "State" convention, if there was -to be any interference at all, and he gave the mayor to understand that -his proposed course might be perilous. This was the {95} 25th of July. -Two days later the mayor went again to the General, this time -accompanied by the Lieutenant-Governor, who was of the party of the -amnestied. He now told General Baird that the police would not -undertake to prevent the assembly of the convention, or disperse its -members when assembled, but that its members would be indicted by the -grand jury and arrested by the sheriff. The General seemed to think -that the convention could lawfully assemble, but agreed with the mayor -and Lieutenant-Governor that both he and they would request -instructions from Washington. - -The General applied to the Secretary of War, and the mayor applied to -the President. The General informed the Secretary of the movement to -assemble a convention; that it had the approval of the Governor; that -the Lieutenant-Governor and the municipal authorities considered it -unlawful and proposed to prevent it by arresting the delegates; that he -had declared to them that he would not permit them to do this, unless -the President should so instruct him; and he asked for orders, in the -premises, by telegraph. The Lieutenant-Governor and the -Attorney-General of the "State" informed the President of the movement -to assemble the old convention; informed him that negroes were -assembling, incendiary speeches were being made calling them to arm -themselves, and the President was being denounced; that the Governor -was in sympathy with the movement; that the matter was before the grand -jury; and that it was contemplated to have the members of the -convention arrested by criminal process; and they asked the President -to inform them whether the military authorities would interfere to -prevent the execution of the processes of the criminal court. - -Secretary Stanton did not reply to General Baird's application at all. -He did not even communicate the {96} General's application to the -President. He afterward explained that he did not consider that Baird's -telegram required any reply. Baird had said in his despatch that he had -informed the Lieutenant-Governor and the city authorities that he would -not allow them to arrest the delegates and break up the convention -unless instructed to do so by the President. The Secretary did not -propose to send the General any such orders, or to allow any such to be -transmitted to him from the President through the War Department, and -so the Secretary thought it best to let the matter rest where the -General had placed it. He did not know that the President had been -applied to by the other side, and the President did not inform the -Secretary of the despatch which he had received. The confidence between -the two men had been already so largely destroyed as to prevent even -consultation upon these grave subjects. - -The President, on the other hand, answered the application made to him. -He telegraphed to the Lieutenant-Governor that the military would be -expected to sustain, and not to obstruct, or interfere with, the -proceedings of the criminal court. He did not send any orders to -General Baird, however. Whether the Lieutenant-Governor showed his -telegram from the President to General Baird or not is not positively -known, so far as the writer of these pages has been able to discover, -but it is probable that he did. - -It was certainly then the understanding on all sides, at least, that -the "State" and municipal authorities would deal with the delegates to -the convention, if they interfered with them at all, through the grand -jury and the officers of the criminal court, and not through the -police. This did not mean, of course, that the police should not be -present in the neighborhood of the convention for the purpose of -keeping the {97} public peace. They were ordered to assemble at the -stations on the morning of the 30th (July) and to bring their arms. -According to General Sheridan's report to the President, the riot was -occasioned by the marching of a procession of negroes, about one -hundred strong and partly armed, through several of the streets to the -locality of the convention. It occurred about an hour after the members -of the convention had assembled. Naturally a number of people, mostly -of the lower orders, gathered on the sidewalks of the streets through -which the procession passed. Hooting and jeering followed. Then a shot -was fired, probably by a negro in the procession. Then other shots -followed and the crowd rushed after the procession, which soon arrived -in front of the building in which the convention sat. Brickbats now -flew from each side and the riot was in full progress when the police -appeared on the scene. The procession rushed into the building, leaving -a few of its members outside. One of these and a policeman came to -blows, when another shot was fired, upon which the policemen began -firing through the windows of the building. After a few moments a white -flag was displayed from one of the windows, whereupon the firing ceased -and the policemen rushed into the building. Once in the building they -fired their revolvers upon the persons present indiscriminately and -with terrible effect. The persons who succeeded in escaping from the -building were also fired on by the police and by citizens, and many -were killed or wounded. Nearly two hundred persons were killed or -injured, mostly negroes, but some whites, and among them some members -of the proposed convention. There were no United States troops in the -city at the hour of the riot, their barracks being outside. General -Baird had ordered four companies to take position near the place of the -{98} convention, but owing to the fact that he had got the impression -that the convention would assemble at 6 P.M., he had ordered them to -repair to the assigned position at 5 P.M. They, consequently, did not -arrive until the riot was over and the convention was dispersed. - -Each party considered the other the aggressor. The Republicans of the -North viewed the massacre as a new rebellion, while the amnestied -Southerners considered the riot the result of a justified resistance to -an attempt to force negro suffrage and then negro rule upon them. It is -very nearly certain that the first shot was fired by a negro, but this -would not justify the wholesale massacre executed by the police. It -could, therefore, be held by the Republicans with a great show of truth -that the public authorities of the reconstructed "State" government of -Louisiana not only would not extend the equal protection of the laws to -all persons, but would themselves deprive persons even of life without -due process of law. - -[Sidenote: The issue of Reconstruction in the campaign of 1866.] - -The issue of the campaign of 1866 was thus made up. It was simply -whether Congress should reconstruct the President's reconstructed -"States," or rather should pronounce the President's Reconstruction, -and the Reconstruction effected by the amnestied Southerners, null and -void, and proceed to do the work _de novo_, with the purpose of -creating adequate guarantee for life and property and for the equal -protection of the laws to all. - -Although it was not a Presidential year, the election of the members of -the House of Representatives with such a problem to deal with, and the -election of "State" legislatures which would consider the question of -adopting the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, made -the canvass of 1866 a truly national {99} one. Four National -Conventions were held during the summer and early autumn, two of each -party. - -[Sidenote: The National Conventions of the summer of 1866.] - -The Administration party led off with their great meeting in -Philadelphia on the 14th of August. There were a few prominent -Republicans among the delegates, such as Montgomery Blair, Raymond, -Dix, Cowan, Doolittle and Browning, but the vast majority of them were -Democrats. All of the Southern delegates were such. The larger number -of the Northern Democrats were conservative men of the stamp and style -of R. C. Winthrop, W. B. Lawrence, S. J. Tilden, J. P. Stockton, J. E. -English and Reverdy Johnson, but there were also present men of more -radical anti-national creed, like Fernando Wood, J. G. Sinclair, and -James Campbell. Even Clement L. Vallandigham, presented himself as a -delegate. There were many, however, who objected to his presence and he -withdrew. The doctrines put forward at this meeting were simply those -of the President's Reconstruction policy, the doctrines that the -"States" in our Federal system are indestructible and immaculate, and -under submission to national authority always possessed of the rights -of local self-government and of representation in the National -Government. These doctrines were developed into such extreme forms of -statement, and such extreme results were boldly accepted as their -logical consequences, that the cause of the Administration was damaged -rather than helped at the North by the work and experiences of the -convention. - -Inasmuch as there had been a great display of harmony between the -leading men of the South and the Northern delegates in the convention -of the 14th of August, making it appear that the Democrats were the -party of peace and reunion, while the Republicans were {100} in favor -of a continuation of the hostile status, the Southern Republicans, or -as they called themselves the loyal Union men of the South, assembled -in considerable numbers in Philadelphia on the 3d of September, for the -purpose of conferring with the leading Republicans of the North in -regard to the condition of things in the South. Such men as John Minor -Botts, William G. Brownlow, George W. Paschal, Thomas J. Durant, M. J. -Safford, Thomas H. Benton, Lewis M. Kenzie, G. W. Ashburn, and many -more of almost equal reputation came to counsel with the leaders of the -Republican party. Many of the most important of these were there, -Trumbull, Greeley, Morton, Chandler, Schenck, Schurz, Matthews, Curtin, -Cameron, Gerry, Speed, the ex-Attorney-General, and Creswell. These are -only a few names of the eminent men who were present. - -The delegates separated into two bodies, one body comprehending the -representatives from the South, and the other those from the North. -This was done in order to leave the Southerners free from undue -Northern influence. Mr. Speed presided over the Southern assembly, and -in his opening words declared the purpose of the convention to be to -determine and proclaim whether the assertion of the late Confederates -that their constitutional rights were being denied them in not -admitting their Representatives- and Senators-elect to seats in -Congress was true, or whether, on the other hand, the claim of the -emancipated that their civil and natural rights were being denied them -was true. He soon left no doubt upon the minds of his hearers as to his -own view and belief, and he denounced the President's reconstruction -work, both in principle and results, most roundly. On account of the -intimate relation in which he had stood to the President as his legal -adviser, and on {101} account of the fact that he was a citizen of one -of the old slave-holding "States," his words had tremendous effect in -steeling the purpose of the Republicans of the North. - -Under the inspiration of Mr. Speed's speech, the Southern convention -framed and fulminated an address which arraigned the President as -almost a traitor to his party and the Union, and as a friend of rebels -and of sympathizers with rebels, described the results of his -Reconstruction policy and acts as most deplorable, and urged the speedy -adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as -the only possible cure for the evils which were afflicting the country. -This address made up the issues of the campaign. The dividing line of -the parties now separated those who favored the adoption of the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment from those who did not. The issue was -simple, and the vote upon it was decisive, as we shall see. - -The Administration party now attempted to divide the late soldiers, as -it had attempted to divide the Republicans, with but little better -effect. They got together a convention of the veterans at Cleveland, -Ohio, on the 17th of September, and had the venerable General Wool -preside over it. There were many good men and true present, among them -Gordon Granger, Rousseau, Custer, McClernand, and Thomas Ewing; and -they accused the Republicans of attempting to stir up another civil war -over the question of negro suffrage, and urged their old comrades to -insist that the status of peace, and all the consequences thereof, -existed and must be preserved. - -This movement was met on the other side by the assembly of a Republican -soldier convention at Pittsburg on the 25th and 26th of September, for -the purpose of upholding Congress in its fight with the Administration -over the question of Reconstruction. The convention {102} was presided -over by General J. D. Cox, and a host of the most capable officers of -the armies of the Union, lately disbanded, participated in its -deliberations and resolves. They denounced the President's -Reconstruction policy, pronounced their adherence to Congress, and -declared for the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as the -indispensable measure for the re-establishment of peace, justice and -union. - -[Sidenote: The canvass of 1866.] - -During the summer and autumn the orators and politicians of both -parties pursued the canvass upon the basis of the doctrines put forth -by the conventions. A very large number, an unusually large number, of -the leading men of the country, took part in the great debate. Even the -President of the United States took part in it. - -[Sidenote: The "swing around the circle."] - -On the 28th of August he started from Washington to go to Chicago to be -present at the laying of the corner-stone of the Douglas monument. He -took with him General Grant, Admiral Farragut, three of his Cabinet -officers, Seward, Randall and Welles, and a large number of lesser -lights. Crowds gathered at all the principal stopping-places, and the -President spoke to them in defence of his policy of Reconstruction and -of his acts in the execution of it. He denounced his enemies and -opponents bitterly, and descended to undignified and even vulgar -altercation with individuals in the crowds. In his speech at St. Louis, -on September 28th, his hot temper betrayed him into an attempt to throw -upon Congress, the radical Congress, as he called it, the blame for the -New Orleans riot, and he went to the imprudent extreme of almost making -an excuse or a quasi-excuse for the riot. The whole performance of the -President upon the journey was termed "swinging around the circle," and -it both degraded the great office and its {103} incumbent, and injured -the prospects of the Administration party in the campaign. - -[Sidenote: The President's final proclamation declaring the Civil War -ended.] - -[Sidenote: The October elections.] - -[Sidenote: The Republican triumph in the elections of 1866.] - -The President had on the 20th day of August, a week before setting out -upon his tour, finally proclaimed the insurrection and Civil War at an -end in every part of the country. He had, on the 2d day of April -preceding, declared the insurrection at an end everywhere except in -Texas, and the proclamation of August 20th gave official witness to its -cessation in Texas. It is certainly a prerogative of the President to -proclaim the cessation of opposition to his execution of the laws of -the Union, and then to execute the same thereafter through civil, -instead of military, officers. If the President had meant no more than -this by his proclamations of the termination of the insurrection, the -position would have been unassailable. But he evidently intended his -proclamations as furnishing a basis for his Reconstruction work, or at -any rate as furnishing a great reason for the general recognition of -the validity of that work. This we can easily gather from the speeches -he made as he "swung around the circle" in the campaign of 1866. He -felt that he had solid ground under his feet, and did not appreciate -the fact that he was resting one of his doctrines upon another, the -latter being no more self-evident than the former. He felt quite sure -of victory, until what were called the "October States," at that time, -Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa, held their elections. The two -"September States," Vermont and Maine, had largely increased their -Republican majorities, which the President had probably expected and -allowed for, but when the four "October States" gave only twelve seats -in the House of Representatives to the Democrats and nearly fifty to -the Republicans, it was pretty clearly revealed {104} that the -Administration was on the eve of a terrible defeat. It was as -overwhelming as these figures indicated. The final results showed that -the Republicans had elected one hundred and forty-three of their -candidates to seats in the House of Representatives, while the -Democrats had succeeded in securing only forty-nine seats. With the -exception of Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky, all the "States" -represented in Congress had given the Republican party strong -majorities. The strength of the Democratic party was again in the -South, where the Democratic candidates for any kind of office had -almost universally succeeded. In the Senate the Republicans constituted -more than a two-thirds majority of the members, and with their almost -three-fourths majority in the House, there could be no question that, -in a contest between the President and Congress, the former would be -obliged to yield. - -[Sidenote: The President's Message of December 3d, 1866.] - -Notwithstanding all this, however, the President, in his Message to -Congress of December 3d, returned to the contest. He reargued his case -from every point of view, and with both moderation and great force. He -restated what had been done toward Reconstruction, declaring that peace -had been restored everywhere, that all the laws of the United States -and all the machinery of the United States Government were in unimpeded -operation everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the land, and -that loyal "State" governments had been restored everywhere, and lacked -but one thing of completion, viz., the admission of Representatives and -Senators from ten of the eleven "States" in which secession ordinances -had been passed to seats in Congress. He contended that all the -departments of the United States Government had proceeded upon the view -that the "States" were indestructible--the Congress, in the {105} -declaration, at the outset, that the war was not to be waged in any -spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, -nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or -established institutions of the "States" which were the scene of -rebellion, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution -and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with -all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired, -and in many other acts and resolutions; the Judiciary, in all -proceedings affecting the reconstruction communities as "States"; and -the Executive, in the entire plan of Reconstruction created by Mr. -Lincoln and followed out by himself. He further contended that in -recognizing these "States" as restored to their former relations, -Congress was not running any risk of having disloyal men thrust into -the legislative chambers of the nation, because each House of Congress -could reject members-elect on account of disloyalty, and could continue -to reject until the constituencies should send up such persons as the -House could approve, and could expel any member whose conduct should -reveal disloyalty. He therefore urged Congress to acknowledge the -Reconstruction of the "States" lately in rebellion, in principle, and -to apply the powers of the two Houses in regard to the elections, -returns and qualifications of their respective members to the -individual persons elected to seats. - -[Sidenote: Ineffectiveness of the President's argument.] - -[Sidenote: Rejection of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the -legislatures of the Reconstructed "States."] - -[Sidenote: The effect of this on the temper of the North.] - -The President's argument fell, however, upon deaf ears. This was, it is -true, the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and was not, -therefore, composed of the persons just elected; but the influence of -the recent elections over its members had been to cow the -conservatives, strengthen the radicals, and cause the wavering to -incline to the side of the extremists. They took the {106} verdict of -the people to be that Congress should ignore the President's work in -Reconstruction, develop a plan of its own, put it into operation, and -base it upon a newly constructed electorate in the South, in which the -lately emancipated should participate. The attitude of the legislatures -of the President's reconstructed "States" in regard to the proposed -Fourteenth Amendment also strengthened them greatly in this view and -purpose. Before the first day of January, 1867, all of these except -three had rejected it by overwhelming votes, and these three followed -the same course a little later. It was said and believed in Washington -that they had rejected the proposed Amendment contemptuously, and under -the advice of the President of the United States. It was the angry -rejection of the proposed Amendment which did more than anything and -everything else to convince the people of the North that Reconstruction -must be now undertaken by Congress, and must proceed upon the basis of -a new electorate at the South which Congress should create. - - - - -{107} - -CHAPTER VII - -THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (_Completed_) - -Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia--The First Attempts at -Impeachment--Stories of Outrages at the South--The Reconstruction -Bill--Passage of the Bill by the House--The Bill as Finally Agreed -upon--The Condition that the Fourteenth Amendment must be Ratified by a -Sufficient Number of "States" to make it a Part of the -Constitution--The Tenure-of-Office Bill--The Supplementary -Reconstruction Bill--The Assignment of the Commanding Generals to the -Military Districts Created by the Reconstruction Acts--The -Re-establishment of Martial Law in the South--The President's -Instructions to the Generals in Interpretation of the Reconstruction -Acts--The Congressional Interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts--The -President's Veto of the Bill Interpreting the Reconstruction Acts--The -Veto Overridden--The Suspension of Stanton from Office. - - -[Sidenote: Negro suffrage in the District of Columbia.] - -The Congress had but just put itself in working order, when a bill was -introduced and passed extending the suffrage to negroes in the District -of Columbia. The Republicans reasoned that they could not with good -grace force negro suffrage on the South before establishing it in the -District, and that the District was the best place in the country to -try the experiment first. The bill went to the President on the 26th of -December, six days after the adjournment of Congress for the Christmas -vacation, although it had passed the Houses on the 13th and 14th. The -President held it until January 5th, 1867, and then returned it to the -Senate with his veto. - -{108} [Sidenote: The President's veto of the bill establishing negro -suffrage in the District of Columbia.] - -The Message was a strong paper, and to an impartial mind at this day it -is a convincing paper. There is no question that Congress had the -constitutional power to establish negro suffrage in the District. The -President did not dispute that. He simply argued that in legislating -for the District, Congress stood in a relation to the inhabitants of -the District analogous to that which the legislature of a "State" bore -to the inhabitants of the "State," and that as the legislature of a -"State" would not act in opposition to the expressed will of a large -majority of the voters in the "State," so Congress in legislating for -the District of Columbia ought not to disregard the expressed will of a -large majority of the voters in the District. He then referred to the -vote of the District upon this very subject, taken in December of 1865, -only one year before, when out of a poll of 6,556, one of the largest -votes ever cast in the Capital city, only thirty-five ballots were cast -for negro suffrage, and in Georgetown out of a poll of 813 only one -ballot was cast for negro suffrage. He further argued that Congress -ought not to make the District a place for trying political experiments -of so grave a character as conferring suffrage, the highest privilege -of American citizenship, upon a race of men just emerging from the -ignorance and vice attendant on a condition of slavery. And he finally -asked the Congress to reconsider an act which appeared to him to be the -degradation and possibly the destruction of American suffrage. - -There is no gainsaying that this was good reasoning, but Congress was -in no frame of mind to give ear to the counsel of the President. It -took the ground that in legislating for the District it was acting for -the whole United States and not simply for the inhabitants of the -District, and that there was no place in the entire {109} country where -political experiments could be more safely tried than in the District, -since Congress had plenary legislative power in the District and could -discover and correct mistakes and defects in its legislation more -easily and promptly there than anywhere else. - -[Sidenote: The first attempts at impeachment.] - -Both Houses repassed the bill over the President's veto by the -necessary two-thirds majority, the Senate on the 7th of January and the -House on the 8th, and negro suffrage was established in the District of -Columbia. The President's veto so angered some of the extremists that -resolutions of impeachment were introduced into the House, and a -resolution for the appointment of a committee to inquire whether there -were reasons for impeachment was actually carried, and a committee was -appointed. The committee sought everywhere and in every way for grounds -upon which to arraign the President at the bar of the Senate, but for -the moment it failed. - -[Sidenote: Stories of outrages at the South.] - -At the same time the halls of Congress were ringing with the most -extravagant tales of outrages against the negroes and loyal men of the -South at the hands of the late rebels, and of the collusion of the -newly established "State" governments with the same. In addition to -this, the other three of the ten newly constructed "State" legislatures -rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, two of them by unanimous -vote, and the other by every vote but one. - -[Sidenote: The Fourteenth Amendment as the condition of recognizing the -revival of statehood.] - -While, as we have seen, the Congress did not pass the proposition to -make the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the newly -reconstructed "States" the condition of recognizing them as "States" of -the Union, and admitting the Senators- and Representatives-elect from -them to seats in Congress, yet the popular mind had so conceived the -matter, and the {110} order of events in the case of Tennessee had -given this conception the force of precedent. The Republicans in -Congress and the North could now fairly claim that they had offered to -recognize the President's reconstructed "States," although these bodies -were without constitutional warrant, upon the most moderate terms which -consideration for the necessary consequences of the Civil War and the -victory of the Union would allow, and that their offer had been -rejected in every case, except, of course, that of Tennessee--rejected -by such majorities and in such a manner as to make the rejection amount -to defiance. It was true that logically and constitutionally Congress -had no power to make the acceptance of something not at the time a part -of the Constitution a condition for the admission of the new "States," -or the readmission of old "States," into the Union; and Congress had -not done this formally. It is also true, both in good logic and in -sound constitutional law, that the proposed Fourteenth Amendment should -not have been submitted at all to bodies that were not conventions of -the people in, or legislatures of, "States" in the Union. Logically and -constitutionally the whole thing was irregular. But it was as it was, -and all understood that the way to cut the knot was for the -legislatures of the reconstructed "States" to adopt the proposed -Fourteenth Amendment, as Tennessee had done. When they refused to do -so, it was natural and it was necessary that Congress should at last -overturn all of the President's proceedings in Reconstruction, and all -of the proceedings made under his guidance, and begin _de novo_, and -upon the true constitutional principle of the exclusive power of -Congress to admit new "States" into the Union, or, more scientifically -expressed, to create new States or control their creation on territory -{111} of the Union in which loyal civil government did not exist. - -[Sidenote: The correctness of the Republican view.] - -There can be no question in the mind of any sound political scientist -and constitutional lawyer that Congress was in the right, logically, -morally, and legally, in insisting upon brushing aside the results of -executive Reconstruction in the winter of 1867, and beginning the work -itself from the bottom up. It ought to have done so in 1865. It ought -to have created, so soon as armed resistance to the execution of the -laws of the United States ceased, regular Territorial civil governments -throughout the country which had been in insurrection, and then have -admitted these Territories as "States" whenever the conditions -warranting the same should have been attained. The phantom of the -"indestructible State" had too strong an influence over the minds of -all at that moment to admit of such a solution of the question. But -after the experiences of 1865 and 1866, and the discussions in the last -session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, the minds of the Republicans at -least, both in and out of Congress, were prepared to break away from -the influence of this idea and to view the process of Reconstruction as -nothing but the admission of new "States" into the Union, new "States" -founded on territory and including inhabitants that had indeed once -formed "States," but had renounced Statehood in the Union through -disloyalty to the Union, and had been brought back to the position of -territories, civilly unorganized in local instance, but subject to the -exclusive jurisdiction of the central Government. From such a point of -view, the method of procedure was plain. While it is strange that the -Congress did not follow this course in 1865, it is simply astounding -that it made such a mess of it in 1867. - -{112} [Sidenote: The Reconstruction bill.] - -The Reconstruction bill was presented from the Committee of fifteen on -Reconstruction to the House of Representatives on the 6th of February -by Mr. Stevens. It was a thoroughly drastic measure. Instead of -creating Territorial civil government in the usual manner, with an -electorate designated by Congress, and with powers under the control of -Congress, and sustained, if necessary, by the military of the United -States, which would have been amply sufficient to meet all the real or -proper exigencies of the case, the bill began by declaring that the -pretended "State" governments of the so-called Confederate States did -not protect adequately life or property, but countenanced and -encouraged lawlessness and crime; and that it was necessary that peace -and good order should be enforced in the so-called Confederate States -until loyal "State" governments could be legally established therein; -and then went on to enact that the said so-called Confederate States -should be divided into five military divisions and made subject to the -military authority of the United States, Virginia to constitute the -first division, North Carolina and South Carolina the second, Georgia, -Alabama, and Florida the third, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth, -and Louisiana and Texas the fifth; that the General of the army should -assign an army officer of not less rank than a brigadier-general to the -command of each of these divisions, and detail sufficient military -forces, and place them under the command of each of said generals, to -enable him to enforce his authority in the district over which he -should be placed; that these commanders might use civil tribunals in -the enforcement of the laws if they should see fit, but that, if these -were not effective they might institute and govern through military -commissions; that no sentence of these commissions should be executed -until approved {113} by the commanding officer of the district; and -finally, that the United States courts and judges should issue no writs -of Habeas Corpus against the proceedings and judgments of these -commissions. - -[Sidenote: The bill indefensible from the constitutional point of -view.] - -There was hardly a line in the entire bill which would stand the test -of the Constitution. In the first place, the Congress of the United -States, or any other part of the Government of the United States, can -establish martial law in any part of the territory of the United States -only when and where there is armed resistance to the execution of the -laws of the United States, or of some "State" or Territory whose -jurisdiction is being defended by the Government of the United States. -Such was not the condition anywhere in the South. The Executive had -proclaimed that such resistance had ceased everywhere several months -before; that he had appointed civil officers throughout the South for -the execution of the laws of the United States, in many cases with the -advice and consent of the Senate; that these laws were in operation -everywhere; and that the United States courts were open everywhere and -in the unhindered discharge of their functions and duties. It was not -pretended, of course, that there was armed resistance to the execution -of the laws of the reconstructed "States," and that the military of the -United States was to act simply in support of "State" authority. There -were here and there, it is true, some of the remains of the military -authority of the United States, exercised during the period of the -insurrection, but they were a very poor basis upon which to found a -resumption of the reign of martial law throughout the length and -breadth of the South. No sane and just mind can consider for a moment -such a ground as sufficient in policy, morals or constitutional law. -While the people of these districts {114} which had attempted to secede -from the Union had forfeited their rights to the "State" form of local -government, they still had, after they had ceased from armed resistance -to the Government of the United States, the rights guaranteed to the -criminal by the Constitution of the United States--the right to be -presented by a grand jury and tried by a petit jury in the civil -tribunals of the United States, under the ordinary forms and guarantees -of the common law, even though the crime charged should be treason -itself. - -[Sidenote: The bill in its attempt to rob the President of his office -of Commander-in-chief.] - -In the second place, the bill undertook to rob the President of his -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief over the army, and -vest the same in the General of the army. This was so evident that no -one could fail to see that it was a bill directed as much against the -powers of the President of the United States as against the late -Confederates of the South. - -And in the third place, the bill assumed to suspend the writ of Habeas -Corpus, substantially, while the Constitution forbids this to be done -by any part of the Government of the United States, except in time of -war or public danger. There was no war, and to say that there was -public danger of the character meant by the constitutional exception -was to exaggerate the condition of things entirely beyond all fact or -reason. - -[Sidenote: The brutality of the measure.] - -The bill was the most brutal proposition ever introduced into the -Congress of the United States by a responsible committee, and it would -never have been tolerated except at such a time of partisan excitement -and exaggerated suspicions. Even under such conditions Congress would -not pass it as introduced, but incorporated into it many modifying -provisions, most of which, however, while reflecting the honest -sentiments of the lawmakers, give little {115} evidence of good -political science or sound constitutional law. - -[Sidenote: The opposition of conservative Republicans to the bill.] - -[Sidenote: Mr. Blaine's proposed changes in the bill.] - -The two points in the bill which the conservative Republicans were -unable to accept were, first, the establishment of martial law for an -indefinite period and without any provision tor a way of future escape -from its rigors; and, second, the usurpation of the President's -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief of the army. It -soon became manifest that the bill could not pass without the -introduction of a clause covering the first point and without a change -of the provision in regard to the second. A number of the conservative -Republicans had indicated these things, when Mr. Blaine squarely asked -Mr. Stevens to incorporate an amendment in the bill which should -provide a way of escape from the martial rule which the bill proposed -to establish. Mr. Blaine's amendment held out the promise of the -admission of each of the ten communities now to be thrown into military -divisions to its proper position as a "State" of the Union when it -should adopt the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and conform its -constitution and laws thereto, should provide by its constitution for -universal male suffrage without regard to race, color or previous -condition of servitude, and should adopt a constitution with such a -provision in it by popular vote, and when Congress should approve of -the said constitution. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of Mr. Blaine's propositions.] - -There is no doubt that all this, while reflecting the good moral -feeling of Mr. Blaine, was bad political science and was the very -contradictory of sound constitutional law. As has been pointed out -several times already, it would have been good constitutional law had -the United States Congress simply delayed the admission or readmission -{116} of these communities as "States" of the Union until after the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and any other desirable amendment, -should have been framed and adopted. Their admission then would have -been into the _same_ Union with all the other States. But to demand of -them, as the condition of admission, their acceptance of things not yet -in the Constitution of the United States, things not obligatory on the -"States" already in the Union, was tantamount to the creation of a new -sort of union with another kind of constitution by an Act of Congress. -This question had been thoroughly talked out, fought out, and decided -in 1820, and for nearly fifty years it had been the settled principle -of constitutional law that Congress has no such power. It has been also -pointed out that a sound political science of the federal system of -government teaches the same principle. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Stevens's refusal to accept Mr. Blaine's amendment.] - -[Sidenote: Passage of the bill by the House.] - -Mr. Stevens acted correctly, from the point of view of political -science and constitutional interpretation, when he declined to accept -Mr. Blaine's amendment, or to allow a vote to be taken on it, and the -House of Representatives also acted correctly from the same point of -view when it voted down a proposition from Mr. Blaine to send his -amendment along with the bill to the Judiciary Committee of the House -with instruction to report it back with the bill. But it is not to be -inferred from the debates that either Mr. Stevens or the House was -actuated in this course of conduct by the above mentioned -considerations. The expansion of the powers of government inevitably -consequent upon a long period of war seemed to have made them all very -nearly forget that there was anything but government in our political -system. The chief thought was that one Congress could not bind another -with any such promises as those held {117} out in the Blaine amendment, -and that each Congress must at all times be left to its own discretion -in the determination of every question. The House passed the bill as it -came from the Committee on Reconstruction without change or amendment, -and on the 13th of February it appeared in the Senate. - -[Sidenote: The bill in the Senate.] - -This more conservative and deliberate body regarded the bill as too -radical, and after considerable debate upon a proposed amendment, -offered first by Senator Williams of Oregon, and then by Senator -Reverdy Johnson, which was in substance the Blaine proposition, laid it -aside by general consent and allowed Senator Sherman to offer a -substitute for it. - -[Sidenote: The Sherman substitute.] - -This substitute contained the gist of the Blaine amendment, and also -changed the provision which proposed to deprive the President of his -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief of the army. While -the bill was thus made a less brutal measure, and in one respect a less -unconstitutional measure, it still rested upon a very shaky foundation -so far as constitutional law was concerned, and it was opposed by all -the Democratic Senators. It was passed, however, by a large majority, -every Republican who voted voting in favor of it. - -[Sidenote: The substitute in the House.] - -[Sidenote: The Senate substitute rejected by the House.] - -[Sidenote: The bill as finally agreed upon.] - -When it was returned to the House of Representatives for concurrence, -the Radical Republicans developed a most hostile opposition to the -changes which had been made by the Senate. They claimed that the Senate -bill proposed to bind future Congresses by pledges which the existing -Congress had no right to make and no power to execute, and that it also -proposed to use the rebel element of the population of the South in the -work of reconstructing loyal "State" {118} governments. After a long -and acrid debate, the House rejected the Senate's substitute by a union -of Democratic votes with the votes of the Radical Republicans. This -result and the manner of its attainment so frightened the Republicans, -however, that they quickly came to an understanding among themselves in -the House, and with their party colleagues in the Senate, and passed -the Senate's substitute, so amended as to prevent disloyal men, as -designated in the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, from voting for -delegates to a reconstruction convention, or being delegates therein, -or being officers in any so-called "State" government before the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from that "State" into -Congress, and so amended further as to pronounce all professed civil -governments existing in any of the late so-called Confederate States, -except of course Tennessee, provisional only, until Senators and -Representatives from the same should be admitted to seats in Congress, -and subject, as provisional governments, to the paramount authority of -the United States which should control them, and might supersede or -abolish them at any time. The Senate also accepted these amendments, -and on the 20th of February the bill was placed in the hands of the -President. - -[Sidenote: The contents of the bill as passed.] - -It contained the following declarations and provisions. First, the -preamble designated the ten communities reconstructed under the -President's direction as "the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, -South Carolina, Georgia," and so on. This was certainly an untruth. If -they were "States" at all, they certainly were not rebel "States." They -might with some appearance of correctness and sincerity have been -termed the late rebel "States," but to be called simply rebel "States" -was, to say the very least, one of the {119} grossest exaggerations to -be found in the wording of the statutes of Congress. It was simply a -play on words whereby to justify a dubious procedure. It was at the -very best, a confounding of the supposed sentiments of the population -of these regions with actual political status. Second, the preamble -declared that no legal "State" governments or adequate protection for -life or property existed in these "rebel States." As a legal -proposition the first part of this declaration was true, and as a -matter of fact the second part was substantially true. It would have -been an unprecedented thing if anything like an adequate protection of -life and property had been re-established, in the short period of two -years, in communities which had been disturbed, demoralized and -destroyed by four years of civil war, especially when the outcome of -the conflict was total defeat and the utter destruction of the basis of -the old social, political, and economic systems. It was, however, a -serious question whether such a situation required drastic measures -rather than mild and soothing measures. - -The Republican Congress decided, after much deliberation, that the -former were necessary to the maintenance of peace and good order, and, -therefore, enacted that the "said rebel States" should be divided into -five military districts, as previously described in the original bill; -that the President should assign to the command of each of these an -army officer of not lower rank than brigadier-general, and place under -his command a sufficient force to enable him to perform his duties and -execute his authority in his district; that these commanders should -have the power to govern these districts by martial law in so far as, -in their judgment, the reign of order and the preservation of the -public peace might demand, under the limitations simply that "all -persons put under military arrest {120} by virtue of this act shall be -tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment -shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or -tribunal hereby authorized affecting the life or liberty of any person, -shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the -district--and no sentence of death under the provisions of this act -shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President." - -Then came the provision which offered the terms of escape from this new -military régime. They were, first, the exercise of universal manhood -suffrage, that is the suffrage of all male citizens, twenty-one years -of age, without regard to race, color or previous condition of -servitude, who were not disfranchised for participation in rebellion or -for felony at common law, and who had resided for one year in the -so-called "rebel State," in the election of delegates to a -constitutional convention in the so-called "rebel State"; second, the -framing of a "State" constitution by a convention composed of delegates -so elected, and not disqualified by participation in rebellion or by -the commission of felony, which constitution should conform in all -respects to the Constitution of the United States and which should -contain, as a permanent principle, the same law of suffrage as that -prescribed by this Act for the election of the delegates to the -convention; third, the ratification of this constitution by a majority -of the voters, as designated by the law of suffrage for the choice of -delegates to the convention, voting upon the question of ratification; -fourth, the approval by Congress of this constitution; and fifth, and -last, the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the -Constitution of the United States by the legislature created by such -adopted and approved "State" constitution, and by a sufficient number -of the legislatures {121} of other "States" to make it a part of the -Constitution of the United States. - -The measure contained, in the last place, a sort of saving clause in -regard to the existing civil governments which had been established in -all these communities under the direction of the President, and which -were now to be displaced. It had been already provided, in section -third, that the military commander of a district might use the existing -civil courts, if he saw fit to do so, so long as the reign of law and -order might be so preserved, and the final section provided that any -civil government which might exist in these districts should be -regarded as provisional, and should be in all respects subject to the -paramount authority of the United States, which should control, and -might abolish, modify, or supersede the same, and that the voters for -the election of the officers of such provisional governments should be -required to have only the qualifications prescribed in this Act for -voters for the delegates to the said "State" convention, and persons -elected to place and office in such provisional governments must not -have the disqualifications prescribed in the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It had evidently -occurred to the Republican leaders that they might have to make use of -some of the machinery of the existing civil governments established -under the direction of the President in these regions in executing -their own plan of Reconstruction. - -[Sidenote: The condition that the proposed Fourteenth Amendment be -ratified by a sufficient number of "States" to make it a part of the -Constitution.] - -All of the points of the measure have been commented on, except the -provision in the fifth section, which makes the adoption of the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -by a number of "States" sufficient to ratify it a condition precedent -to the admission of any one of these so-called "rebel States" to -representation in Congress. The {122} adoption of the proposed -amendment by the particular "rebel State" seeking representation was -not sufficient. It must be ratified by at least three-fourths of all -the "States." No matter how speedily and sincerely the legislature of -Virginia might ratify the proposed Amendment, and fulfil all the other -conditions required by the Act, Virginia must remain under military -despotism until a very large number of the Northern "State" -legislatures had pleased to ratify the proposed Amendment. This was -certainly a pretty hard condition, and it was not a very fair way of -forcing the legislatures of the Northern States to adopt the proposed -Amendment. It was, however, an efficient weapon, and Congress had the -legal power to use it. It was unconscionable, though it was one of the -things about this measure which was constitutional. - -[Sidenote: The Tenure-of-Office bill.] - -Hand in hand with this bill went another measure, the purpose of which -was to limit the customary power of the President, if not his -constitutional power, over the civil official system, the so-called -Tenure-of-Office bill. On the first day of the session, December 3d, -1866, Mr. Williams of Oregon introduced this bill in the Senate, while -at the same moment a bill was introduced and passed in the House -repealing that section of the Confiscation Act of July 17th, 1862, -which authorized the President to extend pardon and amnesty by -proclamation to persons participating in the rebellion. The Senate -passed the latter bill or resolution on the 8th of January, 1867, and -the President, not considering that the Congress could either give or -take away his power to pardon secured to him by the Constitution, -simply pocketed the resolution, and it became a law on and from the -21st of January, having been presented to the President on the 9th. - -{123} The propositions contained in the Tenure-of-Office bill were, -however, of a very different significance. There was no clause in the -Constitution which by express literal grant vested the power to dismiss -from office in the President, but the clause which made the President -solely responsible for the execution of the laws was interpreted by the -first Congress as doing so. Madison took the ground that the President -must have this power in order to secure the necessary obedience in his -subordinates, and declared that the convention which framed the -Constitution so understood it and so intended it. This is certainly -sound political science and correct constitutional interpretation. It -had also been the practice of the Government from the beginning. The -Whigs had undertaken to reverse it in their contest with Jackson, and -Webster had given his opinion that good political science required that -dismissal from office should be treated as an incident of appointment, -and should be effected in the same manner as appointment, i.e., with -the concurrence of the Senate, and that the decision of 1789 on this -subject was, in his opinion, erroneous from the point of view of a -proper interpretation of the Constitution as well. But the Whigs did -not succeed, as we have seen, in their attempt to break down -Presidential prerogative and introduce parliamentary government, and -the practice of the Government on this subject remained, after, as -before, the fourth decade of the century, the same. - -[Sidenote: The reasons for the Tenure-of-Office bill.] - -During the experiences of the years 1865 and 1866 the Republicans -feared that the President would use this great power of dismissal from -office in order to make the entire official system solid with himself -on the subject of Reconstruction, and toward the end of 1866 they -suspected and asserted that he was dismissing officers {124} from their -positions simply on the ground of a difference of opinion with himself -on this subject, and they professed to believe that he would make a -clean sweep of all such as soon as Congress should adjourn. There is -little doubt that excessive partisan feeling made them exaggerate -greatly what the President had done and what he intended to do. The -President was guided by Mr. Seward in all public matters except his -imprudent speeches, and Seward's conservative and diplomatic -disposition and methods were all against any such radical and reckless -procedure. Besides, it was the constitutional right of the President to -require obedience in their official acts from his subordinates, and to -dismiss them when in his opinion their views of policy interfered with -the discharge of their official duties as he required them to be -discharged. The Thirty-ninth Congress, however, resolved to disregard -the precedents set by all of its predecessors and to dispute the -President's prerogative of control over the tenure of his subordinates. - -[Sidenote: The contents of the bill.] - -The bill drafted for this purpose made the removal of all officers, -appointed by and with the consent of the Senate, except only members of -the President's Cabinet, subject to the consent of the Senate. This -consent might be given in the form of a ratification of the nomination -of a successor to any officer. It allowed the President, during a -recess of the Senate, the power of suspension for misconduct in office, -crime, legal disqualification or incapacity, and of making appointment -of a suitable person to discharge temporarily the duties of such -suspended officer, but it required of the President a report of all -such suspensions to the Senate within the first twenty days of the next -meeting of the Senate, with the reasons therefor, and reinstated the -suspended officer in case the Senate {125} should not concur in the -suspension. If the Senate should concur, the President must remove the -officer, and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, -another person in his place. - -[Sidenote: Discussion of the bill.] - -From the point of view of the present this would seem, in all -conscience, to have been a sufficient usurpation of the President's -constitutional powers to have satisfied the most radical and reckless -interpretation of the organic law. But the bill had hardly come under -discussion when Senator Howe moved to strike out the clause excepting -the Cabinet officers from its operation, and although the Senate -refused to pass this amendment, the House of Representatives did so -when the bill came before it. The Senate, however, refused to concur on -the ground, of course, that the intimate and confidential relations -which should exist between the President and the members of his Cabinet -made it necessary that the President should have only the men of his -own choice in these positions. The strenuous insistence of the House, -however, forced the Senate to a compromise upon the subject, and the -bill was finally made to provide that the members of the Cabinet should -"hold their offices, respectively, for and during the term of the -President by whom they have been appointed, and for one month -thereafter, subject to removal by and with the consent of the Senate." -That is, that a Cabinet officer might hold his position against the -will of the President who appointed him during the entire term of the -President and for one month of the term of his successor unless the -Senate should agree to such officer's removal either directly or by -ratification of the nomination of a successor. - -[Sidenote: The provisions for enforcing the measure.] - -The bill as finally enacted contained, moreover, the most stringent -provisions for its enforcement. It made {126} the acceptance or -exercise of any office or the attempt to exercise any office contrary -to the Act a high misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of ten -thousand dollars or a maximum imprisonment of five years, or both in -the discretion of the court; and it made the removal, appointment, or -employment of any officer contrary to the provisions of the Act, or the -preparation, signing, sealing, countersigning or issuing of any -commission of office or letter of authority in respect to any such -appointment or employment high misdemeanors, punishable with the same -extreme penalties. Lastly, it forbade the officers of the Treasury and -all officers of the United States to pay any money, salary or -compensation to any person claiming to hold any office or employment -contrary to the provisions of this Act, and made the violation of this -order a high misdemeanor, punishable with the same extreme penalties as -in the other cases. - -[Sidenote: The President's vetoes of these bills.] - -This monstrous measure went to the President on the same day with the -Reconstruction bill, the 20th of February. It is not to be wondered at -that he felt that the Republican chiefs were offering him intentional -personal insult, as well as that the legislative department of the -Government was attempting an unwarranted encroachment upon the -constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. It is rather to be -wondered at that, in his message to Congress on these subjects, he -succeeded so well in ignoring the personal affronts intended by -Congress, and in confining himself so closely to a discussion of the -public questions and considerations involved in the measures. - -The vetoes of these bills were sent to Congress on the same day, March -2d. To the publicist and historian of this day they are masterpieces of -political logic, constitutional interpretation, and official style. If -not {127} written by Mr. Seward, they must have been edited and revised -by him. These documents showed most convincingly, both from -constitutional provisions, opinions of contemporaries, statutes of -Congress, judicial decisions, and the uniform practices of the -Government, that Congress had no power to establish or re-establish -martial law anywhere in the country, except when and where war or armed -rebellion existed as a fact, a condition which did not then exist -anywhere in the length and breadth of the land; and that Congress had -no power to force the President to retain agents and subordinates in -office against his judgment and will. No good political scientist and -no sound constitutional lawyer will, at this day, disagree with the -contention of the President upon these two points, and it is very -difficult to understand how the great leaders of the Republican party -could, at that day, have differed with him. - -[Sidenote: Republican motives in Reconstruction.] - -Undoubtedly, in some of the baser minds among them, the determination -to create Republican party "States" in the South was a very weighty -consideration, but just as undoubtedly the consideration with the -majority of them was the conviction that the work of the four years of -war might have to be done all over again unless a new political people, -a new body of suffrage holders, should be created at the South, whose -members had never been disloyal. But even from this point of view -again, it is difficult to understand how they could have failed to see -that the Constitution required that this should be done through the -forms of Territorial civil government, instead of through the forms of -martial law. Put the best light upon their conduct that is possible, -there is still left the conviction that the fanaticism of extreme -partisanship had an undue influence over them all. {128} The contest -with the President had blinded their perceptions as to the morality, -legality and propriety of the means they were willing to employ in -securing the victory over him. - -[Sidenote: Congressional encroachment on the President's military -prerogatives.] - -As this contest developed it dwarfed, to say the least, all other -considerations. Even as late as when the Reconstruction bill was -passed, the majority of the Republicans refused to vote to take the -President's military prerogatives from him. In less than a fortnight -from this time, however, they voted, in a section of the Army -Appropriation bill, "that the head-quarters of the General of the army -of the United States shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders -and instructions relating to military operations issued by the -President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of -the army, and, in case of his inability, through the next in rank. The -General of the army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from -command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said head-quarters, -except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate; -and any orders or instructions relating to military operations issued -contrary to the requirements of this section shall be null and void; -and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the -provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in -office; and any officer of the army who shall transmit, convey, or obey -any orders or instructions so issued contrary to the provisions of this -section, knowing that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to -imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years, upon -conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction." - -To the mind of any unprejudiced constitutional lawyer, at the present -day, this act must appear as a gross {129} usurpation by Congress of -the President's military powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. -The Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the army -and navy, and gives Congress no power whatsoever over the methods or -channels by, and through, which he may issue his military commands. -Neither does the Constitution give Congress any power to assign any of -the officers or troops of the army to any particular position. These -are all functions of the commandership-in-chief, and, unless expressly -granted by the Constitution to some other department of the Government, -belong to the President. - -It was not only a usurpation by Congress to pass such an act, but it -was a mean thing to do it as a section of an appropriation bill; and -there is no escaping the suspicion that it had a sinister purpose, -namely, to entrap the President in the commission of what Congress had -made a high misdemeanor, and open the way for his impeachment and -expulsion from office. The President signed this bill, however, in -order to save the appropriations for the support of the army, although -he protested strongly against the seizure of his constitutional powers -by the Congress. - -[Sidenote: The supplementary Reconstruction bill.] - -On the same day that the vetoes of the Reconstruction bill and the -Tenure-of-Office bill were sent to Congress, this body passed a bill -supplementary to the first measure. It was in the nature of an -administrative measure for the purpose of carrying out the new plan of -Reconstruction. It ordered the commanding generals of the respective -districts to cause a registration to be made before September 1st next -following of all male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years -of age and over, resident in each county or parish in the "State" or -"States" included in their respective districts, who were qualified as -{130} prescribed by the Reconstruction Act to vote for delegates to a -constitutional convention, and who had taken an oath asserting -citizenship and residence, and freedom from disfranchisement on account -of participation in rebellion or the commission of felony, and had -sworn that they had never engaged in insurrection or rebellion against -the United States, or given aid and comfort to the enemies of the -United States after having been members of Congress or of a "State" -legislature, or officers of the United States or of a "State" of the -Union, and that they would henceforth faithfully support the -Constitution and obey the laws of the United States and encourage -others to do so. - -It next made it the duty of the commanding generals to order elections, -at such times after the completion of the registrations and at such -places as they might choose, for delegates to constitutional -conventions in the "States" comprised in their respective districts. It -required them to give thirty days' notice of the elections, and it -fixed the number of delegates to each convention at the number of -members in the lower House of the legislature of the "State" concerned -in the year 1860, except in the case of Virginia, where, on account of -the separation of West Virginia from the old Commonwealth, the number -of deputies to the Virginia convention was made to correspond with the -number of members in the lower House of the legislature of 1860, -representing the territory not included in West Virginia. The bill -further directed the commanding generals to distribute the -representation in the conventions among the districts, counties and -parishes of the "States" in accordance with the number of registered -voters in each. - -The bill then provided that at the elections for delegates, the voters -should vote on the question as to {131} whether there should be a -constitutional convention or not, and that such convention should be -held only when a majority of the inscribed electors voted upon this -question, and a majority of those voting voted in the affirmative. It -then ordered the commanding generals, in case the voters did so decide -for conventions and elect delegates thereto, to call such within sixty -days from the date of the elections, and to notify the delegates to -assemble at a given time and place, and frame constitutions according -to the provisions of the bill and of the former Act to which it was -supplementary, and, when framed, to submit the same to the registered -voters for ratification with a notice of thirty days. - -The bill then further provided, that if, at such elections, a majority -of the registered voters voted upon the question of ratification, and a -majority of those voting voted in favor of ratification, the presidents -of the respective conventions should transmit copies of the respective -constitutions to the President of the United States, who should -transmit them to Congress, and that Congress should declare the -respective "States," whose conventions had framed these constitutions -and whose voters had adopted them, entitled to representation in -Congress, provided Congress was satisfied that there had been perfectly -free elections, and that no force, fraud or intimidation had been -perpetrated at them, and that the constitutions presented met the -approval of a majority of the qualified electors and were in conformity -with the requirements of the Reconstruction Act. - -Finally, the bill put into the hands of the commanding generals the -appointment of the officers of the elections, and the control of the -machinery of the elections, only requiring them to hold the elections -by {132} ballot, and to proclaim the results of the elections in -accordance with the returns made to them by their boards of -registration. - -[Sidenote: Congress in permanence.] - -Congress had passed a resolution ordering the assembly of the Fortieth -Congress so soon as the Thirty-ninth expired, and in accordance -therewith the newly elected Congress opened its session on the 4th of -March, 1867, instead of on the first Monday of the following December. -The Congress was, therefore, in position to deal at once with a veto of -the supplemental bill to the Reconstruction Act, in case one should be -sent in. - -[Sidenote: The veto of the supplemental Reconstruction bill.] - -On the 23d of March the veto appeared. The President argued that the -oath required by the bill from every person before his name could be -admitted to registration, viz., "that he had not been disfranchised for -participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States," -was so entirely uncertain in its meaning that it would prove a most -terrible means of oppression in the hands of the military officers and -their appointed agents, and declared he could never approve of an -election law whose plain and manifest purpose was to disfranchise the -great body of respectable white people, and create a new electorate on -the basis of universal negro suffrage. He contended that the existing -constitutions of the ten "States" to be re-reconstructed conformed to -the long-established standards of loyalty and Republicanism, and that -the new test of these qualities now set up by Congress, viz., universal -negro suffrage, was a gross exaggeration, and would make many of the -Northern "States" themselves unrepublican. The President did not -expressly say that this bill was unconstitutional, but he quite -distinctly implied it. In this, however, he was wrong, unless his -doctrine that the rebellious {133} communities remained "States" of the -Union throughout the rebellion, or had been reconstructed by his plan, -was true, that is, unless these communities were "States" of the Union -at the time Congress passed this bill. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the veto.] - -On the other hand, from the point of view of the correct legal -principle in regard to this subject, the principle which holds that the -result of general rebellion within a "State" against the Constitution -and laws of the United States is the loss of the "State" form of local -government, and brings the territory and population of the former -"State" under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central Government, -Congress certainly had, and has, the power to create the electorate in -such territory at its own discretion, Congress was referred, and is -referred, in such a case, only to its own sense of right and policy. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the Reconstruction Acts.] - -But there is no question, now, that Congress did a monstrous thing, and -committed a great political error, if not a sin, in the creation of -this new electorate. It was a great wrong to civilization to put the -white race of the South under the domination of the negro race. The -claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of -view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means -membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in -subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any -civilization of any kind. To put such a race of men in possession of a -"State" government in a system of federal government is to trust them -with the development of political and legal civilization upon the most -important subjects of human life, and to do this in communities with a -large white population is simply to establish barbarism in power over -civilization. The supposed disloyalty, or even the actual disloyalty, -of {134} the white population will not justify this. It will justify -the indefinite withholding of the "State" form of local government. It -will justify the throwing of a "State" of the Union back under the form -of a Territory of the Union. It will even justify the establishment of -martial law. But it is not to be cured, nor is the welfare of the whole -land, or any part of it, to be promoted, by the subjection of the white -race to the black race in politics and government. It was a great wrong -to the negroes themselves. It made the white men among whom they must -live their most bitter enemies, when they most needed them for friends, -and it made the negroes trifling and corrupt politicians, when they -should have been devoting themselves exclusively to the acquirement of -property and education. It was argued, as will be well remembered, that -they could not acquire property and education without the ballot. But -this is another sophism. The mainstay of property is the courts; and -under a Territorial form of local government Congress could have -established a system of free schools. It was not at all necessary to -have recourse to negro suffrage and negro "State" governments in order -to secure the negroes in their personal liberty, and the possession of -property, and to aid them in the acquirement of education. - -There was another alternative, and a better one. In fact, there were -two other conceivable ways of doing these things, either of which would -have been better than the one chosen. The one was, as has been already -suggested, to establish Territorial civil governments in the late -rebellious region and maintain them there until the civil relations -between the two races became settled and fixed. The other was to so -amend the Constitution of the United States, before the readmission of -the "States" which had renounced the "State" form of local {135} -government under the Union, as to give Congress and the national -judiciary the power to define and defend the fundamental principles of -civil liberty. Neither of these methods would have demanded martial law -or universal negro suffrage. It is entirely surprising, from the point -of view of to-day, that one or the other of these methods or a -combination of both was not resorted to, instead of the monstrous plan -that was carried out. There is no way to explain this sufficiently, -except upon the reflection that the passions of the men of that day had -become so inflamed and so completely dominating that they obscured -reason, drowned the voice of prudence, and even dulled the sense of -decency. There were a few who favored universal negro suffrage from an -exalted and exaggerated humanitarianism, but the mass of the -Republicans sustained it as a punishment to the late rebellious whites, -and as a means of establishing Republican party "State" governments in -the South. Many claimed, indeed, that it was the only alternative to -long-continued martial law rule, but they were either very ignorant or -very insincere. - -[Sidenote: The assignment of the commanding generals to the military -districts created by the Reconstruction Acts.] - -In prompt obedience to the requirements of the two Reconstruction Acts, -the President issued his general order through the Adjutant-General's -office, on March 11th, assigning General Schofield to the command of -the first military district, as created by these Acts, with his -head-quarters at Richmond, Virginia; General Sickles to that of the -second, with his head-quarters at Columbia, South Carolina; General -Thomas to that of the third, with his head-quarters at Montgomery, -Alabama; General Ord to that of the fourth, with his head-quarters at -Vicksburg, Mississippi; and General Sheridan to that of the fifth, with -his head-quarters at New {136} Orleans, Louisiana. On the 15th this -order was so modified as to change the assignment of General Thomas -from the command of the third district to that of the Department of the -Cumberland, and to substitute General Pope for him in the command of -the third district. - -[Sidenote: The re-establishment of martial law in the South.] - -These officers betook themselves at once, with the forces attached to -their several commands, to their respective stations, and assumed the -government of their respective districts by martial law. No opposition -whatever was made to any of them by the populations thus made subject -to their despotic rule. - -[Sidenote: The President's instructions to the generals in -interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts.] - -Very soon, however, the generals found great difficulty in interpreting -the Reconstruction Acts, especially in respect to the oath required for -enfranchisement, both as to the persons who might take it and as to its -consequences, and in respect to the powers of the boards appointed to -superintend the elections. They applied to the President for -information upon these points. The President submitted their -application to his Attorney-General and to his Cabinet, and with the -full concurrence of all the members thereof, except only Mr. Stanton, -issued through the Adjutant-General's office in the War Department, on -the 20th of June, the following instructions: - -First: That the oath prescribed in the second Act defined all the -qualifications required for suffrage, and that any person who could -take that oath should have his name entered on the list of voters; that -the boards of registration provided in that Act could not require any -other, or any additional, oath from the person applying for -registration, nor "administer an oath to any other person touching the -qualification of the applicant or {137} the falsity of the oath taken -by him," but that the person taking the oath must be registered as a -voter, and if it could be afterward proved that he had sworn falsely, -he could be punished for perjury. - -Second: That an unnaturalized alien could not take the oath, but a -naturalized alien could, and that no other proof of naturalization -could be required of him. - -Third: That "actual participation in rebellion or the actual commission -of a felony" did not amount to disfranchisement, but there must be a -law made by competent authority declaring disfranchisement, or a -judicial sentence inflicting it, and that no law of the United States -had declared the penalty of disfranchisement for participating in -rebellion alone. - -Fourth: That a person who had engaged in rebellion, but had not -theretofore held an office under a "State" or the United States, or not -been a member of a "State" legislature or of Congress, and not taken, -as such, an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, was -not disfranchised or disqualified from voting. - -Fifth: That persons who were militia officers in any "State" prior to -the rebellion were not disfranchised by participating in the rebellion. - -Sixth: That "an act to fix upon the person the offence of engaging in -rebellion under this law must be an overt and voluntary act, done with -the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose," and -that "a person forced into the rebel service by conscription or under a -paramount authority which he could not safely disobey, and who would -not have entered such service if left to the free exercise of his own -will," was not disfranchised or disqualified from voting. - -And lastly: That disloyal sentiments, opinions or sympathies, or -anything said or written which fell short {138} of an incitement to -others to engage in rebellion, did not disfranchise or disqualify from -voting. - -Some other instructions were given which were concurred in by the -entire Cabinet, Mr. Stanton included, but the recital of them is not -essential to this narrative. It must be added, however, that the -President's view of the relation of the military commanders to the -"State" governments created under his direction and with his aid was -one which gave these governments a more independent and permanent -character than the language of the Reconstruction Acts seemed to -warrant. - -[Sidenote: The Congressional interpretation of the Reconstruction -Acts.] - -When, then, the instructions of June 20th to the generals became known, -another bill was introduced into Congress and passed which put the -Congressional interpretation upon the Reconstruction Acts. - -It declared that the true intent and meaning of these Acts was that the -civil governments then existing in the "rebel States" of Virginia, -North Carolina, etc., were not legal "State governments," and that, if -thereafter they should be allowed to continue to exist at all, they -must be subject in all respects to the will of the military commanders -of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority of -Congress; and it provided that the generals in command of the -respective districts might suspend or remove any person from any office -under these illegal and pretended governments, and detail or appoint -some other person to discharge the duties and exercise the powers said -to pertain to such office. The acts of the district commanders in -regard to these things were made subject to the disapproval of the -General of the army, but not to that of the President, and stood until -so disapproved. The same powers in regard to these matters were vested, -by this bill, in the General of the army as in the district commanders, -{139} but were not accorded by it to the President; and it was made the -duty of the General of the army and the district commanders to remove -from such pretended offices "all persons who were disloyal to the -United States, or who used their official influence in any manner to -hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and proper administration -of the Reconstruction Acts." - -The bill, furthermore, provided that the boards of registration should -have the power, and that it should be their duty, to ascertain the fact -as to whether a person applying for registration as a voter was -entitled to registration under the Reconstruction Acts, and to refuse -registration, if in their judgment he was not, and that the fact that -he was willing to take the oath prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts, -or had taken it, was not conclusive upon the registration boards in -making their inquiries and forming their decisions. And it, finally, -declared that the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in the -Reconstruction Acts for persons who had held office under a "State" -government or membership in a "State" legislature, before the -rebellion, was that whether such persons were holding such positions at -the time of the commencement of the rebellion or at some time prior to -the same, and whether they had taken an oath to support the -Constitution of the United States or not, they were disqualified from -registration and were disfranchised, if, after holding such positions, -they had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United -States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"; and it gave to -the commanders of the districts the power to extend, in their -discretion, the time for completing the original registration of the -voters, as provided for in the Reconstruction Acts, to October 1st -following, and to the boards of registration the power, and imposed -upon them the {140} duty, to revise, during the first five of the last -fourteen days before any election under the Reconstruction Acts, the -registration lists and to strike off any name from said lists which, in -their judgment, ought not to be there, and to add any name, which, in -their judgment, ought to be there, and required them to disregard any -Executive pardon or amnesty as relieving the disability of any person -for registration, if such person had committed any act which without -such pardon or amnesty would disqualify him. - -This bill, it will be readily seen, was a wholesale repudiation of all -the instructions given by the President to the generals in command of -the districts from which, in the Cabinet council, Mr. Stanton had -dissented. The President immediately realized this, of course, and it -increased his distrust of Stanton immensely. From that moment forward -he regarded him as the spy of Congress upon all his official acts, and -he was resolved to remove him upon the first opportunity, that is, so -soon as Congress should adjourn. - -[Sidenote: The President's veto of the bill interpreting the -Reconstruction Acts.] - -The bill passed the Houses on the 13th of July, was presented to the -President for his signature on the 14th, and on the 19th he returned it -with a veto message to the House of Representatives. The President -contended in his argument that this new measure was not simply an -interpretation of the existing Reconstruction Acts, but was in many -respects a large advance upon them. The existing Acts, he contended, -made the reconstructed "State" governments at the South subject to -absolute military authority in many important respects, but not in all -respects, while the new measure proposed to extend the despotism of the -military commanders over everything. Against such a measure, in time of -peace, he protested as being in violation of every guaranty of {141} -individual liberty contained in the Constitution. He dwelt upon the -unfitness of military officers to discharge the duties and exercise the -powers pertaining naturally to civil office, and he pointed out the -inconsistency, as he thought, of the declaration of Congress that the -ten "State" governments at the South were illegal with the attempt of -Congress to carry on these _illegal_ "State" governments by "Federal -agency," when Congress had no power to carry on a _legal_ "State" -government through "Federal agency"; and he stopped, as he thought, the -way of escape from this argument by pointing out that the entire -legislation of Congress down to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts -distinctly involved the recognition of the ten communities now to be -put under absolute military rule in all respects as "States" of the -Union. - -But the most vigorous and unanswerable part of the message was the -protest against the robbery of the constitutional powers of the -Executive by the attempt of Congress, in this measure, to confer some -of those powers upon other persons. The President expressed himself so -warmly upon this point, that the Republicans began to whisper around -their suspicions of sinister purposes on his part, just as if such a -declaration to Congress itself was not proof to the contrary. He said: -"Whilst I hold the chief executive authority of the United States, -whilst the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws are -faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the -powers given for its execution. I can never give my assent to be made -responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the same time -surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any other -executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive officers. -If this executive trust, vested by the Constitution in the President, -is to be taken from him {142} and vested in a subordinate officer, the -responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with -unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its exercise." - -[Sidenote: Ideas and suspicions about the meaning of the message.] - -The radical Republicans interpreted this language, at once, as meaning -that the President proposed to so interfere with the execution of the -Reconstruction Acts as to avoid their intent and destroy their effect. -And the talk about impeachment was again revived. The President, -however, meant nothing of the kind, and but for exaggerated suspicion -and party hatred the language of the message would have been held to -mean only an appeal to Congress to desist from its unlawful attempt to -rob the Executive of his constitutional powers, and to the people to -elect men to Congress who would obey the principles of the Constitution -in their legislative acts. - -[Sidenote: The veto overridden.] - -The Houses passed the bill over the President's veto immediately, by an -overwhelming majority, and almost in a spirit of derision. The next -day, July 20th, Congress adjourned to the 21st of the following -November. - -[Sidenote: The suspension of Stanton from office.] - -The unfortunate relations of Mr. Stanton with the President, and with -the other members of the Cabinet were the thing which was destined to -produce the catastrophe. He had become unbearable to the President, and -to the most of his colleagues. He ought in all decency to have resigned -his portfolio as Speed and Harlan and Dennison had done the year -before. The President asked him to resign in a note of the 5th of -August. Stanton, feeling sure of the support of the large majority in -Congress, contemptuously refused. The President could now in the recess -of Congress suspend him without violating the provisions of the -Tenure-of-Office Act, or raising the {143} question of its -constitutionality. The President at last resolved to take the matter -into his own hands and rid himself of Stanton's presence in his -confidential counsels. On the 12th of August he sent an executive order -to Stanton suspending him from the office of Secretary of War, and -another to General Grant authorizing and empowering him to act as -Secretary of War _ad interim_. Stanton yielded to this order under -protest. He wrote the President that he could not legally suspend him -from office and declared that he submitted only to superior physical -force. Grant accepted the appointment, although he had, four days -before, advised the President against disturbing Stanton. Grant entered -upon the duties of the office at once, and Stanton went off to New -England to recuperate health, spirits and courage for his battle with -the President which was bound to come unless the President should yield -and take him back again, so soon as Congress should assemble. - -[Sidenote: Changes among the commanders of the military districts.] - -By a series of orders issued during the same month (August) General -Hancock was substituted for General Sheridan in the command of the -fifth military district and General Canby for General Sickles in the -command of the second district. Both of the generals thus relieved were -great favorites at the North, especially Sheridan. The President felt -that they were too much imbued with the military spirit to make good -administrators of civil affairs. But the people of the North saw in -these changes only the purpose of the President to place his political -friends among the army officers in command of the military districts, -and through them to modify the intent of the Reconstruction Acts in the -course of their execution. - - - - -{144} - -CHAPTER VIII - -THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS - -The Attempt to Prevent the Execution of the Reconstruction Acts in -Mississippi and Georgia--The Case of Mississippi vs. Johnson--The Case -of Georgia vs. Stanton--The Operations of the Commanders--The -Registration--The Numbers Registered--The Change in the Electorate in -the South--The Elections--Efforts of the Commanders to Get the Vote -Out--The Result of the Elections--The Character of the Convention -Delegates Chosen--The Work of the Conventions--The Vote upon -Ratification--Fraudulent Voting and Unlawful Voting--The Recall of Pope -and the Appointment of Meade in His Stead--Rejection of the -Constitution in Alabama--The Statute of Congress Changing the -Proportion of Votes to Registration in the Ratification of a -Constitution--Criticism of the Statute--Ratification in -Arkansas--Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, -Florida and Louisiana--Second Attempt in Georgia to Obstruct -Reconstruction--Rejection of the Constitution in Mississippi. - - -[Sidenote: The attempt to prevent the execution of the Reconstruction -Acts in Mississippi and Georgia.] - -[Sidenote: The case of Mississippi vs. Johnson.] - -Although the Supreme Court of the United States had said, in the case -of Kendall vs. the United States, in 1838, that so far as the -President's power is derived from the Constitution he is beyond the -reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the -Constitution, through the impeaching power, and had also indicated, in -the cases of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in 1831, and -Luther vs. Borden, in 1849, that it had no jurisdiction over political -questions, there still prevailed in many minds the idea that the Court -was the ultimate {145} interpreter of the Constitution in all cases of -whatever nature, and that no person was exempted from its jurisdiction -on account of official station. Under the influence of this idea, W. L. -Sharkey, the ex-provisional Governor of Mississippi, appointed by -President Johnson in 1865, undertook to obtain from the Supreme Court -of the United States an injunction restraining the President of the -United States from carrying the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, -into effect. He was aided in this attempt by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, -and their client in the case, as set up by them, was the "State of -Mississippi." In a powerful argument, noted for both clearness and -frankness, Mr. Johnson's Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, demonstrated -that the President of the United States cannot be made subject to the -jurisdiction of any court, while in office, except only the Senate of -the United States, as the constitutional court of impeachment. The plea -of Mr. Stanbery is also notable for another thing, viz.: the frank way -in which he notified the Southerners that the President's opposition to -these laws ceased with their successful passage over his vetoes, and -that the President intended to execute them in spirit and letter, as it -was his sworn duty to do. The Court decided, in 1866, in the case of -Mississippi vs. Johnson, that "a bill praying an injunction against the -execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential -office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as -a citizen of a State." - -[Sidenote: The case of Georgia vs. Stanton.] - -Under the delusion that this decision was based entirely upon the -official exemption from jurisdiction of the person sought to be made -defendant, Hon. Charles J. Jenkins, Governor of Georgia, under the -reconstructed constitution of 1865, undertook, as representing the -"State of Georgia," to obtain an injunction against {146} Stanton as -Secretary of War, Grant as General of the army and Pope as commander of -the third military district, restraining them from putting the -Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, into operation. Mr. Stanbery again -came forward, in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Stanton, with a -most able argument against the jurisdiction of the Court over the -question involved, it being, as he contended, a political question pure -and simple, and the Court again sustained him, deciding that it -possessed no jurisdiction over the subject-matter presented in the bill -for relief. - -[Sidenote: The operations of the commanders.] - -[Sidenote: The registration.] - -The generals now had free hand to go ahead according, pretty much, to -their own discretion. The law gave them, first until September, and -then until October, to complete the registration, and they themselves -appointed and extended the times of registration at will. They -constituted the boards of registry chiefly of army officers, Freedmen's -Bureau officers, discharged Union soldiers, and negroes. Where white -residents could be found who could take the iron-clad oath, the oath -prescribed by Congress July 2d, 1862, they were also used in -constituting these boards. The registration was quite successful in -bringing out most of those qualified to register. The reason for this -was not ready acquiescence on the part of the whites in the -Reconstruction Acts, but it was the calculation that by registering and -not voting on the question of holding a convention, or on the question -of constitutional ratification, one or both of these propositions might -be defeated, since the act of March 23d provided, as we have seen, that -a majority of the registered voters must vote in order to carry them in -the affirmative. - -[Sidenote: The numbers registered.] - -In Alabama the registration reached the number of 165,813, of whom -104,518 were negroes or colored. In {147} Arkansas it reached the -number of 66,831, of whom less than half were known to be colored, -although no exact account of the proportion was reported. In Florida it -reached the number of 28,003, of whom 16,089 were colored. In Georgia -it reached the number of 191,501, of whom 95,168 were colored. In -Louisiana it reached the number of 129,654, of whom 84,436 were -colored. In Mississippi it reached the number of 139,690, of whom, it -was well known, a large majority were colored, although no exact -figures giving the proportions were reported. In North Carolina it -reached the number of 179,653, of whom 72,932 were colored. In South -Carolina it reached the number of 127,432, of whom 80,550 were colored. -In Texas it reached the number of 109,130, of whom 49,497 were colored. -In Virginia it reached the number of 225,933, of whom 105,832 were -colored. - -[Sidenote: The change in the electorate in the South.] - -It will thus be seen that of the ten "States" to be reconstructed five -were to be recreated through an electorate in which the majority would -be negroes and mulattoes, about all of whom had been, three years -before, slaves; while in the other five the majority of the -constructing electorate would be whites by a comparatively small -number. This was a tremendous _bouleversement_ of the political society -of these sections. A large majority of the old leaders were -disfranchised completely and a goodly number of the old Unionists were -deterred by social considerations from taking any part in the work, -while negroes, "poor white trash," "carpet-baggers" and a few -self-denying respectables formed the new electorate for recreating -"State" governments. - -There is no doubt that Congress had the constitutional power to do this -thing, on the theory, of course, that these communities were not -"States" of the Union; {148} but it was a reckless thing, and a -monstrous thing. Anybody of common sense and common honesty could, at -the time, have foreseen some of the horrible results which were sure to -follow. - -[Sidenote: The elections.] - -[Sidenote: Efforts of the commanders to get the vote out.] - -So soon as the registration was completed, the commanders ordered -elections to be held and the vote to be taken, first, upon the question -of convention or no convention, and, at the same time, for the choice -of delegates to the conventions. The commanders did their best to get -out the vote. They met every device for keeping the negroes away from -the polls and foiled it by means of their arbitrary powers, and they -kept the polls open for two and three days, and in the case of Georgia, -for five days. There is no doubt that there was repeating, although the -military authorities exerted themselves most sincerely to prevent it. -Their purpose was not, in any case, to permit fraud, but to give every -opportunity to the freedmen to vote. Their efforts were aided by the -fact that the elections in the Northern "States" during the autumn -showed, in most quarters, large Democratic gains, and by the fact that -in one of the great Northern "States," Ohio, the proposition to -enfranchise negroes by an amendment to the "State" constitution was -rejected by a large popular majority. The effect of these facts was to -encourage the whites in the South, who had registered with the -intention of defeating the proposed reconstruction by abstention from -voting, to vote with the hope of securing a majority of the delegates -to the proposed conventions. - -[Sidenote: The result of the elections.] - -The result was that in all the communities to be reconstructed as -"States" a majority of the registered voters voted on the question of -convention or no convention, and a large majority of those voting voted -in {149} every case for the holding of the convention. The figures were -as follows: In Alabama, of the 165,813 registered voters, 96,866 voted -on the question of convention or no convention, and 90,283 voted for -holding the convention. In Arkansas, of the 66,831 registered voters, -41,134 voted on the question, and 27,576 of these voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Florida, of the 28,003 registered voters, -14,503 voted on the question, and of these 14,300 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Georgia, of the 191,501 registered voters, -106,410 voted on the question, and of these 102,283 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Louisiana, of the 129,654 registered voters, -79,089 voted on the question, and of these 75,083 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Mississippi, of the 139,690 registered -voters, 76,016 voted on the question, and of these 69,739 voted in -favor of holding the convention. In North Carolina, of the 179,653 -registered voters, 125,967 voted on the question of convention or no -convention, and of these 93,006 voted for holding the convention. In -South Carolina, of the 127,432 registered voters, 71,046 voted on the -question, and of these 68,768 voted for holding the convention. In -Texas, of the 109,130 registered voters, 56,129 voted on the question, -and of these 44,689 voted for holding the convention. And in Virginia, -of the 225,933 registered voters, 169,229 voted on the question, and of -these 107,342 voted for holding the convention. - -[Sidenote: The character of the Convention delegates chosen.] - -The great mass of those who registered and refrained from voting were -the whites who were opposed to the Congressional Acts for -Reconstruction, and hence the persons voting were chiefly the newly -enfranchised. This was likewise true in the voting for the delegates to -the conventions, with the result that radical men were, for the most -part, {150} chosen. They were new men to the political society of the -South. There were a few of the old Whigs among them, who had remained -true to the Union in their sentiments during the rebellion, but the -most of them were "carpet-baggers," that is adventurers or new settlers -from the North, "poor white trash" and negroes. In the South Carolina -convention there were 63 negro delegates to 34 white. No such hideous -bodies of men had ever been assembled before upon the soil of the -United States for the purpose of participation in the creation of a -"State" of the Union, and but for the control exercised over them by -the military commanders, and the co-operation between the commanders -and the small conservative white element in these bodies, the result of -their work would have been the most ghastly travesty of justice, -common-sense, and common honesty which the republic had ever been -called upon to witness. - -[Sidenote: The work of the conventions.] - -During the winter and spring of 1867-68 the work of these conventions -went on under the greatest extravagance and incompetence of every kind. -The constitutions which came from them provided for complete equality -in civil rights and, in some cases, in advantages of a social -character, such as equal privileges in public conveyances, etc. They -also not only established negro suffrage, as in fact was required by -the Reconstruction Acts, but they, in most cases, disfranchised those -whites whom the proposed Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify from -holding office. In Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana they went even -further than this and disfranchised also, in the case of the first two, -all who "had violated the rules of civilized warfare," and in the case -of the last, all who had voted for secession, or had advocated treason -against the United States in the press or the pulpit. It is true {151} -that in most cases ways were provided for removing these disabilities, -but they were generally connected with such self-stultifying -requirements as to make them worthless. - -The restrictions upon eligibility to hold office or mandate were in -general the same as those imposed on the exercise of the suffrage, and -in some cases they went even further, as in the cases of the -Mississippi and Virginia instruments, by both of which anybody who had -voluntarily participated in the rebellion, or had voluntarily given aid -or comfort to those who had, was disqualified. - -[Sidenote: The vote upon ratification.] - -[Sidenote: Fraudulent voting and unlawful voting.] - -[Sidenote: The recall of Pope and the appointment of Meade in his -stead.] - -The next step in the procedure was the submission of these -constitutions to the voters. The registration was effected in the same -manner as for the vote on the question of holding the conventions, and -the election of the delegates; and the elections were held, as before, -under the direction and control of the military commanders. The voting -upon the question of ratification came off first in Alabama. General -Pope had issued orders that the votes of persons registered in one -precinct might be received in another, and that "State" officers and -legislative members should be elected at the same election with the -vote on ratification, and by the same voters. There is no doubt that -the General only desired to secure the freedmen, who were then moving -about restlessly, in their right of suffrage under the Reconstruction -Acts, and to expedite the process of reconstruction so far as possible. -But he undoubtedly opened the door to fraudulent voting by offering -unrivalled opportunities for repeating, and he also violated the law -and practice under the Constitution of the United States in regard to -the qualified electors of "State" officers and legislators. Such -officers and legislators could have been constitutionally elected only -by the electors {152} designated in the constitution submitted for -adoption. The qualifications of the electors who vote upon the question -of the adoption of the first "State" constitution are necessarily fixed -by Congress, but Congress has no constitutional power to fix the -qualifications of the electors of "State" officers and legislators. -Neither has the constitutional convention, which frames the first -"State" constitution any such power, for the constitution which it -frames is only a proposition, and ratification by the electors -designated by Congress is necessary to its validity. Furthermore, any -resolution which it might pass ordering the election of "State" -officers or legislators by the electors designated by the Congressional -statute is only a proposition to those electors, which must be accepted -by them by a preliminary vote before they can proceed to the election -of such officers and legislators. The General certainly did not -understand these niceties of constitutional law and practice, and his -desire to hurry up the re-establishment of civil government was rather -laudable than otherwise. The President, however, who had in his -Attorney-General one of the ablest lawyers of the country, understood -well the constitutional limitations upon the General's powers and -duties. He recalled the reckless commander and sent the more -conservative Meade to take his place, December 28th, 1867. - -[Sidenote: Rejection of the constitution in Alabama.] - -Before the election came off, however, a bill was introduced into -Congress, and passed the House of Representatives, and was making its -way, a little more slowly, but surely, through the Senate, which -authorized the election of "State" officers and legislators in the -communities suffering reconstruction at the same time that the vote -should be taken upon the ratification of the new constitutions and by -the same electors. Congress had not a whit more power to {153} do this -than the commanders, and the President knew this well enough, but he -gave no instructions to Meade, and so the commander permitted the -voting for "State" officers and legislators at the same election that -the vote was taken upon the question of the ratification of the -constitution and by the same electors. But the registered voters -refrained from voting upon the question of ratification in sufficient -numbers to reduce the vote to several thousand less than half the -registration. The proposed constitution was thus rejected under the -provision of the Reconstruction Acts which required a vote exceeding -the half of the registration, as well as a majority of that vote, for -ratification. The "State" government chosen at this same election was -thus in the air. - -[Sidenote: The statute of Congress changing the proportion of votes to -registration in the ratification of a constitution.] - -The Senate now passed the House bill providing that the approval of a -majority of those voting, no matter what the proportion of the vote to -the registration might be, should be regarded as a sufficient -ratification of the proposed "State" constitutions for the communities -suffering reconstruction; and although this Act was passed more than a -month after the vote on the constitution was taken in Alabama, and -although, furthermore, General Meade reported that a majority of the -registered voters had not voted on the question of ratification, and -that he interpreted this to mean that a majority of the registered -voters did not want the constitution, yet Congress, as we shall see -later, applied this new law of March 11th to the Alabama election which -had taken place in the first days of the preceding February. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the statute.] - -In the original requirement that the vote to be effective must exceed -half of the registration, Congress was still upon the ground of correct -principle. When it left this ground it virtually accepted the principle -that republican "State" governments may be {154} legitimately created -by a minority of the lawful voters against the will of a majority of -the lawful voters, and that, too, not by allowing that minority to -demonstrate its political superiority to the majority by greater -intelligence, or shrewder management, or even by brute force, _but by -the aid of power coming from without_. Now this is not, in correct -political science, "State" government in a federal system, autonomous -local government, at all. It is provincial government in local affairs, -more or less complete as the necessity for the outside aid is more or -less continuous. The Republicans had denounced the Johnson "State" -governments upon the ground, among other grounds, that they were -minority governments, minority governments in the vague and uncertain -sense that not a majority of the adult males had been enfranchised, and -not in the clear and distinct and unmistakable sense that a minority of -the enfranchised, supported by the military power of the United States, -might impose its will upon a majority of the enfranchised. There was -nothing disloyal in the registered voters of Alabama giving Congress to -understand that a majority of them preferred the continuance of the -military régime, or the creation of a Territorial government for them -by Congress, to the "State" constitution offered them. But it was utter -self-stultification for Congress to take the ground that the Johnson -"State" governments were unrepublican because they did not enfranchise -all adult males of whatever race, color, or condition of mind or estate -and overthrow them on that ground, and then proceed to create new -"State" governments in their places upon the basis of a minority of the -already duly qualified and registered voters. No impartial student, at -this day, can view this terrible inconsistency in any other light than -that of a high political crime. - -{155} [Sidenote: Ratification in Arkansas.] - -While the Senate was proceeding with the bill, another of the Southern -communities was rapidly approaching the date fixed for voting upon the -proposed "State" constitution, viz., Arkansas. The bill was passed by -Congress the day before the voting began in Arkansas, but it was not -known in Arkansas that it had been passed until near the close of the -second day of the election. It could, however, be claimed that it was -applicable to the case, and it certainly made all figures unnecessary -except in regard to the actual voting. The "State" officers and -legislators under the constitution to be adopted were chosen at the -same time, by the Congressional electorate in Arkansas, and not by the -"State" electorate, created by the new constitution. - -[Sidenote: Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, -Florida and Louisiana.] - -In the course of the next two months, April and May, voting upon the -question of ratifying the new "State" constitutions took place in North -and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana. As the -Congressional Act of March 11th was in full force at this time, the -result was affirmative in all cases. - -[Sidenote: Second attempt in Georgia to obstruct Reconstruction.] - -During the Reconstruction proceedings in Georgia Governor Jenkins had -refused to issue an order to the "State" Treasurer to pay a sum of -forty thousand dollars, on the ground that the "State" legislature -(Johnson government) had not made any such appropriation. For this -refusal Meade removed him and the "State" Treasurer and Controller -General, and appointed military men in their places. These new officers -seized the "State" buildings, but Jenkins succeeded in getting away -with the money in the treasury. He went to Washington and undertook to -institute a proceeding in the Supreme Court of the United States -against Generals Grant and {156} Meade to restrain the officers -appointed by Meade from levying taxes upon the people of Georgia, and -from collecting the same and the other income of the "State," as well -as from exercising other functions. The Court gave its permission to -the filing of the bill, but put off the hearing of the argument until -the next term, and before this arrived, the new constitution had been -ratified, and new "State" officers elected along with the ratification. -In the other communities mentioned no opposition to the reconstruction -process was offered. - -[Sidenote: Rejection of the Constitution in Mississippi.] - -On the other hand, the opponents of the proposed "State" constitution -in Mississippi went into a most earnest and energetic campaign against -its ratification and succeeded, at the election on June 22d, in -rejecting the same by between seven and eight thousand majority. Many -of the better class of negroes voted with their old masters, that is -with such of these as were allowed by the Congressional acts to -register and vote, against ratification. Those in favor of ratification -claimed that fraud was practised by their opponents, in the face of the -fact that they had the elections in their own hands, and they -petitioned the military authorities to put the proposed constitution, -notwithstanding its rejection at the polls, into operation. This these -authorities refused to do. - - - - -{157} - -CHAPTER IX - -THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT - -Grant in the War Office--The President's Message of December 3d, -1867--The President's Special Message Concerning the Suspension of -Stanton--The Senate Resolution in Regard to the Suspension of -Stanton--Grant's Disobedience toward the President--The Unbearable -Situation in which the President now Found Himself--The Dismissal of -Stanton from Office--General Thomas Appointed Secretary of War _ad -interim_--Stanton's Resistance--Thomas and the President--The Attitude -of the Senate toward the Dismissal of Stanton--The Movements in the -House of Representatives--The Arrest of General Thomas--Thomas's Second -Attempt to Take Possession of the War Office--The House Resolution to -Impeach the President--The Withdrawal of Stanton's Complaint against -Thomas--The Fear of the Republicans to Test the Tenure-of-Office Act -before the Courts--The Managers of Impeachment--The Charges against the -President--The President's Answer to the Complaint--The Withdrawal of -Mr. Black from the President's Counsel--The Contents of the President's -Answer--The Replication of the House to the President's Answer--The -Trial--Conduct of the Managers--The Evidence in the Case--The -Argument--The Law in the Case--Mr. Stanton's Violation of Law--The -Nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary of War--The Vote upon -Impeachment--The Truth of the Matter--The Abdication of -Stanton--Schofield's Confirmation as Secretary of War and His -Acceptance of the Office. - - -During this same period, another act in the drama of Reconstruction was -being played, a fit companion piece to what was occurring in the -unhappy communities of the South. It was the attempt to dispose of the -President, and the presidency, by the impeachment of the President. - -{158} [Sidenote: Grant in the War Office.] - -The history of the President's relations to Mr. Stanton, his Secretary -of War, has already been given down to the suspension of Mr. Stanton in -August of 1867, and the designation of General Grant to succeed him _ad -interim_. Grant immediately assumed the duties of the office, and Mr. -Stanton then regarded General Grant as a friend of the President in the -controversy between himself and the President. - -[Sidenote: The President's Message of December 3d, 1867.] - -In his annual Message to Congress, the Fortieth Congress, of December -3d, 1867, the President said nothing directly in regard to his -suspension of Mr. Stanton from office. He put forward a strong -argument, couched in moderate and respectful language, against the -policy and constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, as measures -establishing martial law in times of peace, and as doing it for the -purpose of establishing negro rule over the Southern communities, and -he urged the repeal of these Acts, and the immediate admission of the -Representatives and Senators from these communities, or "States" as he -considered them, to their seats in Congress. What he said upon these -subjects is, for the most part, entirely convincing to the impartial -mind, at this day, and all of it was apparently animated with true -patriotism and earnest desire to promote the common weal. At the close -of the argument, however, the President introduced into his Message -some ambiguous expressions which were unfortunate, to say the least, -and which roused to a high degree the suspicions and the hatred already -entertained against him by the radical Republicans. - -He wrote as follows: "How far the duty of the President 'to preserve, -protect, and defend the Constitution' requires him to go in opposing an -unconstitutional act of Congress is a very serious and important {159} -question, on which I have deliberated much and felt extremely anxious -to reach a proper conclusion. Where an act has been passed according to -the forms of the Constitution by the supreme legislative authority, and -is regularly enrolled among the public statutes of the country, -Executive resistance to it, especially in times of high party -excitement, would be likely to produce violent collision between the -respective adherents of the two branches of the Government. This would -be simply civil war, and civil war must be resorted to only as the last -remedy for the worst of evils. Whatever might tend to provoke it should -be most carefully avoided. A faithful and conscientious magistrate will -concede very much to honest error, and something even to perverse -malice, before he will endanger the public peace; and he will not adopt -forcible measures, or such as might lead to force, as long as those -which are peaceable remain open to him or to his constituents. It is -true that cases may occur in which the Executive would be compelled to -stand on its rights, and maintain them regardless of all consequences. -If Congress should pass an act which is not only in palpable conflict -with the Constitution, but will certainly, if carried out, produce -immediate and irreparable injury to the organic structure of the -Government, and if there be neither judicial remedy for the wrongs it -inflicts nor power in the people to protect themselves without the -official aid of their elected defender--if, for instance, the -legislative department should pass an act even through all the forms of -law to abolish a co-ordinate department of the Government--in such a -case the President must take the high responsibilities of his office -and save the life of the nation at all hazards. The so-called -Reconstruction Acts, though as plainly unconstitutional as any that can -be imagined, were not believed to be within the class last mentioned. -{160} The people were not wholly disarmed of the power of self-defence. -In all the Northern 'States' they still held in their hands the sacred -right of the ballot, and it was safe to believe that in due time they -would come to the rescue of their own institutions. It gives me -pleasure to add that the appeal to our common constituents was not -taken in vain, and that my confidence in their wisdom and virtue seems -not to have been misplaced." These last words referred undoubtedly to -the recent rejection, by popular vote, in a number of the most -important Northern "States," of proposed amendments to "State" -constitutions conferring suffrage upon negroes. - -[Sidenote: The interpretation placed by the Republicans on the -President's Message.] - -Most of the Republicans in Congress interpreted this whole paragraph in -the Message as a threat to violate the Reconstruction Acts, although -this was disavowed, rather indistinctly it is true, and to violate also -the Tenure-of-Office Act. It is very difficult to say what the -President was aiming at in giving such a warning to a body already -excited against him to a high degree. It was certainly a _faux pas_ of -the worst kind, to say the least about it. - -[Sidenote: The President's special Message concerning the suspension of -Stanton.] - -Just nine days later the President sent his special Message to the -Senate in regard to his suspension of Mr. Stanton. The gist of it was -that mutual confidence between himself and Mr. Stanton no longer -existed, and that when he asked Mr. Stanton to resign Mr. Stanton had -declined to do so and had strongly intimated that his reason for -declining was his own lack of confidence in the President's patriotism -and integrity. The President claimed that such an attitude, on the part -of a subordinate toward his superior, was unendurable, was in fact -official misconduct of a grave order, and he also referred to Stanton's -withholding Baird's telegram from {161} him just before the New Orleans -riot. The President furthermore discussed Mr. Stanton's letter in reply -to his order to him suspending him from office and commanding him to -turn over the records and property of the office to General Grant. This -letter contained a declaration by Mr. Stanton denying the right of the -President, under the Constitution and laws, to suspend him from office, -without the advice and consent of the Senate, and without legal cause, -and affirming that he yielded, under protest, to the superior force -wielded by the General of the Army who had been designated to succeed -him. - -This contention of Mr. Stanton that the President could not suspend him -under the Constitution and laws of the United States gave the President -the opportunity of saying that Mr. Stanton must be claiming the -protection of the Tenure-of-Office Act of March 2d, 1867, and of -revealing to the Senate Mr. Stanton's most decided condemnation of that -Act when it was a bill before the President. The President asserted -that Mr. Stanton, as every other member of his Cabinet, advised him -that the bill was unconstitutional, in that it was a dangerous -encroachment upon the President's constitutional prerogatives, and -urged him to veto it. He also said that all the members of his Cabinet -who had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln--and Stanton was one of -these--appeared to be of the opinion that their tenures were not fixed -or affected by the provisions of the bill. The conclusion arrived at by -the President evidently was that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not cover -Mr. Stanton's case, but left it under the law and practice existing -before the passage of that measure, and that if it did cover it, the -Act was unconstitutional, and was so considered by Mr. Stanton himself, -and every other member of the Cabinet. - -{162} It is hardly credible that the President intended to recognize -the validity of the Act by sending this Message to the Senate. It is -true that the second section of the Act provided that the President -might suspend an officer during a recess of the Senate, and designate -an _ad interim_ successor, and must, within the first twenty days of -the next meeting of the Senate, report the suspension to the Senate, -and it does appear, from a casual view, that the President was acting -under the authority of this provision, or rather under the duty imposed -by it, in suspending instead of removing Mr. Stanton and in making this -report of Mr. Stanton's suspension to the Senate. But the President -could claim that he was proceeding under his general constitutional -power and duty of suspending from office, as a power included in the -power of removal, and of sending such communications as he saw fit to -Congress or to either House thereof. And the fact that he disputed the -constitutionality of the Act in the Message itself is good internal -evidence that he did not consider that he was in any way acting under -the authority granted to him by it, or in any way estopping himself, so -to speak, from making future declarations against the constitutionality -of the Act, or even from disobeying its requirements. - -[Sidenote: The Senate resolution in regard to the suspension of -Stanton.] - -The Senate, however, conceived at once that the President was acting -under the Tenure-of-Office Act, and after considerable discussion, -passed a resolution, on the 13th day of January, 1868, which provided -that, "having considered the evidence and reasons given by the -President in his report of December 12th, 1867, for the suspension of -Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, the Senate does -not concur in such suspension." The body then instructed its secretary -to send copies of this resolution to the President, General {163} Grant -and Mr. Stanton. It is also evident that General Grant supposed the -President was acting under the Tenure-of-Office Act both in suspending -Stanton, in appointing himself _ad interim_, and in making report of -these proceedings to the Senate; for upon receiving his copy of the -Senate's resolution from the secretary of the Senate, he immediately -left the room of the Secretary of War, locking the door after him and -giving the key to the Adjutant-General, and repaired to the official -head-quarters of the General of the army. Stanton manifestly regarded -the matter in the same way, for upon receiving his copy of the notice -of the Senate's action, he went to the room of the Secretary of War, -and resumed the duties of Secretary of War without further ceremony. He -did not even go to see Grant, but sent word over to the head-quarters -of the General of the army summoning Grant to wait upon him in the -Secretary's room. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the Senate resolution.] - -There is no question now in any calm and impartial mind that the Senate -acted most inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in passing that -resolution. The situation was a perfectly plain one. The President and -Stanton could not work together, since they had lost all confidence in -each other. Common-sense and common decency required in such a case the -retirement of the subordinate. The Senate itself had committed itself -to this view in the discussion and votes upon the Tenure-of-Office -bill, in its original form and in its final form. General Grant, the -man who stood first in the confidence of the whole people, was in -possession of the War Office. He had held it already nearly six months, -and had in that short time improved the administration of it very -greatly. At the end of the six months, at farthest, the President was -held by the law of 1795, a law whose constitutionality {164} he did not -dispute, to make a nomination to the Senate of a permanent incumbent. -The Senate would then be able to prevent the appointment of any person -to the office who did not have the confidence of the Senate and the -country. No possible harm could thus have come to the country from -acquiescing in Stanton's suspension, and it is hard to see that -anything but harm did come to it in not doing so. No perfectly fair and -unprejudiced mind could have failed to see that then; but the radical -Republicans--and most of the Republicans in Congress at that moment -were radical, or at least intensely partisan--were bent upon attacking -and destroying the President in any way they could. They were ready to -lay traps for him, and then to so excite him by encroachments upon the -prerogatives and the dignity of his office as to make him fall into -them. They were determined to sustain Stanton against the President, -the subordinate against his lawful superior, simply because they -despised the President. They claimed that the welfare of the country -demanded it, and most of them probably thought so, but everybody can -see the fallacy of that now, and anybody fit to be a Senator of the -United States ought to have been able to see it then. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of General Grant's act.] - -It is also a question whether General Grant did not act hastily, and -inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in yielding the post without -dispute to Mr. Stanton. The President certainly understood General -Grant to promise him to hold on to the office in case the Senate should -not approve of Stanton's suspension, and thereby compel Stanton to have -recourse to the courts to regain possession, and thus secure a judicial -determination of the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or -to give the office back to the President before the Senate reached its -{165} determination, so that he might have opportunity to put it into -the hands of a man who would be willing to incur this responsibility; -and the President was able to back this understanding by the testimony -of five members of his Cabinet. On the other hand, General Grant was -just as sincere in his view that his remarks to the President on the -subject did not amount to a promise, and if they did, he had fulfilled -it when on the 11th of January, two days before the Senate acted, he -indicated to the President his unwillingness to involve himself in a -lawsuit to test the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act. It -is true that when he spoke with the President, on the 11th, he did not -offer to resign the office, and that it was understood that he would -see the President again on the subject, and that he did not see the -President, nor attempt to see him, before the Senate acted. But he -explained this apparent failure to keep faith by saying that he was -extremely busy during the two days between the 11th and the 13th, and -that the Senate had acted much more hastily than he expected it would. - -There is little doubt that General Grant thought the Senate would -acquiesce in Stanton's suspension, and was taken by surprise when it -did not do so, and that until the action of the Senate on the 13th, he -had never seriously considered that any opportunity or necessity for a -judicial proceeding would arise. When, then, the alternative was -suddenly presented to him of obeying the Tenure-of-Office Act, or -disputing its constitutionality by forcibly holding possession of the -War Office, he decided that it would be wrong for the General of the -army to assume the attitude of defiance to Congress, whatever a -civilian might consider his duty to be. He thought that such an act on -his part would look like a contest between the civil and military -powers of the Government, and he was unwilling to provoke it. - -{166} [Sidenote: The President's blunder in his attitude toward Grant.] - -The President blundered very seriously when he did not accept the -explanation from General Grant and drop the matter. The General was -friendly in his feelings toward the President, and when Stanton -repossessed himself of the War Office in his cavalier way, without -seeking any understanding with Grant, and sent the General a rude -summons to wait upon him, the General was very naturally and properly -indignant with Stanton. The way was here open for the President to make -a close friend of General Grant, by simply appreciating Grant's point -of view in surrendering the War Office, and saying nothing more about -it. But the President was not a prudent man when crossed in his -purposes. He generally thought that the motives of all men who differed -with him were bad. He showed in this trait his common origin and his -vulgar breeding. He thought that Grant had deceived him and made a -scapegoat of him, and he resolved to have it out with him. He did not -seem to understand at all that in an issue of veracity between General -Grant and himself, the country would believe Grant, no matter who told -the truth, and who the lie. The utter impossibility of coming out -winner in a contest with a national hero, no matter what the merits of -the case might be, does not seem to have occurred to him at all. And so -he plunged into that unfortunate controversy with General Grant in the -public prints, which made Grant his enemy for life, at a time when he -needed most his friendship, and might have had it by the exercise of a -little common prudence. - -[Sidenote: The result of the controversy between the President and -General Grant.] - -The outcome of this whole course of crimination and recrimination was -that the country came to the belief that the President first tried to -force the responsibility of a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act -upon the popular General of the army, and then, when the {167} General -foiled him in his purpose, undertook to impugn his honor and his -integrity, and destroy his character before the public. An impartial -study of the facts and the correspondence will not sustain any such -view now, but in the state of feeling then prevailing, no such -impartial study was possible. The President ought to have known this, -and to have controlled his indignation until a more propitious time. - -[Sidenote: Grant's disobedience toward the President.] - -General Grant's letter closing the controversy is dated February 11th. -In the interval between his quitting the War Office and this latter -date, the President instructed the General not to obey any orders from -Stanton until he knew they came from the President. This instruction -was given, first, verbally on January 19th. Grant demanded, on January -24th, a written order from the President on the subject, and repeated -this request on the 28th. The President replied on the 29th that -"General Grant is instructed, in writing, not to obey any order from -the War Department, assumed to be issued by the direction of the -President, unless such order is known by the General commanding the -armies of the United States to have been authorized by the Executive." -Grant responded, on January 30th, that he had been informed by the -Secretary of War that he (the Secretary) had not received from the -Executive any order or instructions limiting or impairing his authority -to issue orders to the army as had theretofore been his practice under -the law and the customs of the Department, and that while this -authority to the War Department was not countermanded it would be -satisfactory evidence to him (the General) that any orders issued from -the War Department by the formal direction of the President were -authorized by the Executive. This was coming very nearly up to the -{168} line between obedience and disobedience on the part of the -General of the army toward the constitutional Commander-in-chief of the -army and navy of the United States. The General must have himself felt -that he was on rather shaky ground, for in the closing paragraph of his -letter of February 11th he disclaimed any intention of disobeying "any -legal order of the President distinctly communicated." But this was -still an ambiguous situation. Who was to determine whether an order of -the President to the General was legal or not? If the President, then -there was no need of qualifying the word "order" by the word "legal." -The language used, therefore, indicates that the General considered it -within _his_ power to decide this question. But if the subordinate can -determine upon the legality of the orders of his superior, and disobey -them in case he considers them illegal, then farewell to all discipline -in civil or military service. It is very clear from these expressions -of the General that Stanton's successful insubordination was already -exercising its demoralizing influence, and was confusing the minds of -those high in command in regard to the interpretation of their duties -and responsibilities. - -[Sidenote: The unbearable situation in which the President now found -himself.] - -The situation was utterly unbearable for the President. Here was the -constitutional Executive of the United States, the Commander-in-chief -of the army and the navy, virtually excluded by one of his own -subordinates from any relation to the business of one of the most -important departments of the Government for which he alone was -responsible, and his subordinate sustained in this attitude by the -legislative branch of the Government. - -[Sidenote: The dismissal of Stanton from office.] - -Matters were now rapidly approaching a crisis which could be avoided -only by the resignation of the {169} President or by the retreat of the -Senate from its indefensible position. If both stood firm the clash -must follow, and that too very quickly. On the 21st (February) it came. -The President addressed an order of that date to Mr. Stanton dismissing -him from the office of Secretary of War, and another order of the same -date to General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the army, -commanding him to take possession of the War Office and administer its -affairs _ad interim_. He, on the same date, informed the Senate of his -action, and transmitted to that body a copy of the orders to Stanton -and Thomas. - -[Sidenote: General Thomas appointed Secretary of War _ad interim_.] - -Upon receiving the order, General Thomas repaired immediately to the -Secretary's room in the War Office, and handed to Mr. Stanton both of -the documents, they having been put into his hands by the President's -private secretary. Upon reading the one addressed to himself, Mr. -Stanton immediately asked General Thomas whether he wished him to -vacate at once or would give him time to remove his private property. -Thomas replied, "act as you please." Stanton then read the order -addressed to Thomas designating him Secretary _ad interim_, and asked -Thomas for a copy of it. - -[Sidenote: Stanton's resistance.] - -Thomas then left the Secretary's room and went into his old room, the -Adjutant-General's room, to have a copy of the order made. He returned -at once with it, and when he handed it to Mr. Stanton, the latter said: -"I do not know whether I will obey your instructions, or whether I will -resist them." General Thomas had certified the correctness of the copy, -and had signed himself Secretary of War _ad interim_. The two then went -into General Schriver's room just across the hallway, and there Stanton -declared outright that Thomas should not issue orders as {170} -Secretary of War, and that if he did he (Stanton) would countermand -them, and he then and there directed General Schriver and General -Townsend, both of whom were present, to disobey any orders coming from -General Thomas as Secretary of War. Mr. Stanton then caused General -Townsend to prepare a written order to Thomas, signed by Mr. Stanton as -Secretary of War, which was as follows: "Sir: I am informed that you -presume to issue orders as Secretary of War _ad interim_. Such conduct -and orders are illegal, and you are hereby commanded to abstain from -issuing any orders other than in your capacity as Adjutant-General of -the army." - -[Sidenote: Thomas and the President.] - -General Thomas then went over to the White House to see the President -about the matter. He told the President of his conversation with Mr. -Stanton, and repeated to him Stanton's replies verbatim. The President -simply said to him: "Very well; go and take charge of the office and -perform the duties." Thomas did not, however, return to the Secretary's -room in the War Office that day, and did not see Mr. Stanton again on -that day. - -[Sidenote: The attitude of the Senate toward the dismissal of Stanton.] - -While these things were occurring in the executive offices matters were -seething at the other end of the avenue. The Senate was deliberating, -if we may call such a stormy procedure as took place a deliberation, -upon the President's communication. It very quickly passed the -following resolution: "Whereas, the Senate have received and considered -the communication of the President stating that he had removed Edwin M. -Stanton, Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjutant-General of -the army to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_: Therefore, Resolved -by the Senate of the United States, That under the Constitution and -laws of the United States the President has no power to remove {171} -the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to perform the -duties of that office _ad interim_." A copy of this resolution was sent -to the President, another copy to Mr. Stanton, and another to General -Thomas. - -[Sidenote: The movements in the House of Representatives.] - -The excitement in the other House was still more intense and -irrational. The Senate resolution had hardly passed when the radical -Mr. Covode presented a motion to the effect that "Andrew Johnson, -President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and -misdemeanors." This resolution was referred to the Committee of the -House on Reconstruction, which was, as we have seen, composed of -members nearly all of whom were radical Republicans. - -[Sidenote: The arrest of General Thomas.] - -Encouraged and strengthened by these movements in the legislature, and -hearing that Thomas had threatened to force his way into the office, -Mr. Stanton resolved to forestall all possible movements of General -Thomas for gaining possession of the office of Secretary of War. He -procured a warrant of arrest for the General, and on the next morning, -the morning of the 22d, the warrant was served on General Thomas just -after he had risen from his bed, and before he had taken his morning -meal. The officers who arrested him, the Marshal of the District, and -his assistant, and a constable, took the General at once before Judge -Cartter, the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia. On the way from -the General's residence to the court-room, the General asked the -officers to allow him to see the President, and inform the latter of -his arrest. The Marshal went with the General to the White House, and -was present at the interview between the General and the President. It -lasted but a moment. The General told the President that he was under -arrest. The President replied that he was {172} satisfied to have the -case go into the courts, that he wanted it judicially determined. He -then directed the General to go to the Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery. -The Marshal permitted him to call at Mr. Stanbery's apartment in his -hotel, and inform the Attorney-General of his arrest. He then took him -before Judge Cartter. Nobody was with the General before the Judge, -except the officers who had arrested him. The Judge held him to bail in -the sum of five thousand dollars to appear on the following Wednesday -morning, the 26th. After about an hour friends of the General came in -and signed his bail bond, and the General was released, the Judge -informing him that he was not suspended from any of his official -functions. The General then went back to the White House and informed -the President of his release under bail, and the President again -replied that he wanted the case in the courts. - -[Sidenote: Thomas's second attempt to take possession of the War -Office.] - -Finally, the General went over to the rooms of the Secretary of War. -There he found some six or eight members of Congress with Mr. Stanton, -evidently awaiting the _dénouement_. He demanded the office. Stanton -ordered him to his room as Adjutant-General. He refused to obey. He -demanded the office of the Secretary of War a second and a third time, -and a second and a third time Stanton refused to yield it to him and -ordered him to his room as Adjutant-General. The General then left the -room of the Secretary of War, and went across the hall into General -Schriver's room. Stanton followed him and asked him if he insisted on -acting as Secretary of War. The General replied that he did, and would -demand the mails of the War Office. The two then fell into a friendly -chat, General Thomas saying that he had had nothing to eat or drink -that day and requesting Mr. Stanton the next time he might have him -arrested not to do it before {173} breakfast, and Stanton appealing to -Schriver to bring out his whiskey, which Schriver did, and the two men, -Thomas and Stanton, drank a little together on Stanton's invitation. -With this Thomas's attempt to get possession of the War Office seems to -have ended. On the same day the President sent to the Senate for -confirmation as Secretary of War the name of Thomas Ewing, Sr. Mr. -Ewing was a man of undoubted ability and of the purest loyalty. He had -been one of Lincoln's best friends and supporters and was the -father-in-law of General Sherman; but the Senate denied that the -President had any power to send in a nomination, that is, denied that -there was a vacancy. - -[Sidenote: The House resolution to impeach the President.] - -On the same day, also, the 22d, the Reconstruction Committee of the -House, to whom the resolution for impeaching the President had been -referred, reported it back with the recommendation that it be passed, -and the chairman, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, urged that it might pass -without debate. But the members began at once to debate it hotly, and -continued to do so through the day and deep into the night. The -following day was Sunday, the 23d. The House had, therefore, one day of -recess in which to cool down. But on Monday the angry determination of -the Republican leaders was even more manifest than on the preceding -Saturday. All day long the war of words went on. The reproach and the -odium heaped upon the President were simply immeasurable. Read from the -point of view of to-day, and at this distance from the event, most of -it appears highly extravagant, and some of it ridiculous and even -puerile. Late in the afternoon the vote was reached, by application of -the previous question rule. The House resolved to impeach the President -before the Senate by a vote of 126 to 47. All those voting in the -affirmative were {174} Republicans, and all those voting in the -negative were Democrats. - -[Sidenote: The committee of the House on impeachment.] - -By another strict party vote the House authorized the Speaker to -appoint a committee to acquaint the Senate with its resolution to -impeach the President before that body, and another committee to draw -up the articles of impeachment. The Speaker, Mr. Colfax, appointed Mr. -Stevens and Mr. Bingham to constitute the first committee, and Mr. -Boutwell, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Logan, Mr. Julian -and Mr. Ward to constitute the second. This committee immediately set -about its work, and on the 29th was ready to report. - -[Sidenote: The withdrawal of Stanton's complaint against Thomas.] - -Meanwhile the day for General Thomas to appear in court, February 26th, -arrived. By this time the General had taken legal advice, and the plan -of his counsel was to refuse to give further bail, allow him thus to be -committed to jail, then sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus from a United -States judge, and bring in this way the question of the -constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act to judicial -determination. But Judge Cartter foiled this plan, according to the -word of Judge Luke P. Poland of Vermont, who drew the complaint against -Thomas, by declining to make any further order requiring bail, and on -the same day Mr. Stanton withdrew the complaint, and the case was thus -prevented from reaching the United States courts at all. - -[Sidenote: The fear of the Republicans to test the Tenure-of-Office Act -before the courts.] - -There is little doubt that the Republicans were afraid to have the -Tenure-of-Office Act tested judicially. They preferred recourse to the -Court of Impeachment to settle the matter so far as President Johnson -was concerned. It is true that Stanton alleged that he brought the case -against Thomas in order to test judicially the right of {175} Thomas to -the office of Secretary of War, and that he withdrew the complaint as -superfluous after the House of Representatives had resolved to impeach -the President, but that may have been a mere legal form of excuse. - -[Sidenote: The managers of impeachment.] - -Three days after this, as we have seen, the committee charged with -preparing the articles of impeachment reported to the House. They were -debated until March 3d, when they were adopted by a strict party vote, -and the managers to conduct the prosecution were elected. They were -Messrs. Bingham, Boutwell, Wilson, Butler, Williams, Logan and Stevens. - -[Sidenote: The charges against the President.] - -Disregarding the legal order and form of the eleven articles of -impeachment, we may say briefly that the charges against the President -were: - -First, that he violated the Tenure-of-Office Act in issuing an order -deposing Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and another order -appointing Thomas to the office of Secretary of War _ad interim_. - -Second, that he violated the Anti-conspiracy Act of July 31, 1861, in -conspiring with Thomas to expel Stanton by force from the War Office, -and to seize upon the property and papers of the United States in the -War Office, and to unlawfully disburse the money appropriated for the -military service and the Department of War. - -Third, that he violated the Act of March 2, 1867, which, among other -things, directed that the military orders and instructions of the -President and Secretary of War should be issued through the General of -the army, by attempting to induce General Emory, the commander of the -troops around Washington, to disregard this law and take his orders -immediately from the President. - -And fourthly, that he committed high misdemeanors {176} in his speeches -denouncing the Thirty-ninth Congress, and declaring it to be a Congress -of only a part of the "States." - -[Sidenote: The charges presented to the Senate.] - -[Sidenote: The President's appearance entered by his counsel.] - -These charges were presented by the managers of the impeachment to the -Senate on March 5th, the day upon which the Senate organized itself as -a Court of Impeachment, by assembling under the presidency of the Chief -Justice of the United States, who administered the oath to the Senators -as members of the court. The court directed its sergeant-at-arms to -serve its summons upon the President to appear before its bar and -answer to the charges preferred against him, and then adjourned to the -13th of the month. On the 13th the court reassembled. The chief clerk -read the return of the sergeant-at-arms to the writ of summons, to the -effect that he had served the writ upon the President at seven o'clock -P.M. of Saturday, the 7th day of the month; and the President entered -his appearance by his counsel, Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, -Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts and Thomas A. R. Nelson, and asked -for forty days for the preparation of his answer to the charges. The -first four of these men were the most noted constitutional lawyers of -the country, and the fifth was one of Mr. Johnson's loyal Tennessee -friends and his chief ally in the Union cause in Tennessee during the -years of sorest trial. Mr. Stanbery had resigned the office of -Attorney-General of the United States in order to take the leading part -in the defence of the President. - -[Sidenote: The President's answer to the complaint.] - -The managers on the part of the House very ungenerously objected to -giving the President any time at all for the preparation of his answer -further than what he had had since the service of the summons upon him, -but the Senate {177} resolved to give him ten days, that is until March -23d. Upon the latter day the Senate resumed its sitting as a Court of -Impeachment, and the President's counsel appeared with his answer to -the charges made against him. - -[Sidenote: The withdrawal of Mr. Black from the President's counsel.] - -An incident occurred at this point in the history of the procedure, -which should be related, although it interrupts somewhat the thread of -the narrative. It was the disappearance of Mr. Black from among the -counsel for the President, and the appearance of Mr. Groesbeck in his -place. It was the gossip among the enemies of the President, and this -gossip was sedulously spread abroad throughout the whole country by -them, that Black on examining the case had become convinced of the -President's guilt and had retired from the case for this reason, and -for the further reason that he had become disgusted with the -President's conduct. It did not become known until later that during -this time Judge Black was counsel for a firm composed of one Patterson -and one Marguiendo, which firm claimed a guano island in the West -Indies, called Alta Vela, and that one of Judge Black's colleagues in -the prosecution of the Patterson-Marguiendo claim, one J. W. Shaffer, -procured a letter of the date of the 9th of March, 1868, that is one -week after the House of Representatives had resolved to impeach the -President, signed by General Benjamin F. Butler and approved by John A. -Logan, J. A. Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead, Thaddeus Stevens, -J. G. Blaine and John A. Bingham, some of them the most bitter among -the President's enemies, which contained the statement that these -gentlemen were clearly of the opinion that the citizens of the United -States had the exclusive right to the guano beds of Alta Vela island, -and an expression of their {178} surprise that the President had not -upheld this right by force against the claims of the Dominican -Government to the island, and caused this letter to be placed in the -hands of the President on the 16th day of March, and that on the 17th -or 18th of March Judge Black had an interview with the President and -urged him to send an armed vessel of the United States to Alta Vela to -take possession of the island, and that the President, viewing this -approach to him at this time as an attempt to take advantage of his -situation, refused, and that on the next day, the 19th of March, Judge -Black declined to appear further as the President's counsel in the -impeachment trial. - -It must have taken a good deal of self-control on the part of the -President, in possession of all these facts, to keep them quietly to -himself for more than a month from the time of Judge Black's retirement -from his case, while his enemies were pointing the finger of a supposed -triumphant scorn at him as being unworthy to have so honest a man as -Judge Black among his counsel, and then to allow them to be given out -only under provocation from the managers of the impeachment, taunting -him with his treatment of Judge Black, and with Judge Black's -withdrawal from his case. - -[Sidenote: The contents of the President's answer.] - -But to return to the President's answer to the charges against him. -Disregarding again legal verbiage and order, the President answered -substantially that Stanton's case was not affected by the -Tenure-of-Office Act, and that he held his office, according to the -Constitution and laws of the United States, and the wording of his -commission, at the pleasure of the President; that even if Stanton's -case were covered by the Act, the President was within his right and -was not thereby committing any crime or misdemeanor at all, to so act -as to make up an issue {179} before the Supreme Court of the United -States, whereby the constitutionality of the Act might be tested; that -the authority given to General Thomas to act as Secretary of War _ad -interim_ was not an appointment nor an attempt to make an appointment, -but was only a designation of a person to act temporarily until an -appointment could be made by and with the consent of the Senate, a -thing which the President was empowered to do by the Act of February -13th, 1795, still in force; that he had not entered into any conspiracy -with Thomas or anybody else to force Stanton out of the War Office, or -to seize the property and papers of the United States in the War -Office, that he could not in fact do so, since Stanton was not lawfully -in the War Office, and since the President of the United States was the -ultimate lawful custodian of the property and papers of the United -States in the War Office, but that his communications with Thomas were -orders from the President to a subordinate officer, to whom the -President gave no authority to use force for their execution, and who -did not use any force in his attempts to execute them, the intention of -the President only being, if his authority should be resisted by Mr. -Stanton, to create an issue before the Supreme Court of the United -States, and secure thereby a judicial determination of the rights and -powers of the parties concerned, and not to do anything unlawful; that -he had never undertaken to induce General Emory to take his orders -immediately from himself in violation of the Act of March 2d, 1867, -which provided that all of the military orders and instructions issuing -from the President and the Secretary of War should pass through the -hands of the General of the Army, but that he had only expressed to -General Emory, as he had to Congress, his conviction that the Act was -in violation of the Constitution, which latter {180} conferred upon the -President the Commandership-in-chief of the army and the navy; and -finally, that his speeches were simply the expression of his opinions -as a free citizen of the Republic, which right was guaranteed to him -and to every other citizen by the Constitution of the country, and -could not be made out in any way to have any of the qualities of a -crime or a misdemeanor, and that his declaration that the Thirty-ninth -Congress was a Congress of only a part of the "States" was intended by -him in no other sense than that of an assertion that ten "States" of -the Union were not represented in it, all of which ought to be so -represented when they should send loyal men to take seats therein, and -that he had never intended by this declaration to deny the validity of -the acts of the Congress or its power to originate and adopt an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States. - -After the filing of this answer, the counsel of the President asked the -Court of Impeachment for thirty days' time after the replication of the -House of Representatives to this answer should be filed for the -preparation of the President's case. But the managers on the part of -the House again very ungenerously opposed giving them any time at all -for this purpose. The debate over this point lasted until after the -replication of the House was filed on the following day, that is on the -24th of March. The Court of Impeachment then decided to give them until -March 30th, and ordered the trial to proceed on that day. - -[Sidenote: The replication of the House to the President's answer.] - -The replication filed by the House of Representatives, on the 26th, was -an exception to the answer of the President as insufficient, a denial -of all the averments of the answer, a declaration of the guilt of the -President of the high crimes and misdemeanors charged, and an offer to -prove the same. - -{181} [Sidenote: The trial.] - -[Sidenote: Conduct of the managers.] - -On the 30th, the trial opened with the fierce, not to say brutal, -attack of Mr. Butler on the President. During the entire course of the -trial, from the 30th of March until the 16th of May, the managers -followed a line of conduct which no impartial student of this day can -fail to condemn, and which, even in that time of hostile passion -against the President, lost to them a large measure of popular favor. -They tried to prevail upon the Court of Impeachment to regard itself as -a political body instead of a court, to renounce all limitations upon -its powers, and to accept common rumors against the President as good -evidence of his guilt. On the other hand, they objected to the -introduction of evidence by the President to prove the purpose of his -acts, and to show the advice upon which he had proceeded in their -commission. They succeeded in inducing the Court of Impeachment to -refuse to hear the President's evidence upon these points, although the -Chief Justice had ruled in favor of its reception. There is no doubt -that their cause was greatly weakened in the public esteem by this -manifestation of partisanship on the part of the court. - -[Sidenote: The evidence in the case.] - -The evidence in the case showed no conspiracy with Thomas to do -anything, and no orders to him to use any force in what he was -authorized to do, and no attempt to induce General Emory to violate any -law or any orders received from or through the General of the Army or -any other legal authority. The case, thus, rested chiefly upon the -question as to whether the President had violated the Tenure-of-Office -Act; and the transactions of the President in regard to this subject -were matters of record. - -[Sidenote: The argument.] - -When one, at this lapse of time from the events, peruses the calm, -dignified, convincing and masterful arguments of the President's -counsel, and compares {182} them with the passionate, partisan -harangues of the managers, it is very difficult to understand how the -latter could have made any serious impression at all. There was only a -single point upon the law seemingly involved in the case in regard to -which they held the better reason. That was the claim on their part -that the President had no right to violate an act of Congress for the -purpose of testing its validity before the United States courts, or for -any other purpose. They argued with much force that to allow the -President the power to violate an act of Congress, or to omit to -execute an act of Congress, in order to make up an issue before the -courts upon the question of its constitutionality, would be virtually -to attribute to the President the once hated royal power of suspending -the law at the pleasure of the Executive. They contended that the veto -power was placed in the hands of the President for the purpose of -allowing him to be heard at the proper time, and to act at the proper -time, in regard to the passage of any law, and that no other power was -given him in relation to the subject; that after he had exhausted this -power, he was bound to execute the legislation of Congress, and could -not suspend it or violate it for any purpose whatsoever; and that the -constitutionality of any of the acts of Congress could be raised before -the courts only by persons not charged with the execution of the law -and having such interests affected by the act in question as would -warrant a judicial procedure. - -Judge Curtis was so influenced by the consideration that to claim such -a power for the President would give him a double veto upon all of the -acts of Congress, a veto when acting as a part of the legislature in -the enactment of law, and then a purely executive veto which could be -overcome only by an adverse judicial decision, that he expressed his -contention on the subject in very {183} cautious language. He declared -that the President claimed no such general power as that, but he said -"when a question arises whether a particular law has cut off a power -confided to him by the people through the Constitution, and he alone -can raise that question, and he alone can cause a judicial decision to -come between the two branches of the Government to say which of them is -right, and after due deliberation, with the advice of those who are his -proper advisers, he settles down firmly upon the opinion that such is -the character of the law, it remains to be decided by you, Senators, -whether there is any violation of his duty when he takes the needful -steps to raise that question and have it peacefully decided." - -The great lawyer refused thus to commit himself upon this fundamental -question of constitutional law. And well he might, for to recognize any -such power in the President would be to enable him to rule with such -arbitrariness as to upset the principles and practices of all free -government. The President can constitutionally defend his prerogatives -with the veto power, a power which nothing short of a two-thirds -majority of both Houses of Congress can overcome, and he has no other -power of defence confided to him by the Constitution. He must execute -the laws passed over his veto upon matters which in his opinion touch -his executive prerogatives, just the same as upon all other matters, -and if persons not connected with the administration of the laws do not -call such measures in question before the courts, the remedies provided -by the Constitution for the people of the United States are either the -election of members of Congress who will repeal the enactments, or else -the amendment of the Constitution so as to repeal them. It was, -however, a question whether, in showing the sole purpose of making an -issue before the courts, the {184} President would not clear himself of -any criminal intent. Happily his case did not require this, as was -demonstrated by his counsel and by Senators Trumbull and Fessenden in -their opinions. - -[Sidenote: The law in the case.] - -The law governing the President's case was perfectly clear to anyone -who could divest himself of political prejudice and of personal -hostility. It was briefly this. By an Act of the First Congress, of the -date of August 7th, 1789, Congress interpreted the Constitution as -giving the President the power to remove any officer of the United -States, except judges of the United States courts, at his discretion, -as an incident of his sole executive responsibility, and in an especial -sense recognized this constitutional power as belonging to the -President in the case of the heads of the governmental departments, the -members of the Cabinet, as they afterwards came to be called, since -these persons stood, and must stand, in a peculiarly confidential -relation to the President, as his official advisers. This -interpretation of the Constitution as to the President's power of -removal and the practice built upon it remained untouched by the -Congress until the 2d of March, 1867, when, as we have seen, Congress -enacted, "that every person holding any civil office to which he has -been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and -every person who shall be hereafter appointed to any such office, and -shall become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to -hold such office until a successor shall have been in like manner -appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: -Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of -the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the -Attorney-General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during -the term of the President by whom they may have been {185} appointed, -and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and -consent of the Senate." - -It will be remembered that in the Tenure-of-Office bill as it -originated in the Senate the members of the Cabinet were entirely -excepted from its operation; that the House in passing the bill -included them; that the Senate would not agree to their inclusion; that -the bill was then sent to a conference committee; that this committee -invented the compromise contained in the proviso; that this proviso was -understood to give to each President the power to choose his own -Cabinet officers once during his term, and therefore to remove any -Cabinet officer not originally appointed by him, but holding under a -commission from a former President, and remaining in office only by the -sufferance of the existing President; that this was especially the true -meaning of the proviso in regard to those Cabinet officers then in -office, but who had been appointed and commissioned by Mr. Lincoln -during his first term to hold during the pleasure of the President; and -that it was upon this explanation of the meaning of the proviso that -the Senate voted the resolution of the conference committee. - -From all this it is entirely clear that the President had the legal -power to remove Mr. Stanton, no matter whether the Tenure-of-Office Act -was constitutional or not, simply because his case was excepted by the -proviso in the first article in the Act from the operation of the Act, -and was left to the operation of the laws in existence at the time the -Act was passed. There is little question now that that Act was not in -accordance with a fair interpretation of the Constitution, but it was -not at all necessary to hold that view in order to clear the President -of the accusation of having violated the Constitution and the laws of -the land. - -{186} The law in reference to the _ad interim_ appointment, or -designation, of General Thomas was equally plain to the impartial eye. -The Constitution provides only for vacancies that may happen during the -recess of the Senate, and empowers the President to fill all such by -granting commissions which shall expire at the end of its next session. -By an act of May 8th, 1792, Congress empowered the President, in case -of the death, sickness, or absence from the seat of government, of the -Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of -War, whether these events should occur during a session, or a recess, -of the Senate, "to authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, -to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a successor -be appointed, or until such absence or inability by sickness should -cease." - -Another act of Congress of February 13th, 1795, empowered the -President, in case of vacancy from any cause in the offices of -Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of War, -happening either during a recess or a session of the Senate, "to -authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the -duties of the said respective offices until a successor be appointed or -such vacancy be filled," provided, however, that no one vacancy should -be supplied in that manner for a longer time than six months. - -It will be seen that neither of these statutes provided for the -temporary filling of vacancies in any of the Departments, except those -of State, the Treasury, and War. In practice, however, the Presidents -have followed the analogies of the law of 1795, when it became -necessary, in their opinion, to make a temporary designation in the -other Departments. On the 22d of September, 1862, President Lincoln -appointed J. B. L. Skinner Postmaster-General _ad interim_. It was Mr. -Lincoln himself {187} who called the attention of Congress to the fact -that he had no literal legal authority for this, and who on January 2d, -1863, asked Congress to extend the Act of May 8th, 1792, so as to cover -the cases of the other Departments, and empower the President to make -_ad interim_ appointments to fill vacancies in these Departments -happening on account of death, sickness, or absence from the seat of -government. Why the President did not ask for the extension of the Act -of February 13th, 1795, which covered all vacancies happening from -whatever cause, instead of the Act of 1792, which covered those only -which might happen from death, sickness, or absence from the seat of -government, we do not know. We only know that in January, 1863, both -the President and Congress were greatly pressed by the exigencies of -the war, and did things generally in haste and without much -consideration. In answer to the President's suggestion, Congress passed -the Act of February 20th, 1863, extending the Act of 1792 so as to -cover all the executive Departments in the cases of vacancy provided -for in that Act, viz., by cause of death, sickness, or absence from the -seat of Government--adding resignation--and limiting the President, -however, in these appointments to persons already officers in one or -the other of the Departments, and providing that no one vacancy should -be so supplied for a longer period than six months. The vacancies which -might happen from expiration of term or by removal were not at all -provided for by the Act of 1863; and as the Act of 1863 did not -expressly repeal the Act of 1795, but only declared that "all acts and -parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed," the Act -of 1795 remained in force as to all vacancies caused by expiration of -term or by removal, whether happening during a recess or a session of -the Senate. - -{188} Neither did the Tenure-of-Office Act of 1867 repeal the Act of -1795 in regard to first vacancies happening among the Secretaries of -Departments by other causes than those provided for in the Act of 1863, -either expressly or by implication, since these first vacancies were -expressly excepted from the operation of the Act of 1867, by the -proviso attached to the first article. And even if it should be held -that the Act of 1867 did repeal that of 1795 entirely, yet, in that it -did not forbid the President to make _ad interim_ appointments in the -cases where a Secretary's term expired, or a Secretary was lawfully -removed by him, the President's designation of Thomas could not be -considered as a violation of law but only as an act without warrant of -law, the very kind of an act committed by Mr. Lincoln in his -appointment of Skinner as Postmaster-General _ad interim_ in 1862, and -committed by other Presidents in other cases. - -The managers made much of the argument that the President had -recognized the validity of the Tenure-of-Office Act in suspending -Stanton the preceding August, and reporting his suspension to the -Senate, and in notifying the Secretary of the Treasury of the -suspension, as provided in the Act, and asserted that he was therefore -estopped from denying its constitutionality. But while it can be easily -shown that these acts of the President did not at all militate against -his claim that other parts of the statute were unconstitutional, still -this was not at all necessary to the President's defence, under the -view here advanced of the relations between the Acts of 1867, 1863, and -1795. It made no difference, under this view, whether the Act of 1867 -was, or was not, constitutional and valid. In either case the President -had violated no law, either constitutional or statutory. - -{189} [Sidenote: Mr. Stanton's violation of law.] - -The fact is that Mr. Stanton and those who abetted him were the -violators of law. Every official act which he committed after receiving -the notification from the President of his removal, on the 21st of -February, was a usurpation of governmental powers by a private citizen, -and the gathering of armed men about him with the purpose of sustaining -him in holding on to the War Office after his dismissal by the -President was treason. It is a question whether his official acts after -the 13th of January and down to February 21st were not also -usurpations. That depends upon whether the Tenure-of-Office Act was, or -was not, constitutional, and whether, if it were, the right of a member -of the Cabinet, suspended from office, to resume the functions of the -office, after disapproval of the suspension by the Senate, was made, by -the Act, to apply to such members of the Cabinet as were excepted from -the operation of the first article of the Act by the proviso to that -article. The best Republican lawyers in the Senate, Trumbull, -Fessenden, Grimes and Doolittle, took the view of the law in the -President's case as here explained. They, with one other Republican, -Van Winkle of West Virginia, filed, after the vote on impeachment, -opinions in the case expressing substantially this view. - -[Sidenote: The nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary of War.] - -It is now known that during the trial some of these men expressed to -one of the President's counsel the belief that Mr. Johnson could not be -convicted upon the law and evidence in the case, and that should the -Senate vote to remove him, "it would be done wholly from supposed party -necessity," and from fear of what the President might do in case he -were acquitted, and that they suggested to this member of the -President's counsel the wisdom of the President's sending to the -Senate, at that {190} juncture, a nomination for the Secretaryship of -War, which would allay all reasonable apprehension that the President -would, if acquitted, use the War Department for the accomplishment of -any arbitrary purposes, and that they mentioned General Schofield as a -man who would be satisfactory. These communications were made about the -20th of April. The President was immediately informed of them, as was -General Schofield, and, on April 24th, the President nominated General -Schofield to the Senate to be Secretary of War. Whether this move on -the part of the President influenced any Senator to vote for acquittal -is unknown. It certainly served to allay popular apprehension, if the -testimony of the newspapers of the day may be taken on that point. - -[Sidenote: The vote upon impeachment.] - -Fifty-four Senators from the twenty-seven "States" represented -constituted the membership of the Court of Impeachment under the -presidency of the Chief Justice. The President must, therefore, have -nineteen votes in order to escape conviction. Of these fifty-four, only -eight were Democrats. It was practically certain that all of these -would vote for acquittal. He needed, therefore, at least eleven -Republican votes in his favor. The closing of the case by the -prosecution occurred on the 6th of May, and, on the 7th, the court -passed the resolution to take the vote of its members upon the articles -of impeachment on the 12th. On that day Mr. Chandler of Michigan -informed the court that his colleague, Mr. Howard, was too ill to -appear, and asked the court to adjourn to the 16th, in order to give -Mr. Howard the opportunity to be present. The court agreed to this -request. On the 16th, with all the members present, the voting began. -The last article, the eleventh, was, by an order of the court, taken -first, and the Chief Justice {191} put the question to each Senator: -"Mr. Senator--how say you? Is the respondent Andrew Johnson, President -of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor, as -charged in this article?" Thirty-five votes were cast in the -affirmative, and nineteen in the negative. So soon as it was known that -the President had been acquitted upon this article, a motion was made -by Mr. Williams of Oregon to adjourn the court to the 26th. After the -announcement of the vote by the Chief Justice, this motion was carried -and the court adjourned to the 26th. On that day it reassembled and -proceeded to vote upon the second article and then on the third, with -the same result as upon the eleventh. Whereupon Mr. Williams moved that -the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment adjourn _sine die_, and -the motion was carried by a vote of 34 to 16, 4 not voting. The -Republicans who voted "not guilty" were Messrs. Dixon of Connecticut, -Doolittle of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Fowler of Tennessee, Grimes -of Iowa, Henderson of Missouri, Norton of Minnesota, Patterson of -Tennessee, Ross of Kansas, Trumbull of Illinois, and Van Winkle of West -Virginia. The country and the Republican party itself were placed under -the deepest obligation to these men for their courage and independent -action. They saved the country from the direst results of the great -political scandal of the age, and they saved the Republican party from -the commission of a deed which would have destroyed its hold upon the -people. - -[Sidenote: The truth of the matter.] - -The truth of the whole matter is that, while Mr. Johnson was an unfit -person to be President of the United States--which may be also affirmed -of some others who have occupied the high place--he was utterly and -entirely guiltless of the commission of any crime or misdemeanor. He -was {192} low-born and low-bred, violent in temper, obstinate, coarse, -vindictive, and lacking in the sense of propriety, but he was not -behind any of his accusers in patriotism and loyalty to the country, -and in his willingness to sacrifice every personal advantage for the -maintenance of the Union and the preservation of the Government. In -fact, most of them were pygmies in these qualities beside him. It is -true that he differed with them somewhat in his conception of what -measures were for the welfare of the country and what not, but the -sequel has shown that he was nearer right than they in this respect. - -[Sidenote: The abdication of Stanton.] - -So soon as the Court of Impeachment pronounced its acquittal of the -President, Mr. Stanton addressed to the President a letter announcing -his relinquishment of the War Department, and his delivery of the -papers and properties thereof to General Townsend, subject to the -President's directions. - -[Sidenote: Schofield's confirmation as Secretary of War and his -acceptance of the office.] - -The Senate now confirmed the nomination of General Schofield to be -Secretary of War. The General at once accepted the appointment and -entered upon the duties of his office, and administered these duties to -the end of his term, according to his own testimony, in perfect harmony -with the President. - -Some of Stanton's friends have tried to make out that but for Stanton's -resistance and the impeachment, and its nearness to success, Johnson -would have appointed a tool of his own to the War Office and have rode -rough-shod over the laws of the land, and that he was frightened out of -this purpose, and frightened into an implied agreement with certain -Senators and General Schofield that the Reconstruction laws should be -executed as Stanton understood them, and not as the President -understood them. There is little ground for {193} any such assumptions. -There is certainly none in the character of the men whom the President -asked to take the War Office, Grant, Sherman and Ewing; and it must be -remembered that through Mr. Stanbery, in the case of Mississippi vs. -Johnson, he had long before announced to the Southerners that his -opposition to the Reconstruction Acts ceased with his unsuccessful veto -of them, and that he should execute them both in letter and in spirit. -It was Republican Senators who suggested to the President's counsel the -nomination of General Schofield, a man entirely friendly with the -President and acceptable to him. Neither the President nor the -President's counsel approached any Senator with the proposition. It was -the Republican Senators who were frightened, rather than the President -or his counsel. These Senators knew that the law and the evidence were -with the President, and that the Republican party was on trial, as much -so as the President; and they knew that, if the Republican Senate -should, upon the showing made by the President's counsel of the law and -the evidence in the case, convict the President and remove him from -office, the party would stand arraigned before the people for having -destroyed the constitutional balance between the executive and the -legislature in order to gain a partisan end. They recognized the -dilemma into which the hot-headed leaders of the party in the House of -Representatives had, by their hasty impeachment procedure, brought the -party, and they were very much relieved to secure any understanding -with the President's counsel whereby the chance of averting the -catastrophe to the party, as well as to the country, might be -increased. The suspicion that Mr. Stanton was playing his part for the -purpose of securing the Republican nomination for the presidency in -1868, rather than from any motives of disinterested {194} patriotism, -has about as little foundation as has the theory of salutary terror, -produced by the impeachment, controlling the President's subsequent -actions against his own preconceived plans and purposes. Both of these -speculations are no valid parts of the history of this great -transaction. What we have as certain facts are that the judgment was an -acquittal, that it was rendered in accordance with law and evidence, -and that it preserved the constitutional balance between the executive -and the legislature in the governmental system of the country; and that -for this the judgment of history coincides with the judgment of the -court. - - - - -{195} - -CHAPTER X - -RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED - -The McCardle Case--The Congressional Acts Admitting the Senators- and -Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed "States" to Seats in -Congress--The Veto of these Bills by the President--The Vetoes -Overridden--Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the -President's Proclamations Declaring Reconstruction Completed--Seward's -Proclamation Declaring the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by -the Required Number of "States"--The Questions Suggested by Mr. -Seward's First Proclamation--The Concurrent Resolution of Congress upon -these Questions--The Correct Procedure--The National Conventions of -1868--Platform and Nominees of the Republican Party--Democratic -Platform and Nominees--The Election and the Electoral Vote--The Conduct -of the President during the Campaign--Congress and the President--The -President's Last Annual Message--The President's Amnesty Proclamation -of December 25th, 1868--The President's Veto of the Bill in Regard to -the Colored Schools in the District of Columbia--The Fifteenth -Amendment--Criticism of the Republican View--Johnson's Retirement from -the Presidency--The President and the Republican Party. - - -[Sidenote: The McCardle case.] - -During the period of the impeachment trial, a case was in progress -before the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its final -settlement was destined to deprive the President of any hope that a -judicial decision in regard to the constitutionality of the -Reconstruction Acts could ever be attained. We have seen that in the -cases of Mississippi vs. Johnson and of Georgia vs. Stanton the -President had resisted the jurisdiction of the Court when {196} aimed -directly at the Executive and his immediate agents. This was his duty, -and he performed it sincerely and successfully. But it is not to be -inferred from this that he would not have welcomed a judicial decision -from the Supreme Court of the United States pronouncing these Acts null -and void, if it could have been reached through the forms of a proper -case, one not involving the executive authority at all. - -Such a case had appeared in this Court in the winter term of 1867-68, -and the argument as to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the decision -of this point in the affirmative, had both been made before the -impeachment trial began. One William H. McCardle, arrested and held by -the military authorities in Mississippi for trial before a military -commission on charge of having published in a newspaper, of which he -was editor, libellous and incendiary articles, petitioned the Circuit -Court of the United States for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ was -issued, and return was made by the military commander, General A. C. -Gillem, admitting the arrest and detention of McCardle, but contending -that these acts were lawful. The Circuit Court, on the 25th of -November, 1867, remanded McCardle, who had been held in custody between -the time of the return to the writ and this date by the United States -marshal, to the custody of General Gillem. McCardle then appealed from -this judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United -States. Upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, made by the counsel of the -military authorities, this Court decided that under the statute of -February 5th, 1867, the Supreme Court of the United States could hear -the appeal, and denied the motion to dismiss it. - -The question was now before the Supreme Court upon its merits, and it -involved the constitutionality {197} of the Reconstruction Acts. It was -argued very ably, and the part of the Reconstruction Acts putting the -districts of the South under martial law two years after the Civil War -had ended, and when the civil authority of the United States was -everywhere recognized and enforced, was pretty clearly shown to have -been a very serious stretching of its powers by Congress, if not a -distinct usurpation. The Republicans in Congress were greatly -frightened, and while the case was under advisement in the Court, they -hastened to repeal the Act of February 5th, 1867, and to make the -repeal apply to appeals already taken under that Act, as well as to -such as might be attempted in the future. The repealing bill was vetoed -by the President on the 25th of March, but it was immediately repassed -by the majority necessary to override the veto, repassed without the -slightest regard to the President's very sound and convincing -objections. This Act of the 27th of March was intended to prevent any -decision upon the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, and did -do so most effectively, but it was an abominable subterfuge on the part -of Congress and a shameful abuse of its powers. - -As will be remembered, seven of the ten Southern communities, viz., -North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, -and Arkansas, had already before the close of the impeachment trial -ratified the "State" constitutions framed for them by the "carpet-bag, -scalawag, negro conventions" held in each for them, had elected "State" -officers and legislators, and the legislature of one of them, Arkansas, -had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States, as the legislature of each of them was required to -do before it could be admitted to representation in Congress. - -{198} [Sidenote: The Congressional Acts admitting the Senators- and -Representatives-elect from the reconstructed "States" to seats in -Congress.] - -Congress now looked upon the work of its hands and pronounced it good, -and proceeded to pass the acts, necessary in its conceit, to admit -these communities to representation in the legislative houses of the -Nation. First came the Act in reference to Arkansas, of the 22d of -June, 1868, since, as has been just said, the new legislature of -Arkansas had already ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. It -provided "that the State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to -representation in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, on the -following fundamental condition: That the constitution of Arkansas -shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen, or -class of citizens, of the United States of the right to vote who are -entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as a -punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof -they shall have been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to -all the inhabitants of said State: Provided that any alteration of said -constitution prospective in its effect may be made in regard to the -time and place of residence of voters." - -Three days later, that is on the 25th, Congress provided in a single -act for the admission of the Senators and Representatives from the -other six reconstructed "States" to the national legislature in the -following language: "_Be it enacted, &c._, That each of the States of -North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and -Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress -as a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have -duly ratified the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as Article XIV., upon -the following fundamental {199} conditions: That the constitution of -neither of said States shall ever be so amended or changed as to -deprive any citizen, or class of citizens, of the United States of the -right to vote in said State who are entitled to vote by the -constitution thereof, herein recognized, except as a punishment for -such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have -been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the -inhabitants of said State: _Provided_, that any alteration of said -constitutions may be made with regard to the time and place of -residence of voters." It was also further provided that the legislature -of Georgia should, by solemn public act, declare its assent to the -fundamental condition that the article of the new constitution of -Georgia prohibiting the courts within the "State" from entertaining any -suit against any resident of the "State" for any debt existing prior to -June 1st, 1865, and prohibiting the judicial and ministerial officers -of the "State" from executing any process in reference to such debts, -should be considered and treated as null and void. - -[Sidenote: The veto of these bills by the President.] - -The President had placed his veto on both of these bills. The veto of -the Arkansas bill bears the date of June 20th, and that of the other -bill bears the date of June 25th. There are parts of the President's -argument which are entirely convincing to any candid mind at the -present day. He pointed out that the fundamental condition imposed by -Congress, in all these cases, upon the admission of Senators and -Representatives to Congress, viz., that no change should ever be made -in the suffrage qualifications provided in these "State" constitutions -whereby any citizen or class of citizens of the United States having -the right to vote under these constitutions should be deprived of such -right, was an assumption of power by Congress to regulate a subject, -within the "States," which by the {200} existing Constitution of the -United States belonged exclusively to the "States," to each "State" for -itself. - -There can be no question that the President was entirely correct in -this contention. The Fifteenth Amendment was as yet no part of the -Constitution. It had not even been proposed by Congress to the -"States." It is very questionable whether a majority in Congress could -have been found, at that time, in favor of making such a proposition, -much less the required extraordinary majority of two-thirds. And until -the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified as a part of the Constitution -of the United States, Congress had no power to exact such a concession, -or anything like it, from any "State" as the price of the admission of -representatives from it to the Houses of the National Legislature. And -even since the Fifteenth Amendment has become a part of the -Constitution, the Government of the United States cannot prohibit such -changes in a "State" constitution, unless the deprivation of suffrage -is made on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. - -The President also called attention to the fact that no way was -provided in the bills whereby the "States" should signify their -acceptance of this "fundamental condition" of admission to -representation in Congress, and that no penalty was prescribed for a -violation of the condition. Did Congress mean that, in case of any -violation of its "fundamental condition," it would throw the "State" -back under martial law, and proceed to reconstruct anew? That was a -question which might well be asked in view of what Congress had already -done; and it was a question which was not calculated to allay -uneasiness in the minds of the people in the Southern communities. - -{201} Finally, in the veto of the Arkansas bill, the President -expressed his very serious doubts whether the new "State" constitution -had been ratified by the electorate created by the Acts of Congress for -that purpose, since a section in that constitution prescribed that no -person would be allowed to vote upon the ratification of the -constitution who had not previously taken an oath to the effect "that -he accepted the doctrine of the civil and political equality of all -men, and agreed not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on -account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or -civil right, privilege or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men," -thus adding a new qualification for registration and voting to those -prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. There is no question -that the President was right about this, too. And there is no question -that this new qualification was entirely null and void, in so far as it -applied to voting upon, and registering to vote upon, the ratification -of the constitution itself, unless we ascribe constituent power to the -convention which framed the constitution, instead of the power of -initiation only. We know that no constitutional convention has, or then -had, any such powers in our system. It was nothing more or less than a -palpable usurpation of constituent power when the convention in -Arkansas presumed to add this qualification to those prescribed by -Congress for voting upon the ratification of the constitution itself. -Of course it would have been lawful and regular for the "State" -constitution to make this additional requirement for voting in all -future elections, after the constitution prescribing it should have -been adopted by the electorate created by the Congressional Acts, -although the requirement itself would have been unreasonable and -oppressive. But for the convention, a mere proposing {202} body, to -ordain this new qualification for voting on the question of the -adoption of the constitution itself was a political outrage of the -first order. - -[Sidenote: The vetoes overridden.] - -Congress was not, however, in a state of mind to listen to any -suggestions from the President, no matter how correct and important -they might be. Both Houses promptly, almost mockingly, passed the two -bills over the President's vetoes. - -[Sidenote: Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the President's -proclamations declaring Reconstruction completed.] - -Such of the legislatures created under the new "State" constitutions as -were not already in session were quickly summoned to assemble, and by -July 21st all of them had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to -the Constitution of the United States, and the legislature of Georgia -had also pledged by solemn act that the repudiation article of the new -constitution should never be enforced. By July 27th the President had -issued his several proclamations, as required by the Act of June 25th, -announcing the ratification of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by -these legislatures, and consequently the admission of these "States" to -representation in Congress; and so far as the seven "States" of -Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida and -Louisiana were concerned the work of reconstruction was now completed. -Virginia, Mississippi and Texas still remained under martial law. - -[Sidenote: Seward's proclamation declaring the ratification of the -Fourteenth Amendment by the required number of "States."] - -On the 28th day of July, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, issued his -proclamation, declaring the ratification of the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by the legislatures -of thirty States of the Union, and its consequent validity as a part of -the Constitution of the United States. - -{203} [Sidenote: The questions suggested by Mr. Seward's first -proclamation.] - -Eight days before this proclamation, that is on the 20th, Mr. Seward -had issued a proclamation declaring that the legislatures of -twenty-three States, viz., of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Tennessee, -New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, -Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, -Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Iowa, -had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and that six -"newly-constituted and newly-established bodies avowing themselves to -be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of -Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and -Alabama" had also ratified it; that the legislatures of Ohio and New -Jersey had subsequently passed resolutions withdrawing their -ratification of the Amendment; and that, if these latter resolutions of -the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey should be disregarded, the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted by the legislatures of -twenty-nine of the thirty-seven "States" of the Union and had thus -become a valid part of the Constitution of the United States. - -Besides the question expressed in this Proclamation, Mr. Seward -indicates by his language a further question, viz., whether the six -"newly-constituted and newly-established bodies, avowing themselves to -be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of -Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and -Alabama" were genuine "State" legislatures. They were the legislatures -established under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, but as Congress -had refused to recognize the "States" for whom these bodies acted as -entitled to representation in Congress, that is as "States" having the -rights of "States" of the Union, until {204} after these bodies had -ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States, it was no wonder that so good a constitutional lawyer -and so logical a thinker as Mr. Seward had his doubts as to whether -these bodies were genuine "State" legislatures. - -[Sidenote: The concurrent resolution of Congress upon these questions.] - -In order to quiet these doubts, if possible, the two Houses of Congress -passed on the following day, July 21st, the following concurrent -resolution: "Whereas the legislatures of the States of Connecticut, -Tennessee, _New Jersey_, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, Kansas, -Missouri, Indiana, _Ohio_, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, -Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, -Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maine, Iowa, _Arkansas_, _Florida_, _North -Carolina_, _Alabama_, _South Carolina_ and _Louisiana_, being -three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have -ratified the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the -Thirty-ninth Congress; therefore, Resolved by the Senate (the House of -Representatives concurring), That said Fourteenth Article is hereby -declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it -shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State." Upon the -basis of this resolution, which decided, in so far as Congress can -decide, that the consent of the legislature of a "State" to a proposed -amendment to the Constitution of the United States cannot be withdrawn -when once given, and that the "newly-constituted and newly-established -bodies, avowing themselves to be, and acting as, the legislatures, -respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, -Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama" were genuine "State" -legislatures qualified to {205} vote upon the ratification of a -proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Seward -issued his proclamation of the 28th of July, above recited. As the -Georgia Legislature ratified the proposed amendment on the 21st inst. -and also gave its pledge not to allow the repudiation article in its -constitution to be enforced, Mr. Seward included Georgia in this last -proclamation. - -It will be seen that both Mr. Seward and Congress counted all of the -Southern communities which had ever been "States" as being "States," -making the whole number of "States" thirty-seven, and the number -necessary for ratification of the amendment twenty-eight. Upon this -basis of calculation two more than the necessary number had ratified at -the date of Mr. Seward's final proclamation. It will also be seen that -both Mr. Seward and Congress, that is that both the legislative and -executive departments of the Government, ignored the attempt of Ohio -and New Jersey to withdraw their consent to the amendment, and fixed -the precedent in the constitutional practice of the United States that -a "State" legislature cannot reconsider its ratification of an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States at any time. This -means, when scientifically appreciated, that the ratification of an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not an agreement -between the "States," and therefore becomes valid as to each only after -three-fourths of the "States," the constitutional number necessary to -make the proposed amendment a valid part of the Constitution, shall -have ratified it, but that ratification by a "State" legislature, and -_a fortiori_ by a convention of the people within a "State," is only an -indirect vote of a part of the people of the United States upon a -question submitted to the suffrages of the whole people of the United -States. When, {206} therefore, this affirmative vote has been once -officially announced by the proper authorities within the "State" to -the proper authorities of the United States there is no further control -over it by the authorities within the "State." - -[Sidenote: The correct procedure.] - -If, however, the votes of Ohio and New Jersey had not been counted in -the affirmative, there was still a three-fourths majority of -thirty-seven "States" in favor of ratification. And if the ten Southern -communities had been left out of the computation altogether, which -would have made the Union to consist, so far as that part of it erected -into "States" was concerned, of twenty-seven "States," there would -still have been more than a three-fourths majority in favor of -ratification, with or without Ohio and New Jersey. The correct -procedure, from a scientific point of view, would undoubtedly have been -to have computed the necessary majority upon the basis of twenty-seven -"States," to have included Ohio and New Jersey among the "States" whose -legislatures voted for ratification, and then to have admitted the ten -Southern communities as "States" under the Constitution of the United -States, _with the Fourteenth Amendment as an already established part -of it_, concerning which they had no more to say than they had in -regard to any other part of the Constitution. But, however that may be, -no objection can be made to the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment on -the ground of the majority by which it was ratified. In whatever way we -may compute the whole number of "States" and the majority voting in the -affirmative, the Amendment was lawfully ratified. - -[Sidenote: The national conventions of 1868.] - -During these movements in execution of the Reconstruction Acts, the -national party conventions for the nomination of candidates for the -presidency and for the formation of platforms were held. That of the -{207} Republican party assembled first, on the twenty-first day of May -in Chicago, at the moment when its radical elements were filled with -rage and chagrin at the failure of the impeachment of the President. - -[Sidenote: Platform and nominees of the Republican party.] - -It made General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, its presiding -officer; adopted a platform, a large part of which was devoted to -denunciation of the President, to the promise of bountiful pensions, -and to a twist of the British lion's tail on the subject of -expatriation; the main principles of which, however, were good faith in -the payment of the public debt with sound money, and equal suffrage by -Congressional law in the Southern communities; and nominated Grant and -Colfax for the presidency and the vice-presidency. - -In pronouncing for the guaranty of negro suffrage at the South by -Congressional law, the platform attempted to steer clear of the -prejudices against negro suffrage at the North by a sort of proviso, -which read, "While the question of suffrage in all the loyal States -properly belongs to the people of those States." This was certainly -inconsistent, not to say hypocritical. Negro suffrage at the North -would have been a comparatively harmless thing on account of the -fewness of the negroes as compared with the whites in that section, and -on account of the superior average intelligence of the negroes of the -North when compared with that of those of the South. There was no sound -principle in this article of the platform. It was a mean, shuffling bit -of partisan politics. The party itself felt it to be so in the course -of the campaign, and came out finally for the settlement of the whole -question of negro suffrage upon the same basis for the whole country -and by means of a constitutional amendment. - -{208} The nominees immediately accepted their nominations in -characteristic letters, that of General Grant being short, crisp, -modest and ending with the now famous sentence: "Let us have peace," -and that of Colfax being more lengthy and wordy and containing a -rhetorical defence of some of the more questionable parts of the -platform. - -[Sidenote: Democratic platform and nominees.] - -The Democratic convention assembled in New York on the 4th day of July. -It was confronted at the start with the Greenback heresy, and the -candidacy of the Greenback champion for the presidency, Mr. George H. -Pendleton of Ohio. This heresy was in a sentence the doctrine that all -the public debt of the United States not made expressly payable in coin -should be paid in United States paper, which Congress might order to be -stamped, issued, and made legal tender, to any amount it might please. -The shibboleth was, "the same currency for the bondholder and the -plough-holder." It had taken firm hold in Ohio, and was rapidly -spreading through the valley of the Mississippi. The Eastern Democrats, -however, looked upon it with disfavor, and were determined to defeat -the nomination of Mr. Pendleton. They were obliged, however, to accept -the platform, in so far as it related to this subject, as dictated by -their Western compatriots. The third plank in the platform read, "... -and where the obligations of the Government do not expressly state upon -their face, or the law under which they were issued does not provide, -that they shall be paid in coin, they ought in right and in justice to -be paid in the lawful money of the United States." The fifth plank also -read, "one currency for the Government and the people, the laborer and -the officeholder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the -bondholder." It is true that the {209} platform did not expressly -pronounce in favor of an unlimited issue of paper money with which to -pay the bonds, but it was generally understood that this was what was -meant. The questions then of sound money and of the faithful discharge -of the public obligations were thus put in issue. The Democrats also -met squarely the Republican doctrine of Reconstruction. They demanded -the "immediate restoration of all the States to their rights in the -Union under the Constitution, and of civil government to the American -people," with "amnesty for all past political offences, and the -regulation of the election franchise in the States by their citizens." -And they denounced the Radical party, as they termed the Republicans, -"for its disregard of right, and the unparalleled oppression and -tyranny which have marked its career," declared the Reconstruction Acts -to be unconstitutional, revolutionary and void, and lauded President -Johnson for his unflinching resistance to "the aggressions of Congress -upon the constitutional rights of the States and the people." - -[Sidenote: Weakness of the platform.] - -There is no question that the platform of the Democrats, with its paper -money doctrine, and its hostility to Reconstruction and universal -suffrage, was a shaky foundation for any party to attempt to stand upon -at that juncture. Not much conscience and not much sentiment could be -aroused with such tenets. Conscience and sentiment were much more -amenable to the appeals of the Republican platform upon these points. -Moreover, the tremendous popularity of the Republican candidates had to -be reckoned with. Where could the Democrats find a candidate who would -both match Grant in the popular affection and overbalance also the -weakness of the platform? The New Yorkers in the convention, led by -Seymour, Tilden, Schell and Kernan, {210} had their man for this -emergency, but they dared not reveal at the outset their plan. They -were resolved to nominate Chief Justice Chase. They thought that -Chase's well-known devotion to the principles of universal suffrage and -his career as Secretary of the Treasury would satisfy the Eastern men -in regard to the platform, and that his attachment to the principles of -civil government versus militarism would, in some degree at least, -neutralize the popularity of the military hero. The delegates from -Ohio, Mr. Chase's own "State," suspected the purpose of the New -Yorkers, and were determined to foil it. If they could not get -Pendleton, they were determined not to have Chase. After the first six -ballots without result, Pendleton, however, leading, the New Yorkers -brought forward Hendricks of Indiana, in order to break down -Pendleton's vote. Having succeeded in this after some six more ballots, -the name of Chase was brought before the convention by a half vote from -California. The purpose was probably to feel of the convention. It was -highly successful. The announcement of the half vote was received with -enthusiastic applause. Masking themselves behind Hancock, who was at -that juncture in the lead, and Hendricks, the New Yorkers now prepared -to present Chase; but the Ohioans were too quick for them. They -succeeded in withdrawing Pendleton and presenting Seymour himself as -their candidate, before the New Yorkers knew what they were about. -Seymour, who was occupying the presidency of the convention, declared -from his seat that he could not accept, but the Ohioans stuck to their -nomination, and the New Yorkers had to assent. They were fairly caught -in their own net. - -[Sidenote: The nominees.] - -Seymour finally yielded, and the convention addressed itself to the -nomination of its candidate for the vice-presidency. The ex-Confederate -General William Preston of {211} Kentucky presented the name of the -noted Union General Francis P. Blair of Missouri for the place. The -nomination was seconded by the ex-Confederate General Wade Hampton of -South Carolina, and was made by acclamation. While General Blair was a -noted Union soldier of high ability and undoubted loyalty, he was a -fierce enemy of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, and was for this -reason very popular with the ex-Confederates. In an open letter to -Colonel J. O. Brodhead of St. Louis, written five days before the -assembly of the Democratic convention, he not only denounced the -Reconstruction Acts as unconstitutional, but advanced a method for -getting rid of them and their effects in case a Democratic President -should be elected. He proposed that the new President should "declare -these Acts null and void, compel the army to undo its usurpations at -the South, disperse the carpet-bag State governments, allow the white -people to reorganize their own governments, and elect Senators and -Representatives." He said, further, that the House of Representatives -would contain a majority of Democrats from the North, who would admit -the members elected to that body from the South to seats, and that the -House with the President would exert such a pressure on the Senate as -to cause the doors of that body to be opened to the members from the -Southern "States." When General Blair wrote this letter he was being -spoken of as a candidate for the presidency, and this letter was taken -as the declaration of what he would do if elected to the position of -Chief Magistrate of the nation. After his nomination for the -vice-presidency, in his speech and letter of acceptance, he announced -the chief issue in the contest to be the relief of the South from -martial law and negro domination. The ex-Confederates represented it -the same way at the South, and threw themselves into {212} the campaign -with great enthusiasm for Seymour and Blair. - -On the other hand, the bland, politic and persuasive Seymour pursued a -much more moderate and conciliatory course, and when it became evident -that General Blair's violent expressions and revolutionary purposes -were ruining the Democratic prospects at the North, he went into the -campaign personally, and by his diplomatic manners and fine oratory -succeeded in stemming the tide which, running against the Democrats -from the moment when their platform was proclaimed, had been driven on -to a flood by General Blair's indiscretions, to put it very mildly, in -speech and conduct. But while some lost ground was regained, it was -evident that the hopes of the Democrats had been blasted. - -[Sidenote: The election and the electoral vote.] - -The electoral votes of thirty-four "States" were counted, Virginia, -Mississippi and Texas being still regarded by Congress as -unreconstructed. Of these thirty-four, eight cast their votes for -Seymour and Blair. These were New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, -Kentucky, Oregon, Georgia and Louisiana. The rest went for Grant and -Colfax. The electoral vote stood eighty for Seymour and Blair and two -hundred and fourteen for Grant and Colfax. The popular vote stood two -millions seven hundred and three thousand two hundred and forty-nine -for Seymour and Blair, and three millions and twelve thousand eight -hundred and thirty-three for Grant and Colfax. The exclusion of -Virginia, Mississippi and Texas from the vote and the inclusion of the -suffrages of the "carpet-baggers" and the negroes, under the protection -of the military, in the reconstructed "States," had saved the day for -Grant and Colfax. If the electorate of the South had been as in 1860, -or probably as it was in the years of the Johnson governments, Seymour -and Blair {213} would have triumphed. As it was, but for the Greenback -plank in the Democratic platform and the indiscretions of General -Blair, they might have triumphed. That is to say, if the Reconstruction -policy of Congress had been the sole issue, it is quite possible that -the Republicans would have lost the election, even with the most -popular man in the North as their standard bearer. - -[Sidenote: The conduct of the President during the campaign.] - -Meanwhile the President had continued to ply the Congress with his -vetoes and messages and to address the country with his proclamations. -He had thought that he ought to be vindicated by being nominated by the -Democrats for the presidency, and had actually received sixty-five -votes on the first ballot. His failure before the convention ought to -have taught him that he was no longer a factor to be reckoned with in -the domain of politics, and that his proper course was to execute -quietly the functions of his office to the end of his term, and then -retire to private life. But he seemed to think that his political -opinions were still of great value, and in a very few days after the -adjournment of the Democratic convention he addressed a message to -Congress advising a most radical change in the structure of the -government by means of constitutional amendment. He therein recommended -that Congress should propose to the "States" so to amend the -Constitution as to provide for the election of the President and -Vice-President by a direct vote of the people, for the ineligibility of -these officers for a second term, for the designation of the members of -the Cabinet in a certain order, beginning with the Secretary of State, -as the persons to discharge the duties of the President in case of a -vacancy in the presidential office by the death, resignation or removal -of both the President and the Vice-President, for the election of the -Senators by the direct vote of the people, {214} and for the limitation -of the terms of the United States judges to a period of years. There -was sound reason for the third of these suggestions, the designation by -the Constitution of the Cabinet officers in a certain order as the -successors to the powers and duties of the President, when the country -might be without both a President and a Vice-President, and it has -since then been made law under the form of a statute of Congress. - -[Sidenote: Congress and the President.] - -But the Congress was not then in a mood to hear anything from Mr. -Johnson. Two days later, July 20th, the President vetoed the joint -resolution passed by the two Houses, excluding from the electoral -college in the coming presidential election the votes of "States" -lately in rebellion which should not have been reorganized under the -Reconstruction Acts of Congress. In this veto he went over his whole -argument once more against the constitutionality of these Acts and in -favor of his own method of Reconstruction. But the Congress treated the -message with contempt and promptly repassed the resolution. - -[Sidenote: The President's last annual Message.] - -On the 9th of December President Johnson sent his last annual Message -to Congress. It was a grave, dignified and statesmanlike document both -in form and content. In it he told Congress plainly and respectfully -that its Reconstruction policy had arrayed the races against each other -at the South, had impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations that -had previously existed between them, and had given mortal offence to -the civilized race by placing the uncivilized race in domination over -it; and he urged that legislation which had produced such baleful -consequences ought to be abrogated. He also told Congress that it had -seriously impaired the power of the President to exact the necessary -accountability of the public officers by its Tenure-of-Office Act, and -had embarrassed {215} the Executive in the exercise of his -constitutional military functions by the Act of March 2d, 1867; and he -urged the repeal of both of these measures. He also gave a most serious -and startling account of the condition of the public finances, and of -the consumption of the wealth of the Nation by the bondholders, -officials and pensioners. He pointed out that the public debt, which in -1860 was 64,000,000 dollars, had become 2,527,129,552 dollars; that the -annual expenditure, which was, in 1860, 63,000,000 dollars, had become -336,000,000 dollars and more, and that the expenditure per capita, -which was two dollars in 1860, had become nearly ten dollars. And he -suggested the ways in which this threatening condition might be -relieved, viz., by a refunding of the bonds at a lower interest, by a -speedy resumption of specie payment, by a reduction of the army and of -the horde of Reconstruction officials in the South, and by a strict -accountability of the revenue officials to their superiors and of these -latter to the President. From the point of view of sound political -science, good public policy and true patriotism all of these -suggestions were at least worth consideration, but Congress took no -more notice of them than it did of the distant murmurs of the waters of -the Potomac. - -[Sidenote: The President's amnesty proclamation of December 25th, -1868.] - -Only once again did the Congress break over its apparent resolve to -ignore the President, and that was upon the occasion of his issue of -his universal and unconditional pardon and amnesty to all persons who -had participated, either directly or indirectly, in the rebellion, with -the restoration of all their rights, privileges and immunities under -the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. The date of -this document was December 25th, 1868. On the 5th of January, 1869, the -Senate called him to account for this by a {216} resolution calling -upon him "to transmit to the Senate a copy of any proclamation of -amnesty made by him since the last adjournment of Congress, and also to -communicate to the Senate by what authority of law the same was made." -The President replied on the 18th, sending a copy of his proclamation -of December 25th, 1868, and declaring that he issued it by authority of -the second section of Article second of the Constitution, which vested -in the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences -against the United States, except in cases of impeachment, and in -accordance with precedents established by his predecessors in office, -Washington, Adams, Madison and Lincoln. The Senate did not say that he -had no right to claim any constitutional prerogative, and that he was -not worthy to act under precedents set by Washington, Adams, Madison, -and Lincoln, but most of the Senators evidently so thought. The -proclamation had no effect upon the qualifications for suffrage in the -face of the Reconstruction Acts and the "State" constitutions framed -and established in accordance with them. It was little more than the -bull against the comet. - -[Sidenote: The President's veto of the Bill in regard to the colored -schools in the District of Columbia.] - -As a sort of final stroke the President vetoed the bill concerning the -transfer of the control of the colored schools in the District of -Columbia, and the bill for raising the duties on imported copper and -copper ores. He gave excellent reasons for both of these vetoes, but -Congress had long ceased to be guided by reason in matters which -related to the President. - -[Sidenote: The Fifteenth Amendment.] - -On its side it was busy with a project which, though not intended as a -blow at him particularly, was not in accordance with his view that the -regulation of the suffrage within the "States" was, and should be, left -to the "States" respectively, and exclusively, viz., {217} the proposed -Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Reference has already been -made to the inconsistent doctrine, we might almost say the timorous -subterfuge, of the Republican platform on the matter of negro suffrage, -and to the growing conviction on the part of the Republicans during the -campaign that this question must be settled for the entire country -alike, and by a constitutional amendment. At the opening of Congress in -December, and during the first days of the session, the proposition was -presented which finally took on the form given it by the conference -committee of the two Houses in the words: "The right of citizens of the -United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United -States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition -of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by -appropriate legislation." It was passed by both Houses with the -requisite two-thirds majority on the 26th of February and sent to the -legislatures of the "States" for ratification. The Republicans had at -last come to the view that the emancipation of the freedmen involved -their civil equality with the whites, and that such equality could not -be maintained unless they possessed the elective franchise, and that it -was cowardly for the "States" of the North to force negro suffrage on -the South without accepting it for themselves. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the Republican view.] - -It is certainly true that full freedom implies civil liberty and civil -equality, but there was another way, and a better way, to have secured -these than by the immediate and universal suffrage of the newly -emancipated in all their ignorance, immorality and poverty, and that -was by the nationalization of civil liberty, and its protection and -enforcement by the United States courts. Most of the {218} Republicans -believed, at that moment, that that had been secured by the Fourteenth -Amendment; and there can be little question that a very important -consideration with such was the fear that after Reconstruction should -be accomplished, the Southern "States" might amend negro suffrage out -of their "State" constitutions, and thus destroy the Republican party -in these "States," unless the Constitution of the United States should -be so amended as to prevent it. The most radical among them were no -doubt moved chiefly by the extravagant humanitarianism of the period, -which had developed in their minds to the point of justifying not only -the political equality of the races, but the political superiority, at -least in loyalty to the Union, the Constitution and republican -government, of the uncivilized negroes over the whites of the South; -but that this conviction was not very strong among the masses of them -can be readily concluded from the fact that that party is to-day the -party which is following the European idea of the duty of civilized -races to impose their political sovereignty upon uncivilized, or half -civilized, or not fully civilized, races anywhere and everywhere in the -world. No party can, in so short a time, so completely change its -fundamental principle of political ethics when it is really and -conscientiously believed in by the masses of the party. - -[Sidenote: Johnson's retirement from the presidency.] - -This proposed Fifteenth Amendment was not sent to the President for his -approval, but went, according to custom, to the Secretary of State, to -be submitted to the "State" legislatures. The President was now within -a very few days of the end of his term. His sun had fairly set, and the -disrespect felt for him by the members of the dominant party in -Congress and out of Congress was expressed in the rude and quite -unprecedented refusal of General Grant to sit in the same carriage with -him in the {219} procession from the White House to the Capitol, on the -4th of March, for the ceremonies of the inauguration of the new -President. Discredited, despised, and scoffed at, as a traitor to his -party, to his political creed, and to his country, Mr. Johnson stepped -down from the high office which he had occupied during one of the two -most critical periods in American history since the establishment of -the present Constitution. - -[Sidenote: The President and the Republican party.] - -And yet it is certainly true that the Republican party had left him -rather than that he had left the party. This party began simply as a -Union party and an anti-slavery extension party. Mr. Johnson, an -original Democrat, joined with the Republicans upon this basis, and he -never left it. On the other hand, when the necessities of the war for -the Union made it evident that the slaves within the Southern -communities which had declared secession, and were engaged in -rebellion, must be proclaimed free, Mr. Johnson still went with the -Republicans in the justification of this measure. And when, finally, -the war was ended and the Union was preserved, and the Republicans -decided that the legitimate outcome of the victory was the prohibition -of slavery everywhere within the United States by an amendment to the -Constitution, Mr. Johnson still marched with them, at the head of the -column. It was only when they became more and more radical in their -policy, and insisted upon transforming rather than restoring the -"States" of the South, by placing civil rights under national -protection instead of "State" protection, disfranchising the whites of -the South, and enfranchising the negroes, and upon overcoming the -Executive's objections to these movements not simply by overriding the -veto, but by generally subordinating the Executive to Congress--it was -only then that he {220} separated from them and fell back naturally on -such support as he could get, which was chiefly from the Democratic -party. - -No fair mind can claim that the Republicans in their quarrel with the -President had not departed from their solemn declaration made in -Congress assembled in those dark July days of 1861, just after the -first great defeat of the Union arms, "That this war is not waged upon -our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest -or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the -rights or established institutions of the Southern States, but to -defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve -the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several -States unimpaired." And it was upon the basis of this understanding -that the Democrats in Congress, Mr. Johnson among them, stood with the -Republicans in the prosecution of the war. It is indeed a serious -question of political casuistry as to how far declarations of policy -are binding upon a political party. They are certainly not like -agreements entered into between sovereign states, and the law of -development rather than the law of contract must be the constructive -force in party creed. But this, at least, must be held, viz., that a -man originally not of a given political party, but acting with it upon -the basis of a given creed, cannot be accused of being an apostate from -that party if he does not continue with it when it adopts a new creed -in many respects the very opposite of that given creed, except in the -most groveling sense of machine politics; and that when he and it do -part company, more by its own departures from the given creed than by -his, he is certainly not on that account to be necessarily considered -as a traitor to his country. The truth is, that while all men who -occupy high station are {221} peculiarly subject to wanton, as well as -ignorant, assaults upon their purposes and their conduct, few men that -have occupied so high a station have ever been so unreasonably -slandered and vilified as Andrew Johnson. His own unfortunate and -irritating manners and methods will account for a good deal of the -misunderstanding of his character, but the violence of the times was -the occasion of a great deal more of it. The true Union men of -Tennessee will, however, never forget the hope, and encouragement, and -support which he gave to them, when they were left in the lurch by -their own natural leader, John Bell; and the Nation should for this, if -nothing else, write his name in the book of its heroes. - - - - -{222} - -CHAPTER XI - -PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION - -The Situation at the Moment of Grant's Accession to Power--The Georgia -Question--The Attitude of the New President toward Reconstruction--The -Virginia Case--Grant's Message to Congress of April 7th, 1869, and His -Proclamation of May 14th--Ratification of the Virginia Constitution and -Election of "State" Officers under it--The Restoration of Virginia to -Her Federal Relations--Ratification of the Mississippi Constitution and -Election of "State" Officers and Legislative Members under it--The -Restoration of Mississippi to Her Federal Relations--Ratification of -the Texas Constitution and Election of "State" Officers and Legislative -Members under it--Restoration of Texas to Her Federal Relations--Grant -and the Tenure-of-Office Act--Congress and the Tenure-of-Office Act -after Grant's Accession to the Presidency--The Modification of the -Tenure-of-Office Act--The President's Dissatisfaction with the -Measure--The Facts in the Georgia Case--New Conditions Imposed on -Georgia--The Final Restoration of Georgia to Her Federal -Relations--Negro Rule in the South from the Point of View of Political -Science and Ethnical Principle. - - -[Sidenote: The situation at the moment of Grant's accession to power.] - -At the moment of Grant's accession to power, four of the Southern -communities were still denied recognition as "States" upon the floor of -Congress. Three of the four had not yet adopted "State" constitutions, -viz.: Virginia, Mississippi and Texas; and the fourth, Georgia, the -representatives from which to the lower House of Congress had been -admitted in December of 1868, was still unrepresented in the Senate, -for the reason that the legislature of Georgia, after electing United -States Senators, {223} had rejected the negro members-elect of that -body on the ground that negroes were not eligible to legislative seats -in Georgia. - -[Sidenote: The Georgia question.] - -When the news of this procedure reached Washington, the Senate held -back from admitting the Senators-elect from Georgia to seats and did -not admit them during the last session of the Fortieth Congress; and at -the opening of the Forty-first Congress, on March 4th, 1869, the day of -Grant's inauguration, one of the first acts of the respective Houses -was to refuse admittance to the representatives from Georgia to _either -House_, and to refer their credentials to the Committee of each House -on Elections. - -[Sidenote: The attitude of the new President toward Reconstruction.] - -In his inaugural Address the new President made no reference to these -questions, but he had hardly been one month in the presidential office -before he recognized the difficulties with which his predecessor had -been beset, and asked and almost demanded of Congress relief from them. -On the 7th day of April he addressed a message to Congress requesting -that body to provide for submitting to the voters of Virginia the -"State" constitution drafted and adopted by a constitutional convention -at Richmond nearly a year before, and recommending that "a separate -vote be taken upon such parts as might be thought expedient," and that -the constitution, "_or such parts thereof as shall have been adopted by -the people,_" should be submitted to Congress on the first Monday of -the following December, and that the officers provided for under the -said constitution should be chosen at the same election. - -The President also suggested that the constitution framed by the -convention in Mississippi and rejected by the voters might be -resubmitted in the same way. The events in Mississippi culminating in -the rejection {224} of the proposed State constitution by the voters in -June of 1868 have been already related. - -[Sidenote: The Virginia case.] - -The case of Virginia, on the other hand, which differed in several -material respects from that of any of the others, has not been as yet -sufficiently stated for a clear understanding of the President's -meaning in his recommendations to Congress of April 7th. It will be -remembered that a loyal government of Virginia, with its seat first at -Wheeling and then at Alexandria, existed during the entire period of -the Civil War, and that from 1861 to 1864 Virginia, under this -government, had been represented in Congress, and that it was this -government which consented to the partition of Virginia recognized by -Congress. On the 23d day of May, 1865, this government transferred -itself from Alexandria to Richmond, having been recognized by President -Johnson on May 9th as the true government of Virginia. The legislative -department of it met in session on the 20th of June following. The -Governor, Mr. Pierpont, recommended, in his message to that body, that -a constitutional amendment should be drafted, and proposed by it to the -voters for ratification, which would enfranchise, and qualify for -office, a much larger proportion of the people than was the case under -the revised constitution of Virginia of 1864, adopted by the loyal -convention at Alexandria. The legislature followed the Governor's -advice and proposed an amendment to the voters which granted suffrage -and eligibility substantially to the old ante-bellum electorate and -eligibles on the condition of future loyalty to the United States. This -proposition was voted on at the elections held on the 12th of October -for the choice of members of the legislature and of the lower House of -Congress, and was ratified by a large majority. The election was held -in every county and the result was fairly {225} representative of the -people. There was lacking but one thing more for the complete -restoration of the "State" to its federal relations, viz., the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from it to seats in -Congress. They presented themselves at the opening of the Congressional -session on the first Monday of December following, and were excluded, -along with the Senators and Representatives from the other "Johnson -States," by the Stevens resolution. - -[Sidenote: The Vagrant Act.] - -[Sidenote: General Terry's order setting aside the Vagrant Act.] - -For more than a year, however, this government continued to act as the -"State" government of Virginia, under the limitations placed upon it by -the presence of the military of the United States, and the interference -of the commanding general in behalf of the freedmen. On January 15th, -1866, the legislature chosen at the October elections of the preceding -year passed the vagrant act, which defined as vagrants "all persons -who, not having wherewith to maintain themselves and their families, -live idly and without employment, and refuse to work for the usual and -common wages given to the laborers in the like work in the place where -they are," and which authorized the condemned vagrant to be hired out, -and his wages applied to his own use or the use of his family, and, in -case of his running away from the hirer, to be apprehended on the -warrant of a justice and returned to the hirer, who should have one -month of service extra, and without wages, for the interruption of the -service contracted for, and other trouble and expense, and should also -have the right, by permission of the justice, to work the returned -vagrant with ball and chain, in order to prevent a repetition of his -flight. On the 24th, just nine days after the passage of the act, -General Terry, the military commander at Richmond, issued an order -setting aside this measure as to the freedmen. He based his order on -the {226} tendency of the statute to influence employers to combine for -the purpose of lowering the wages of the freedmen to a point that would -pauperize them and drive them into vagrancy, and create thus the very -situation which, under the operation of the measure, would lead to a -species of servitude worse than the old domestic slavery. He had no -reliable facts of experience upon which to base his theory. It was a -bit of political and economic prophecy on his part. It was sufficient, -however, to call down maledictions from the Congress at Washington and -the people of the North upon the legislature at Richmond and the people -of Virginia and of the South generally. - -[Sidenote: Virginia made a Military District.] - -Congress, however, gave this legislature one more opportunity to redeem -itself. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States was submitted to it for ratification in June of 1866. -After long deliberation upon it, the legislature rejected it on the 9th -of January, 1867. This act sealed the fate of that legislature. -Virginia was brought, with the other Southern communities which had -rejected or not adopted the proposed Amendment, under the -Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, and became the first military -district under those Acts, with General Schofield as commander. -Schofield ordered the election for delegates to a constitutional -convention, by the voters designated in the Reconstruction Acts, to be -held in November of 1867, and ordered the delegates so elected to -assemble in Richmond on the 3d of the following December. These orders -were successfully executed under the supervision and control of the -military. Schofield himself appeared in the convention, and urged the -delegates to be moderate in the propositions for the disfranchisement -and disqualification of those who had participated in rebellion. But -the delegates {227} elected under the Reconstruction Acts, and by the -electorate created through them, were not only radical, but bent upon -retaliation. They would not listen to the wise counsel of Schofield, -but drafted and adopted such provisions in regard to suffrage -qualifications and eligibility to office and mandate as would have put -the "State" government, based on such a constitution, in the hands of -negroes, "scalawags" and "carpet-bag" adventurers. The opposition to -these provisions on the part of the commander and the Administration at -Washington was, however, sufficiently effective to delay indefinitely -the submission of the constitution to the voters. Near the end of the -year 1868, a conference of prominent Virginians assembled at Richmond -and appointed a committee, and sent its members to Washington to -petition Congress to allow the disfranchising and disqualifying -clauses, and the clauses in reference to county organization, to be -voted on separately from the other parts of the proposed constitution. -This committee proceeded to Washington in January of 1869, and argued -their case before committees of both of the Houses of Congress, and -also presented the same to the new President-elect, General Grant. - -[Sidenote: Grant's message to Congress of April 7th, 1869, and his -proclamation of May 14th.] - -It was in consequence of such representations and prayers, that -President Grant sent his message of April 7th to Congress, requesting -authority to accede to the petition of the Virginians, and that -Congress immediately conferred the authority upon him. Armed with this -authority, the President issued a proclamation on the 14th day of May, -1869, commanding the "State" constitution framed for Virginia by the -convention which assembled on December 3d, 1867, at Richmond, to be -submitted to the voters, on July 6th, 1869, for ratification or -rejection, and also commanding that those {228} provisions -disqualifying persons from voting and holding office who had in any way -aided the rebellion against the United States should be separately -submitted. - -[Sidenote: Ratification of the Virginia Constitution.] - -At the election ordered by the President, the constitution without -these clauses was ratified, and the conservative Republican candidates -for office and legislative membership were elected. - -[Sidenote: The restoration of Virginia to her Federal relations.] - -At the next session of Congress, in December of 1869, the Senators and -Representatives presented themselves for admission. Their claims were -sustained by the President, who reported to Congress that Virginia had -fulfilled all of the conditions required of her for readmission to her -full privileges as a member of the Union, having among other things -ratified by legislative acts both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth -Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and urged the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from the "State" to -Congress. After a good deal of discussion and some wrangling, the bill -for the accomplishment of this object was passed, and, in the last days -of January of 1870, Virginia was restored to her proper federal -relations, on the conditions that the constitution of the "State" -should never be so amended as to deprive any person enfranchised -therein of the suffrage, or any citizen or class of citizens of the -United States of the educational rights and privileges provided -therein, or any citizen of the United States of the equal right to hold -office, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, -or of the school rights provided in the constitution of the "State." -The Congressional Act also undertook to purge the new "State" -legislature by requiring that every member must take an oath that he -was not disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States, or that, if he had been, he had also been {229} -relieved by the Congressional Act authorized for the case in the -Amendment. - -[Sidenote: Ratification of the Mississippi constitution.] - -The Act of Congress of April 10th empowered the President to deal with -the question of Reconstruction in Mississippi in the same manner as in -Virginia. By virtue of this power, the President issued a proclamation, -on the 13th of July, 1869, commanding the resubmission to the voters of -the constitution adopted by the Mississippi convention, on the 15th of -May, 1868, and rejected by the voters as stated on a previous page, and -designating the 30th day of November, 1869, as the date of the -election. As in the case of Virginia, the President ordered a separate -vote to be taken upon the disfranchising and disqualifying clauses of -the constitution which prohibited any person from voting or holding -office who had given any aid or comfort to persons in rebellion. - -[Sidenote: The restoration of Mississippi to her Federal relations.] - -The result of the vote on the constitution was the same as in Virginia. -The constitution was ratified without these clauses; and on the 23d of -February, 1870, the bill for the restoration of Mississippi and the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from the "State" to -Congress, on the same conditions as those exacted of Virginia, became -law. - -[Sidenote: Ratification of the Texas Constitution.] - -[Sidenote: Restoration of Texas to her Federal relations.] - -The Act of April 10th, 1869, also invested the President with the power -of ordering the submission of the constitution framed and adopted by -the convention at Austin, Texas, in June of 1868, to the voters for -ratification. By virtue of this authority, the President ordered a vote -to be taken upon this instrument on the 30th day of November, 1869. -This proposed constitution did not contain any such disfranchising and -disqualifying clauses as those which rendered the Virginia and -Mississippi instruments {230} obnoxious to the intelligence of these -communities, and the vote was, therefore, ordered to be taken upon the -entire constitution at once. The result was ratification; and on the -30th of March, 1870, the Congressional measure for the complete -restoration of Texas to her proper federal relations, upon the same -fundamental conditions as those required of Virginia and Mississippi, -became law. - -Thus while the new President did not, as his predecessor had done, -dispute the power of Congress to direct and control the reconstruction -of the disrupted Southern communities as "States" of the Union, he -appealed to Congress for the authority to relieve some of them still -suffering under military rule from the hard alternative of negro -domination, and when Congress gave him the power requested, he used it -for the amelioration of the situation. This was true statesmanship. If -President Johnson had done this instead of insisting upon his -constitutional power to reconstruct, independently of Congress, these -communities, and repeating continually his unsound, though specious, -arguments in support of his view, it is quite possible that he might -have maintained his influence, in some degree at least, with the -Republican majority, and at the same time, and in consequence thereof, -might have accomplished something in the interest of a true -conservatism in Reconstruction. This is not, however, certain. Johnson -had none of Grant's vast popularity with the people of the North -whereby to overawe Congress, and there is no doubt, deny it as we may -to conscious reflection, that down below consciousness there was a sort -of distrust of a Southern Union man on the part of a large portion of -the people of the North. Mr. Johnson had to suffer under the influence -of this feeling, like all others of his class, and whenever he -suggested any moderate {231} course in the treatment of former rebels, -he fell under the suspicion of masking sympathy with their sentiments -under a pretence of Unionism. He was, thus, rather an object of -Congressional distrust from the first, and could probably never have -done so much as Grant succeeded in doing for conservatism in Virginia -and Mississippi, even though he had recognized the power of Congress in -the work of reconstruction, and had preferred respectful requests, -instead of asserting presidential prerogatives. - -[Sidenote: Grant and the Tenure-of-Office Act.] - -Likewise the new President found, as soon as he began the work of -administration, that the Tenure-of-Office Act was an unendurable -hindrance to the efficient discharge of his duties. None of Mr. -Johnson's Secretaries, it is true, gave him any trouble by attempting -to hold on to office for the one month allowed them after the -expiration of Mr. Johnson's term. The men nominated by President Grant -for his Cabinet of chiefs and advisers were immediately confirmed, and, -with one exception, inducted into office. These men were E. B. -Washburne, of Illinois, as Secretary of State; A. T. Stewart, of New -York, as Secretary of the Treasury; A. E. Borie, of Pennsylvania, as -Secretary of the Navy; J. D. Cox, of Ohio, as Secretary of the -Interior; E. R. Hoar, of Massachusetts, as Attorney-General; and J. A. -J. Creswell, of Maryland, as Postmaster-General. No immediate -nomination was made for the Secretaryship of War, and General Schofield -remained for a few days at the head of the Department. The President -soon found that Mr. Stewart, being a large importer of foreign goods, -was disqualified by statute from holding the office of Secretary of the -Treasury. He first suggested to the Senate the removal of the -disability by a joint resolution of Congress, and, on objection being -made to the introduction of a {232} bill repealing the disqualifying -statute, he withdrew the suggestion. Mr. Stewart then relieved the -situation by sending in his declination, and the President nominated -Mr. G. S. Boutwell of Massachusetts for the office, which nomination -was immediately confirmed, and Mr. Boutwell took immediate charge of -the Department. Mr. Washburne, the Secretary of State, resigned the -office within a few days, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, was -nominated and appointed to succeed him. General Schofield next resigned -the War Office, and was succeeded by General John A. Rawlins of -Illinois. Finally, Mr. Borie resigned in June the Secretaryship of the -Navy, and was succeeded by Mr. G. M. Robeson of New Jersey. The Senate -put nothing in the way of these changes. But President Grant made up -his mind in a very few days after his inauguration not to have his -hands tied in regard to any of the officers for whose acts he was -responsible. He gave the Republican leaders in Congress to understand -that he would allow the existing incumbents of the offices to remain in -office, unless they should commit some such offence as would call for -their suspension, so long as the Tenure-of-Office Act should remain on -the statute book. The Republicans were hungry for a new distribution of -the spoils. They called it a righteous desire for the "cleaning of the -Augean stables." Whatever it was, they were thrown into a great state -of trepidation by this covert threat of the President not to clear the -way for their friends. - -[Sidenote: Congress and the Tenure-of-Office Act after Grant's -accession to the presidency.] - -On the 9th day of March, less than a week after the accession of the -new President to power, a bill was introduced into the House of -Representatives providing for the immediate repeal of the -Tenure-of-Office Act, and was passed, immediately and without debate, -by a vote of 138 to 16. These 16 were naturally Republicans. {233} The -Democrats voted for the repeal on principle. When the bill reached the -Senate it was sent to the Judiciary Committee. This Committee quickly -reported to the Senate a substitute for the bill of the House. This -substitute provided that the Tenure-of-Office Act should be suspended -from operation until the next session of Congress. No more shameless -piece of partisanship was ever advanced on the floor of the Senate than -this. It simply meant, suspend the Act when the Republicans wanted to -get the offices, and keep it in force when they might be in danger of -being put out. The Senate itself could not be brought to vote this -proposition of its Judiciary Committee. It was withdrawn by the -committee, and Mr. Trumbull proposed to supersede the existing law with -a measure which would allow the President to suspend from office -without assigning any cause for the same to the Senate, or even -reporting the suspension to the Senate, and to nominate to the Senate a -person to fill the vacancy, and in case of rejection by the Senate to -nominate another person; and only when the session of the Senate should -come to a close without a ratification should the suspended officer be -restored. - -[Sidenote: The modification of the Tenure-of-Office Act.] - -It was pretty clear that the President would not find any trouble with -such a measure as this, but it seemed to the House that the Senate was -trying to cling to a certain control over the Executive, and the House -refused concurrence in the bill. The matter was finally referred to a -conference committee, and this committee speedily matured and reported -a measure, which allowed the President, during a recess of the Senate, -to suspend any civil officer appointed by and with the consent of the -Senate, except judges of the United States courts, until the end of the -next session of the Senate, and to designate some other person {234} to -discharge the duties of the vacant office in the meantime, and made it -the duty of the President simply to nominate to the Senate, within -thirty days from the beginning of its next session, some one to succeed -to the office permanently, and in case the Senate should refuse to -ratify the nomination, to nominate another person. Both Houses accepted -the recommendation of the Committee and the bill agreed upon by its -members became law April 5, 1869. - -[Sidenote: The President's dissatisfaction with the measure.] - -Still the President was not satisfied with it. He thought that any -control whatever of the Senate over dismissal from office was not -warranted by the Constitution, and he regarded the attempt of the -Senate to cling to any shadow of such a power as a personal affront to -himself. - -In his first annual Message, that of December 6th, 1869, he earnestly -recommended the total repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Acts, and declared -them both unconstitutional, and inconsistent with "a faithful and -efficient administration of the Government." His recommendation was -probably an effective warning to Congress against any attempt to hamper -him by claiming any power under them to control his dismissals and -suspensions, but they still remained on the statute book for nearly two -decades longer. The glaring inconsistency of a bare and bald repeal of -the Acts was too great even for the partisan Congress. It was willing -to make them practically null and void, but it wanted a shadow with -which to cover its nakedness. At any rate, the position taken by -President Grant toward them was a complete vindication of President -Johnson's views concerning them, and, in no small degree, of his deeds -also. - -At the date of this Message all of the Southern communities had -completed the acts required by Congress {235} for their restoration as -"States" of the Union, but the result of the elections held in -Mississippi were not known in Washington. The President simply -expressed the hope that the constitutions submitted in these -communities to the voters would be ratified, and "thus close the work -of Reconstruction." As we have seen, the elections resulted as the -President hoped, and these communities were restored, on the basis of -the "State" constitutions adopted, to their proper federal relations. - -[Sidenote: The facts in the Georgia case.] - -The case of Georgia still remained, however, unsettled, and the -President suggested that Congress should enact a law authorizing the -Governor of Georgia, Mr. Bullock, "to convene the members originally -elected to the legislature, requiring each member to take the oath -prescribed by the Reconstruction Acts, and none to be admitted who were -ineligible under the third clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The -situation was briefly as follows: The Senators and Representatives from -Georgia had been refused admission to seats in Congress at the first -session of the Forty-first Congress which convened the 4th of March, -1869, because the legislature of Georgia had expelled the colored men -elected to that body as ineligible, and had rejected the proposed -Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is -true that the Senators from Georgia had been elected by the legislature -before the colored members were expelled, and that the Representatives -had been admitted to seats in the House during the last session of the -Fortieth Congress, and that the ostensible reason for not admitting the -members to the lower House of the Forty-first Congress was that they -had not been elected to the Forty-first Congress. However, Georgia had -no representation in either House of Congress at the date of President -Grant's first annual Message in December of 1869. {236} Her "State" -government seems, therefore, to have been considered by Congress as -being still only provisional, despite the fact that by the Act of June -25th, 1868, she had been declared entitled to admission to -representation in Congress upon conditions which she had subsequently -fulfilled. - -A bill had been introduced into Congress soon after the opening of the -session beginning March 4th, 1869, dealing with the subject. It was -claimed in the preamble of this bill that the Georgia legislature had -not purged itself of disloyal members as required by the Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it had -violated the constitution of Georgia and the Constitution of the United -States and the fundamental principles of the Reconstruction Acts by -expelling the negro members for ineligibility, and that the civil -authorities in the "State" could not, or did not, protect the loyal -citizens in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties or even in -their persons. The bill proposed to meet these difficulties by -providing that the Governor of Georgia should reconvene the originally -elected members of the legislature, reseat the expelled negro members, -and expel such members as could not swear that they were not -disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States. It may be remarked here in passing that the Fourteenth -Amendment does not disqualify anybody, in express language, from being -a member of a "State" legislature. It disqualifies all persons who have -engaged in rebellion after having taken an oath, as a member of -Congress or of a "State" legislature, or as a United States or a -"State" officer, to support the Constitution of the United States, from -holding a seat in Congress or from being an officer of the United -States or of a "State," _but not from holding a seat in a "State" -legislature_. The word officer in the public {237} jurisprudence of -this country does not include membership in a legislative body. But to -return to the bill. It provided finally for making United States troops -in Georgia subject to the Governor's call for assistance. This bill was -so seriously opposed by the Democrats and the conservative Republicans -that it did not pass, and during this session Congress did nothing -further for the restoration of Georgia. - -[Sidenote: The case of White and Clements.] - -On the other hand, the conservatives in Georgia undertook to do -something for themselves. They got up a test case in the Supreme Court -of the "State" to determine the rights of negroes to hold office. The -case was that of White and Clements, and the office involved was a -county court clerkship. Of course the decision was not binding upon the -legislative houses in judging of the eligibility of their members, but -it was thought that it would have an influence upon their views. The -court decided that under the new constitution of Georgia and the code -of Georgia negroes could hold office, since the constitution of 1868 -declared that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and -residents in Georgia were citizens of Georgia, and the code declared -that among the rights of citizens was the right to hold office. Of -course the legislature could abolish or amend the code. After the -rendering of this decision the conservative members of the legislature -requested the Governor, Mr. Bullock, who was a radical Republican, and -a New Yorker by birth, to reconvene the legislature for the purpose of -reseating the expelled negro members. The Governor refused, apparently -not desiring to anticipate the action of Congress in the case. The -attempt of the conservatives to help themselves thus came to naught, -and the unhappy community drifted on toward anarchy and violence, -according to the report now made by {238} General Terry to the -President, who declared it to be his opinion that the United States -Government must intervene anew in order to preserve it against that -fate. - -[Sidenote: New conditions imposed on Georgia.] - -It was then with a good deal of irritation that Congress came to -consider the subject of Reconstruction in Georgia again in the session -of 1869-70, and the determination soon became manifest to impose -additional and harder conditions upon this community than upon the -others. Moreover, as matters appeared at that juncture, the -ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by the legislature of Georgia -would be necessary to make out the required three-fourths majority. It -was in this temper, and under the pressure of this supposed necessity, -that Congress, acting promptly upon the general suggestion in the -President's Message, passed a bill which provided that the Governor of -Georgia should forthwith summon the persons declared by the -proclamation of General Meade, of the date of June 25th, 1868, to be -members-elect of the legislature, to assemble at Atlanta; that every -such person should take an oath or affirmation that he had never, after -having been a member of Congress or of a "State" legislature, or an -officer of the United States or of a "State" "engaged in insurrection -or rebellion against the United States, or given any aid or comfort to -its enemies, or rendered, except in consequence of direct physical -compulsion, any support or aid to any insurrection, or rebellion -against the United States, or held any office under, or given any -support to, any government of any kind acting in hostility to the -United States, or levying war against the United States," or should -make oath or affirmation that, if he had so acted, he had been relieved -by Congress from any disability attaching to such act in the manner -provided in {239} the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; that in -case any person claiming to be a member of the legislature should fail -to make such an oath or affirmation he should be excluded from a seat -in the body; that no member-elect should be excluded on account of -race, color or previous condition of servitude; that, on application of -the Governor, the President should employ the military power of the -United States to enforce the provisions of the Act; and that the -legislature of Georgia should ratify the proposed Fifteenth Amendment -to the Constitution of the United States before Senators and -Representatives from Georgia should be admitted to seats in Congress. -This bill was approved by the President on the 22d of December, 1869. - -[Sidenote: Resumption of military government in Georgia.] - -So great was the opposition to Reconstruction, under these hard -conditions, on the part of the white people in Georgia, that the -Governor was obliged to call for the military of the United States to -aid him, and finally to step aside for General Terry, who by an order -from the President, dated January 4th, 1870, was authorized to resume -the powers in Georgia of the commander of a military district, as -provided under the Reconstruction Act of March 2d, 1867. The General -found a number of members in the legislature recognized by General -Meade's proclamation who could not take either of the oaths or -affirmations prescribed. These he caused to be removed from their seats -in very arbitrary ways. This procedure put the Republicans in the -legislature in majority, and they filled these vacancies by admitting -persons who had received the next highest number of votes to those cast -for the expelled members in the election, and who could take one or the -other of the oaths or affirmations prescribed in the Act of the 22d of -December, 1869. - -{240} [Sidenote: Ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by the Georgia -legislature.] - -The legislature as thus reconstructed was approved by the military -authorities, and it now proceeded to fulfil the final condition -required of Georgia, viz., the ratification of the proposed Fifteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It also ratified -the Fourteenth Amendment. This was, from a legal point of view, -entirely superfluous, since the Fourteenth Amendment was, at the -moment, already a part of the Constitution, as much so as any other -Article, and in resuming the status of a "State" in the Union, Georgia -was, of course, subject to all parts of the Constitution alike. The -legislature might, with equal reason, have ratified specially any other -part of the Constitution. The idea seems to have been to correct any -possible defects in the ratification of this amendment which the -Georgia legislature had voted on July 21st, 1868. - -[Sidenote: Further delay in the admission of representatives from -Georgia.] - -This purified legislature now elected United States Senators, both of -them Republicans, of course. All these things were done in the latter -part of January and the early part of February of 1870, and as the -Congress was in session, there was reason to expect that Georgia would -be, at once, fully restored as a "State" of the Union. A bill was -reported in the House of Representatives on the 25th of February from -the Committee on Reconstruction for this purpose. It was nearly -identical in its provisions and language with the Virginia and -Mississippi bills, but it dragged along through nearly five months of -debate and partisan wrangling before it became law. The reason of this -delay was that, on March 4th, General Butler proposed an amendment to -the bill which provided: "That the power granted by the constitution of -Georgia to the general assembly to change the time of holding -elections, and prescribe the {241} day of meeting of the general -assembly, shall not be so exercised as to postpone the election of the -next general assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in -November in the year 1872, nor shall such power ever be by any future -legislature so exercised as to extend the term of any office beyond the -regular period named in said constitution; and the said general -assembly shall by joint resolution consent to this condition before -this Act shall take effect." - -This language was at once taken to mean that Congress would undertake -to empower the legislature of Georgia to extend the terms of the -members of the Georgia legislature and of the Governor, elected in -April of 1868, by two years, on the ground that the "State" government -of Georgia was still provisional, and would so remain until the passage -of this Act, and that these terms would, therefore, not really begin -until the passage of this Act. The conservative Republicans as well as -the Democrats repudiated this interpretation of the powers of Congress -to extend, or to authorize the "State" legislature to extend, the terms -of the members of the legislature and of "State" officers as an -unprecedented usurpation. Some of them repudiated the idea that there -could be a provisional "State" government, and declared that any -further legislation in regard to the reconstruction of Georgia was -unnecessary, since the Act of June 25th, 1868, had restored Georgia to -her position as a "State" of the Union, along with North Carolina, -South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, upon certain -conditions, all of which Georgia had fulfilled, just as the others had -done, and since all the others had been admitted to the enjoyment of -all of their rights and privileges as "States" of the Union without any -further legislation than the Act of June 25th, 1868. - -{242} There is no doubt that the Butler amendment meant, and was -intended by its author to mean, just what was charged by the -conservatives. General Butler at last acknowledged and avowed it, and -attempted to justify it. But he was unable to rally a majority to -sustain it, and he withdrew it in the face of an amendment offered by -Mr. Bingham on the 7th, which provided that nothing contained in the -bill should be construed either to vacate any of the "State" offices in -Georgia, or to extend the terms of the present holders of them beyond -the time provided in the "State" constitution, or deprive the people of -Georgia of the right under their "State" constitution of electing -members of their legislature in the year 1870. - -This amendment was passed on the 8th of March, and the bill as thus -amended was passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the -Senate on the same day. It was immediately referred to the Judiciary -Committee of that body and on the next day, the 9th, it was reported -back to the Senate by this committee, without amendment. The Senate now -considered it in committee of the whole from this time to April 19th, -and when it was reported to the Senate it had been changed to a bill -which declared the existing government of Georgia to be provisional and -subject to the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867; ordered -an election in Georgia on the 15th day of November, 1870, for members -of the "State" legislature as provided for in the "State" constitution -of 1868; ordered the assembly of this legislature on the 13th of -December, 1870, and its organization preparatory to the admission of -the "State" to representation in Congress; declared that the powers and -functions of the members of the existing legislature should cease on -the 13th day of December, 1870; and made it the duty of the {243} -President of the United States, in case of domestic violence in any -municipality in the "State," reported to him by the legislature or -Governor of the State, to suppress by military power such domestic -violence, and "to exercise all such powers and inflict such punishments -as may by the laws, or the rules and articles of war be exercised or -inflicted in case of insurrection or invasion." The Senate concurred in -the recommendations of the committee of the whole, and added a -provision repealing that part of the Act of March 2d, 1867, which -prohibited the organizing of any militia force in Georgia. - -[Sidenote: The final restoration of Georgia to her Federal relations.] - -In this form and with this content the bill was returned to the House. -Here it was again debated, off and on, until June 24th, when it was -finally agreed upon with the following contents: "That the State of -Georgia having complied with the Reconstruction Acts, and the -Fourteenth and Fifteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States having been ratified in good faith by a legal -legislature of said State, it is hereby declared that the State of -Georgia is entitled to representation in the Congress of the United -States. But nothing in this act contained shall be construed to deprive -the people of Georgia of the right to an election for members of the -general assembly of said State, as provided for in the constitution -thereof," and "That so much of the Act of March 2d, 1867, as prohibits -the organization, arming, or calling into service of the militia forces -in the States of Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia be, and the -same is, hereby repealed." - -The Senate disagreed to the bill in this form and with these contents, -and asked for a conference committee. The House agreed and appointed -members. The conference committee agreed upon the bill as {244} -perfected by the House with the addition to the second section of these -words: "And nothing in this or any other Act of Congress shall be -construed to affect the term to which any officer has been appointed or -any member of the general assembly elected, as prescribed by the -constitution of the State of Georgia." Both the Senate and the House -accepted and concurred in the recommendations of the committee, and the -bill, as thus perfected, became law on the 15th day of July, 1870. This -bill terminated the era of Reconstruction legislation by Congress, and -at the next session of Congress, the session of 1870-71, the Senators -and Representatives from Georgia were admitted to their seats, the -Senate admitting those chosen to that body in July of 1868, Messrs. -Hill and Miller. The attempt of Governor Bullock to prolong the terms -of the members of the legislature and of the officers of the "State" -government was decidedly disapproved of by President Grant's -Administration, and an election was held for members and county -officers and for Representatives in Congress in December of 1870. The -white residents of the "State" stood well together, and carried the -election by a large majority against the Republicans. So soon as the -result was known Governor Bullock, whose term had still two more years -to run, abandoned his office and left the "State," and Georgia was thus -early rescued from negro domination, or rather "carpet-bag" domination -through negro suffrage. Her harder experiences during the years from -1868 to 1870 had worked out to her advantage, in that it brought the -respectable and capable portion of her white citizens together earlier -than was the case in the other reconstructed Commonwealths similarly -situated. - -[Sidenote: Negro rule in the South from the point of view of political -science and ethnical principle.] - -From the point of view of a sound political science the imposition of -universal negro suffrage upon the {245} Southern communities, in some -of which the negroes were in large majority, was one of the -"blunder-crimes" of the century. There is something natural in the -subordination of an inferior race to a superior race, even to the point -of the enslavement of the inferior race, but there is nothing natural -in the opposite. It is entirely unnatural, ruinous, and utterly -demoralizing and barbarizing to both races. It is difficult to believe -that the creation of such a relation between the blacks and whites of -the South was at all within the intentions of the framers of the -Reconstruction Acts. They were irritated because these communities -would not accord civil equality to the freedmen, would not accept the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and had passed acts which created a new -species of slavery or quasi-slavery of the blacks. They thought they -were placed between the alternative of continuing military government -in the South indefinitely, or giving the negro the political power with -which to maintain his civil rights. - -Opposition to military government in time of peace was an ingrained -principle of the American people, and there was a large part of people -of the North, nearly all adhering to the Republican party, who believed -that manhood suffrage was the true principle of a sound political -science. And it was thought that the only way of creating "States" in -the South which would sustain the Republican party was by giving the -negro the suffrage. It is not surprising, then, that they adopted the -course which they did. There was a third alternative, as has already -been pointed out, viz., the placing of these communities under -Territorial civil government and keeping them there until the spirit of -loyalty to the Nation was established and the principle and practice of -civil equality among all citizens was made thoroughly secure. {246} -But, as has been said, the idea that these communities were "States" of -the Union, notwithstanding their rebellion against the United States -and their attempted secession from the Union, seemed to prohibit the -following of this course, the only true and sound course. And so these -unhappy communities were given over, as sham "States" of the Union, to -the rule of the ignorant and vicious part of their population, to be -sustained therein by the military power of the Nation, under the excuse -that that part alone was loyal. - -A period of darkness now settled down upon these unhappy communities -blacker and more hopeless than the worst experiences of the war. The -conduct of the men who now appeared upon the scene as the creators of -the new South was so tyrannic, corrupt, mean and vulgar as to repel the -historian from attempting any detailed account of their doings, and -incline him to the vaguest outline. Moreover it is most difficult to -fix upon reliable facts in this period of confusion and political -night, illuminated only by the lurid gleams of passion and hatred. It -is best for the North, best for the South, best for the whole country, -and best for the world that this terrible mistake of the North and this -terrible degradation of the South should be dealt with briefly and -impersonally, and that lessons of warning should be drawn from these -experiences, instead of multiplying criminations and recriminations in -regard to them. - - - - -{247} - -CHAPTER XII - -"CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN 1868 -AND 1876 - -Escape of Virginia, Georgia and Texas from Negro Rule--North Carolina's -Rapid Recovery from Negro Rule--The Loyal League--Origin of the K. K. -K.'s--Methods of the Ku-Klux--Periods in the History of Negro Rule--The -Act for the Enforcement of the New Amendments--The Corruption in the -New "State" Governments--The Supplemental Enforcement Act--The -President's Proclamation of March 23d, 1871--The Ku-Klux Act of April -20th, 1871--Interference of the United States Military Power in the -Affairs of South Carolina--The President's Proclamation of May 3d, -1871--The President's Proclamation to the People of South Carolina--The -Ku-Klux Trials--Corruption in the "State" Governments of the South--The -Revolt in the Republican Party--The Liberal Republican Convention of -1872--Acceptance of the Liberal Republican Candidates by the -Democrats--Division in the Democratic Party--The Republican Platform -and Nominees--The Republican Triumph--Events in Alabama--Events in -Louisiana--The Downward Course between 1872 and 1874--The Elections of -1874--The Change in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas--The Status in South -Carolina in 1874--The Day of Complete Deliverance--The Status in -Mississippi in 1875--Fiat Money and the Resumption of Specie -Payments--The Inflation Bill of 1874 and the Veto of it by the -President. - - -[Sidenote: Escape of Virginia, Georgia and Texas from negro rule.] - -Virginia, Texas and Georgia had been in no great hurry, as we have -seen, to exchange military government exercised by the white officers -of the United States army for "State" government under the electorate -proposed in the Reconstruction Acts. In this they were wise. The army -officers did not, as a rule, sympathize with the radical {248} -movements of the Republicans in Congress, and they so executed the -duties imposed upon them as to cause the least suffering and -inconvenience. Their rule, though exercised under a repellent title, -was in fact far milder than, and far preferable to, the civil -government of the adventurer and the negro. They mingled socially with -the old families, and, in many cases, married their fair daughters. The -common soldiers from the Northern "States" also fraternized with their -race relatives in the South. They did not fancy the black soldiers -either of the regular army or the "State" militia, and many were the -cases in which they intervened between the defenceless ex-Confederates -and the brutal blacks in blue. It is even said by men who have every -opportunity to know that many of them doffed their uniforms on election -day, went to the polls, and voted the Democratic ticket. - -In spite of the threats of Congress, and the ever-increasing conditions -imposed by that body upon the permission to resume the "State" status, -these three communities held out under military rule until so many of -their leading citizens had been amnestied by Congress and made again -eligible to office and mandate, and until so much better provisions -concerning the enfranchisement of the ex-Confederates had been secured, -as to put them in a far better position to resume "State" government -than was the case two years before. Moreover, these communities had -larger white than black populations. After their full restoration, -consequently, Virginia and Georgia escaped largely the suffering -experienced by most of the others, and Texas also managed to pull -through the years from 1870 to 1874 with only about a four-fold -increase of taxation, and the creation of a debt of only about -5,000,000 of dollars, when she reached the period of union of almost -all her best citizens in the {249} Democratic party, which, in the -election of Richard Coke as Governor in 1874, and of a majority of the -legislative members, permanently triumphed in Texas. Mississippi also -had held back in 1868 and 1869, as we have seen, in order to secure -better terms for the ex-Confederates in the enfranchising and -disfranchising provisions of the "State" constitution, and by doing so -had accomplished this result. But Mississippi was one of the three -Southern communities in which the negro population far outnumbered the -white. Mississippi was not, for this reason chiefly, so fortunate as -Virginia, Texas and Georgia. She was obliged, with South Carolina and -Louisiana, to pass through the fiery furnace in order to fuse the -respectable white elements in her population into a single political -party with a well-understood and a well-determined purpose. - -[Sidenote: North Carolina's rapid recovery from negro rule.] - -Of all the "States" included in the Congressional Act of June 25th, -1868, only North Carolina had been fortunate enough to rid herself, -before 1872, of the rule of the adventurers and their ignorant negro -support. This happened because matters were driven to a crisis sooner -here than elsewhere. The legislature of 1868 had proceeded promptly to -authorize the issue of $25,000,000 of bonds, when the whole taxable -property of the "State" was not over $125,000,000. From the first -moment the people were threatened with confiscation, and when to this -was added the legislative act, known as the Schaffner law, authorizing -the Governor to suspend civil government, and institute martial law in -any part of the "State," and when he actually undertook to do so in -three counties of the "State," the whites came together in the election -of 1870, captured the legislature and redeemed the "State" from the -hideous tyranny with which it was threatened. - -{250} [Sidenote: The Loyal League.] - -Already before the Reconstruction Acts were passed, the political -adventurers in the South had begun organizing the negroes into secret -bodies, known later as the Union or Loyal League. The members of these -bodies were sworn to obey the decisions of the organization and to -execute them. The original idea seems to have been a combination for -protection against bands of lawless white people, and for mutual aid -and assistance in the hard struggle for existence to which the freedmen -were now exposed. The League soon took on, however, a political -character, and became a sort of Republican party organization in the -South. - -[Sidenote: Origin of the K. K. K.'s.] - -It is difficult to determine whether the Ku-Klux organization preceded -that of the Loyal League and provoked it or not. So far as we know, -both of them were first heard of in the year 1866. It is probable that -the Ku-Klux had its origin a little farther north than the Loyal -League. It is said by those who profess to know most about it, that the -first appearance of this body was in one of the southern counties of -Tennessee, Giles County; that it was first organized by a lot of young -loafers, probably ex-Confederate soldiers, who lived in the town of -Pulaski, the county town of that county; and that their first purpose -was the playing of practical jokes upon the ignorant and superstitious -negroes of the neighborhood. They operated in the night-time, went -disguised, travelled on horseback, their horses being also disguised, -and were oath-bound to execute the decisions of the organization, and -to protect each other. Whatever may have been its origin, this body -also soon found its political usefulness. It soon proved to be a -powerful means for intimidating and terrorizing the negroes, and also -white men acting with the negroes. - -{251} [Sidenote: Methods of the Ku-Klux.] - -After the Reconstruction Acts were passed and put into operation, and -especially after the Southern communities were reorganized as "States" -under them, and the military governments gave way to the "State" -governments, this organization spread all over the South, and -contributed much by its violent and unlawful methods toward wringing -finally the new "State" governments of the South from the hands of the -negroes and the "carpet-baggers." As it extended, its methods became -more lawless and violent. Its members whipped, plundered, burned, -abducted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered, for the prime purpose of -keeping the negroes from exercising suffrage and holding office. They -were protected by many respectable people who would not have -participated personally in their nefarious work. And they had -confederates everywhere, who, upon the witness stand and in the jury -box, would perjure themselves to prevent their conviction and -punishment. It was even said that there were many cases where members -of these Klans were able to have themselves subpoenaed as witnesses, or -summoned as jurors, in the trials of their comrades, and that they were -sworn to perjure themselves, if necessary, to clear each other. The -respectable people of the South tried to make it appear that these -lawless bands were simply freebooters, such as generally infest a -country for a time after a period of war, and had no political meaning -or purpose whatsoever; and it is probably true that the Klans never -went beyond county organization, any wider bond than the county -organization, or Klan, being rather the moral bond of a common purpose; -but it cannot be well questioned now that they had one purpose at least -in common, and that that was a chief purpose with them all, viz., to -terrorize the negro out of the exercise of his {252} newly-granted -privileges of suffrage and office-holding, and keep him in his place as -a menial. - -[Sidenote: The naturalness of these organizations.] - -The appearance of both the Loyal Leagues and the Ku-Klux Klans in the -manner in which they appeared, and at the time when they appeared, -ought not to cause any surprise to the student of history. Under the -reconstruction of the Southern communities as pursued before March of -1867 it seemed as if the freedmen were to be left to the tender mercies -of their former masters, irritated against them by the act of the North -in emancipating them, and by failure in war to prevent it. It was -entirely natural, not to say praiseworthy, for them to combine for the -defence of their newly found rights, and for mutual assistance in the -hard battle against want which they were now obliged to wage. And it -was no less natural that they should look for the intellectual power -necessary for forming such combinations to the white men from the North -who had helped them out of their bondage, and had given them food and -clothes in their hunger and nakedness. - -And, again, when by the Reconstruction Acts and the restoration of -martial law in the South under them, Congress turned the tables upon -the Southern white people, and placed the ignorant barbarians in -political control of them, and made every open attempt to resist this -control a penal offence, it was also rather natural, though not -praiseworthy, that men should have bound themselves together by secret -oaths to do anything and everything in their power to defeat this -blunder-crime against civilization. Whether natural or not, it always -happens when such attempts are made, and it is always to be expected. - -[Sidenote: The opportunity for political adventurers.] - -But to return to the order of the narrative. The formation of the Union -Leagues in 1867 and 1868 enabled {253} the negroes to vote in these -years for delegates to the constitutional conventions required under -the Reconstruction Acts, and to vote upon the ratification of the -constitutions framed by them, and to participate in the election for -the "State" officers and legislative members under those constitutions, -with the help and under the direction of these organizations, and to -operate the newly established "State" governments under the same -direction. This opened the way for the "carpet-bag" governments in the -Southern "States," whose deeds may be now briefly narrated. - -[Sidenote: Periods in the history of negro rule.] - -The landing places in this story may be placed at the years 1872, 1874, -and 1876. The year 1872 is the date of the national revolt against the -policy of the Washington government in the affairs of the reconstructed -"States." The year 1874 is the date when some of the reconstructed -"States" succeeded in overthrowing carpet-bag and negro rule, and the -Democrats succeeded in electing a majority of members in the lower -House of Congress. And the year 1876 is the date of the complete -overthrow of that rule and the complete establishment of the "solid -South" under white Democratic government. - -[Sidenote: The Act for the enforcement of the new Amendments.] - -Before all of the Southern communities had been admitted to -representation in Congress, and before any of them except Tennessee had -gotten fairly under way with their new "State" governments, a bill was -presented in Congress to provide for the enforcement of the Fourteenth -and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. It -will be remembered that these Amendments authorized the exercise of -power by the United States Government against "State" action only. They -read: "No _State_ shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the -privileges or immunities of a citizen of {254} the United States; nor -shall any _State_ deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, -without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its -jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; and "the right of -citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged -by the United States or by any _State_ on account of race, color or -previous condition of servitude." - -It is entirely clear from this language that, in the enforcement of -these new provisions of the Constitution, the United States Government -must direct its powers against the action of the "States," -respectively, through their legislators and officials, and against that -only. But in this bill which became law on the 31st of May, 1870, -Congress enacted penalties not only against "State" officers and agents -for the violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but -severe penalties against any _person_ within the "States," as well as -the Territories, who should undertake to deprive by unlawful means any -other person of his right to qualify and vote at any election, and -against any _person_ who under color of any law, statute or ordinance, -regulation or custom, should undertake to deprive any other person of -his civil rights and civil equality. Congress also, in this Act, vested -the jurisdiction over such cases in the United States courts and -authorized the President of the United States to enforce their -decisions by the aid of the United States army and navy if necessary. -Now, while it may probably be rightly claimed that the _Thirteenth_ -Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "Neither slavery nor -involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the -party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, -or in any place subject to their jurisdiction," empowers Congress to -make laws protecting the civil rights and civil equality of persons -{255} within the "States" against infringement by other _persons_, and -to invest the officers of the United States, both judicial and -executive, with the power to enforce these laws, since in this -Amendment the prohibition of slavery or involuntary servitude is not -directed against "State" action solely, but against any attempt made by -anybody to create an involuntary servitude, it cannot on the other hand -be claimed, with any show of correct interpretation, that the -_Fourteenth_ Amendment warrants the exercise of any such power by the -United States Government, and it is entirely out of the question to -claim that the Fifteenth Amendment protects the right of a person, -within a State, to vote against the attempt of another person or of -other persons to infringe the same, or even against the "State" itself -to do so, except it be on account of race, color or previous condition -of servitude. - -[Sidenote: Criticism of the Act.] - -There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any good constitutional -lawyer, at the present time, that Congress overstepped its -constitutional powers in that part of the Enforcement Act of May 31st, -1870, which related to the exercise of the suffrage, and trenched upon -the reserved powers of the "States." The excuse for it was that lawless -bands of white men, the Ku-Klux Klans and the like, were intimidating -the blacks, and in the approaching elections of the autumn of 1870 -would prevent them from voting. But that was a matter for the "State" -governments to look out for, and the "State" governments in the South -were, at the time of the passage of this Act, with the exception of -Tennessee, in the hands of the Republicans. - -[Sidenote: The corruption in the new "State" governments.] - -Meanwhile the new "State" governments had well begun their career of -corruption, shame and vulgarity. They were plundering the treasury, -increasing the taxes, selling franchises, issuing bonds, and -celebrating {256} high carnival everywhere and all the time. The -gentlemen and political leaders of the old school, and the old -political class, of the South looked on aghast, with mingled feelings -of bitter degradation and anger, and the hotspurs and desperadoes were -stirred to deeds of intimidation and violence. There is little doubt -that some negroes were terrified out of exercising the suffrage in the -election of 1870. Not yet, however, had enough of the disqualified -whites been amnestied, or enough intimidation been exercised, or -sufficient unity among the whites been attained, to work the overthrow -of "carpet-bag," negro rule. Enough, however, was threatened to -influence the Republican Congress to proceed to more complete, if not -more extreme, measures for the protection of the negro in his civil and -political rights, and to move the President to garrison the principal -points in the Southern "States" with United States soldiers. - -[Sidenote: The supplemental enforcement Act.] - -The Congress passed the Act of the 28th of February, 1871, which so -supplemented the Act of May 31st, 1870, as to place the whole control -of the registrations and elections when and where Representatives to -Congress should be chosen, in the hands of United States officers, the -supervisors, and the deputy marshals, commissioners and judges of the -United States courts. It may be claimed that Congress, under the power -to regulate the manner of holding Congressional elections vested in it -by Article I., section 4, of the Constitution, was authorized to pass -this law, provided it confined the action of it to the Congressional -registration and election. But since the "State" elections were held at -the same time and place, and under the same control and direction as -the Congressional, it was inevitable that the control of the United -States officers would be exercised, either directly {257} or -indirectly, over those also. And this was unquestionably the chief -purpose of the Act, so far as its execution in the Southern "States" -was concerned. - -[Sidenote: The President's Message of March 23d, 1871.] - -But this was not yet enough in the views of the Administration. In the -two years of his incumbency of the Presidential office, General Grant -had fallen into the arms of the radical Republicans, who appeared to be -in large majority, and the usual manoeuvering had begun for the second -term. Upon the basis of information, which turned out to be very -insufficient and unreliable, the President, on the 23d of March, 1871, -addressed a message to Congress, in which he affirmed that life and -property were insecure in some of the "States," and the carrying of the -mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous; that the power to -correct these evils was not possessed by the "State" governments; and -that it was doubtful if the Executive of the United States, under -existing laws, had the power to meet these exigencies; and asked -Congress to pass such laws as would enable him to cope with the -situation. - -[Sidenote: The Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871.] - -Congress answered this appeal with the noted, not to say notorious, -Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871, in which Congress simply threw to the -winds the constitutional distribution of powers between the "States" -and the United States Government in respect to civil liberty, crime and -punishment, and assumed to legislate freely and without limitation for -the preservation of civil and political rights within the "States," and -for the punishment of the infraction of the same by individual persons -conspiring together for that end, and for the punishment of the -conspiracy alone, whether the infraction or the conspiracy was executed -upon, or directed against, officers of the Government or merely private -persons; and {258} in which the act of a combination of private -individuals defying successfully the constituted authorities of the -United States in a given "State," or those of the "State" concerned, -was declared to be rebellion against the United States, upon the -happening, and during the continuance, of which the President might -suspend the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus within such -districts as he, by proclamation, might designate. - -[Sidenote: The unconstitutionality of the Act.] - -The first part of this Act was, unquestionably, an unconstitutional -encroachment upon the powers of the "States," in so far as it is -related to the protection of political rights against infraction, or -against conspiracy for the purpose of infraction, by private persons. -The second part was probably within the powers of Congress, but it was -a most extreme use of its powers. The "State" governments in the South -were in the hands of the Republican "carpet-baggers" and Republican -negroes, and there is no question that the governors and legislatures -of these "States" were quick enough to call in the aid of United States -troops long before it was necessary to do so. Moreover, the militia of -these "States" was composed almost entirely of negroes, and the whites -were forbidden to keep arms. Under such circumstances this Act of -Congress empowering the President to establish martial law upon his own -motion in time of peace within a "State" when combinations of private -persons had successfully defied, in any instance, the laws of the -"State" was a very stiff measure, and unwarranted by the facts of the -situation. - -[Sidenote: Interference of the United States military power in the -affairs of South Carolina.] - -As a matter of fact, the Governor of South Carolina had asked the -President to give him United States soldiers for the protection of the -"State" and its citizens against domestic violence, and the President -had, on the 24th of March just preceding the passage of this act, -issued his proclamation commanding the persons {259} composing the -unlawful combinations to disperse and retire to their abodes within -twenty days. This was the method prescribed by the Constitution for -bringing the military power of the United States to the assistance of a -"State" government whenever the "State" government might not be able to -maintain itself against domestic violence. There is no doubt that -General Scott of Ohio, whilom officer in the Union army and in the -Freedmen's Bureau, the "carpet-bag," radical Republican Governor of -South Carolina, attributed the most traitorous character possible to -these combinations, exaggerated the strength and extent of them to the -highest possible degree, and called for United States troops to -suppress them at the earliest possible moment. The most trustworthy men -in South Carolina affirmed then, and have continued to affirm to this -day, that those combinations had no traitorous intent whatsoever, but -were simply defensive in their nature; that the wholesale pardoning of -criminals by the Governor and the vagrancy of the negroes had filled -the country with desperadoes who made life, property, and female honor -insecure; and that, as the militia was composed of the friends of these -fiends, and the "State" government itself would not protect the white -citizens, it was absolutely necessary for the white people to create -some means of united action in self-defence and take the law into their -own hands. Statements to this effect were made by one Judge Carpenter, -a Republican "State" official of South Carolina, before the -investigating committee of Congress in 1871. - -[Sidenote: The President's proclamation of May 3d, 1871.] - -On the 3d day of May following the passage of the Ku-Klux Act, the -President issued his general proclamation warning the people that the -law applied to the whole country, but particularly exhorting the people -{260} in the newly reconstructed "States" to suppress all unlawful -combinations by their own voluntary efforts, and declaring, that while -he was reluctant to make use of the extraordinary powers conferred on -him by the Act, he would nevertheless do so if it should be found -necessary for securing all the citizens of the United States in "the -peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution -and the laws." - -[Sidenote: The President's proclamation to the people of South -Carolina.] - -On the 12th of the following October, the President directed his -proclamation to the people of South Carolina alone, declaring that -hostile combinations of persons making armed resistance to the civil -authorities of the "State" and the United States, in their attempt to -secure the people in their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the -United States and the Congressional Act of April 20th, 1871, too strong -to be overcome by these authorities, existed in the counties of York, -Marion, Chester, Laurens, Newberry, Fairfield, Lancaster and -Chesterfield, and commanding the members of these combinations to -deliver their arms and accoutrements into the hands of the United -States officers in those districts, and disperse to their abodes within -five days. - -[Sidenote: Suspension of the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus by -the President in certain counties of South Carolina.] - -At the end of the five days of grace, the President issued a third -proclamation, declaring that the members of these unlawful combinations -in the places mentioned in his former proclamation had not dispersed -and had not delivered up their arms and accoutrements as ordered, and -suspending the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus in the counties -of South Carolina above designated. - -On the 3d day of the following November a fourth proclamation was -published, in which the President {261} acknowledged his error in -including the county of Marion in the list of counties in which the -privileges of the writ were suspended, but declared that the situation -in Union county was such as to warrant the suspension of those -privileges in that county also, and warned the insurgents in that -county to deliver up their arms and accoutrements and disperse to their -abodes within five days. This warning not having been obeyed, according -to the views of the President, a final proclamation was issued by him -on the 10th day of November suspending the privileges of the writ of -Habeas Corpus in Union county. - -[Sidenote: The Ku-Klux trials.] - -In execution of the Act of April 20th, and in pursuance of these -proclamations, the President now sent a strong force of United States -troops into the district composed of the nine counties mentioned, the -commanders of which arrested some five or six hundred persons, kept -them in confinement so long as they pleased, and procured the -arraignment of some of them before the United States courts, where a -number of them were convicted and sentenced to fine or imprisonment or -to both. Whether there was any necessity for the exercise of such -harshness as this is a grave question. It was felt at the South to be -an abominable outrage, and the Democrats of the North held the same -opinion. More ominous than all this, however, was the fact that many -leading Republicans raised their voices in disapproval of it, and of -the law which authorized it. - -[Sidenote: Corruption in the "State" governments of the South.] - -[Sidenote: In South Carolina.] - -During the year 1872, in addition to all this, there came to the -knowledge of Congress and of the people of the North the frightful and -scandalous corruption of the "State" governments in the South. It is -very difficult to get at distinct and reliable facts upon a subject -which officials undertake to cover up and keep shrouded in darkness. -{262} But the record of these doings in South Carolina was something as -follows. The House of Representatives, the majority of the members of -which were negroes, and the presiding officer of which was the -notorious F. J. Moses, spent ninety-five thousand dollars to refurnish -its assembly hall, where the aristocrats of South Carolina had never -spent over five thousand. Clocks costing six hundred dollars each, -sofas two hundred dollars each, chairs at sixty dollars each, desks at -a hundred and twenty-five dollars each, mirrors at six hundred dollars -each, cuspidors at eight dollars each--such were the items of the bill. -In the four years from 1868 to 1872, two hundred thousand dollars were -expended for furniture for the legislative chambers alone. Then came -the bills of supplies, sundries and incidentals, amounting in one -session to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, one hundred and -twenty-five thousand of it for a free restaurant, lunch counter and -bar, at which the members and their friends fared most royally, eating, -drinking and smoking, and paying not a penny therefor directly, nor -indirectly, since many, if not most, of the members of that legislature -paid no stiver of the taxes. Then came the printing bills, averaging -more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year where ten -thousand dollars would have been more than enough to pay every -legitimate expense of that kind. - -Then came the sale of franchises of all kinds, and the pledging of the -credit of the "State" in the form of bonds to aid all sorts of -enterprises pretended to be set on foot, or promoted as is now said, by -combinations of legislators or officials or their friends. In 1868 the -"State" debt was about five millions of dollars, with almost enough -assets to pay it. In 1872 the assets had disappeared and the debt was -more than eighteen {263} millions, and nothing worth mentioning to show -for it. And all this when the "State" taxes had been raised from less -than a half million of dollars a year on a valuation of over four -hundred millions to two millions of dollars a year on a valuation of -less than two hundred millions of property. - -[Sidenote: In Louisiana.] - -In Louisiana, under the leadership of the brilliant young adventurer, -Henry C. Warmoth of Illinois, the financial history of the "State" was -even more scandalous. During the four years of Warmoth's governorship, -from 1868 to 1872, the average annual expenditure of the "State" -government was about six millions of dollars, when, measured by the -previous experiences of the "State," six hundred thousand dollars would -have been ample to defray all legitimate expenses. At the beginning of -Warmoth's administration the debt of the "State" was between six and -seven millions of dollars, with more than enough assets to extinguish -it. At the end of the four years of his power, in 1872, the debt was -nearly fifty millions of dollars, the assets had all disappeared, and -there was nothing worth mentioning to show for the one or the other. - -In the counties and municipalities of both "States" the corruption was -equally rampant, shameless, and vulgar. It is impossible to obtain -exact figures in regard to it, or to estimate with any degree of -exactness, or even probability, the amounts stolen and made away with. -In the other reconstructed "States" where the adventurers and the -negroes held sway, the "State" governments worked along the same lines, -though not to the same appalling extent. - -It was the most soul-sickening spectacle that Americans had ever been -called upon to behold. Every principle of the old American polity was -here reversed. In place of government by the most intelligent and {264} -virtuous part of the people for the benefit of the governed, here was -government by the most ignorant and vicious part of the population for -the benefit, the vulgar, materialistic, brutal benefit of the governing -set. - -[Sidenote: The revolt in the Republican party.] - -It is no subject of surprise or wonder that, confronted with these -frightful results of radical Republican policy and administration in -the South, such Republicans as Horace Greeley, Charles Francis Adams, -Lyman Trumbull, David Davis, Carl Schurz, Gratz Brown, Stanley -Matthews, George Hoadly, J. R. Spaulding, George W. Julian, Horace -White, David A. Wells, and the like, turned with disgust from the -nauseating transactions and resolved to do what was in their power to -put an end to it all. Even the radical, but honest, Sumner gave his -adherence to the movement for a change of the Administration, as the -only way to check the terrible corruption which was creeping over the -land. Sumner, it is true, had been made to feel personally the heavy -hand of the Administration. He had been dropped, the preceding year, -from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the -requirement of the Administration, because he had so strongly and -successfully opposed the Santo Domingo policy of the President and his -"aide-de-camp." But he had opposed that because he saw in it -corruption, robbery and bloodshed. - -[Sidenote: The Liberal Republican convention of 1872.] - -The Liberal Republicans were bolters, of course, from the regular -organization, and there was no sufficient opportunity for them to -construct a party organization for themselves in time for the -Presidential election of 1872. A general call for the leaders among -them to meet in mass convention was issued from a "State" convention of -Liberal {265} Republicans in Missouri, and the meeting took place at -Cincinnati on the 1st day of May, 1872. - -[Sidenote: Their platform.] - -The platform which it presented to the people demanded the removal, at -once, of all political disabilities from the white men of the South, -the maintenance of impartial suffrage and of equal civil rights, the -cessation of military rule in the South and the supremacy of civil over -military power, the reform of the civil service, and a speedy return to -specie payments. Many of the Liberal Republicans were inclined toward a -much more moderate tariff policy, but out of respect for the opinions -of those among them who were strong protectionists, they abandoned -their attempt to insert any doctrine on this subject in the platform. -The protectionists were equally considerate, and so the new party went -to the country uncommitted upon this very important question. - -[Sidenote: Their nominees.] - -It was at first supposed that the choice of the convention for the -Presidency would lay between Judge David Davis of Illinois, Charles -Francis Adams of Massachusetts and Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois. -But an unexpected hostility of a very bitter nature soon developed -between the supporters of Davis and Adams, and rendered the nomination -of either of them impossible. This was evident on the first ballot, on -which Mr. Greeley, Senator Trumbull and Gratz Brown each received more -votes than Judge Davis, and together more votes than Mr. Adams. It was -thus manifest that the Western men would not take Mr. Adams and the -Eastern men would not take Judge Davis. The compromise was quickly made -upon Greeley, and Gratz Brown was put with him upon the ticket. It was -an unfortunate selection. The country did not want any brilliant -experiments at the moment. It wanted to settle down to business. And it -was to be {266} foreseen that it would not be willing to make a -newspaper man President at such a juncture. - -[Sidenote: Acceptance of the Liberal Republican candidates by the -Democrats.] - -But stranger than the fact that the prince of protectionists was now -running for the presidency on a platform which ignored protection, was -the fact that the Democratic party, strengthened again by its Southern -wing, now accepted the platform of the Liberal Republicans, and in -convention at Baltimore, in July following the Cincinnati meeting, -nominated the Liberal Republican candidates for the presidency and the -vice-presidency as its own candidates. The action of the Democrats, -both as to the platform and the candidates, was almost unanimous, and -it would be ungracious to express any suspicion of its sincerity. The -change of profession on the part of the Southern Democrats was very -great indeed, so great as to be surprising, but they had evidently come -to the conclusion that it was useless to contend with the North any -longer against the civil and political rights of the freedmen, and that -it was best for all concerned to accept the inevitable, and try to put -themselves in the most advantageous position possible for adjusting the -relations of their section to it. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Greeley and the Democrats.] - -Mr. Greeley was, indeed, in strange company, but the company had come -to him. He had not gone to them. He welcomed their support, and became -contaminated by it in the eyes of a vast majority of the people of the -North. His own great ambition to be President also caused him to say -and to do some imprudent and undignified things. More than all, the -time had not yet come for the great change. The country was fast -approaching a financial crisis, and any shock would bring it on with -such sudden violence as to make it widespread and disastrous. - -{267} [Sidenote: Division in the Democratic Party.] - -As the last move, the "straight-out" Democrats bolted the ticket in -September, and at a convention held in Louisville, Kentucky, nominated -Charles O'Conor of New York for President, and John Quincy Adams of -Massachusetts for Vice-President. - -[Sidenote: The Republican platform and nominees.] - -The September and October elections in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, -Ohio, and Indiana demonstrated the hopelessness of the opposition to -the radical Republicans. They had held their convention in Philadelphia -in the early part of June, had issued a platform which simply asserted -the righteousness of what they had done and the determination to -persist in the course heretofore followed, and had nominated General -Grant for re-election to the presidency with Senator Henry Wilson, of -Massachusetts, for his running mate. - -[Sidenote: The Republican triumph.] - -In the election, they swept all of the Northern "States" by heavy -popular majorities, and with their election machinery in the Southern -"States" they captured a majority of these also. In those Southern -"States" which were free from carpet-bag negro rule the Greeley -electors were chosen, that is in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, -Tennessee, Georgia and Texas. In the North, a very large number of -Democrats had failed to go to the polls. They could hardly have elected -Greeley, however, had they all voted for him. They were pretty sure of -this, and they took the opportunity of administering a rebuke to their -chiefs for not nominating candidates who were members of their own -party. - -[Sidenote: The effect of the triumph of the Republicans.] - -While there is no doubt that the re-election of General Grant, and the -election of a strong Republican majority in Congress, quieted the mind -of the North, there is also no doubt that they caused great {268} -discouragement among the white people of the South, since they operated -as an encouragement to the adventurers and the negroes to persevere in -their corrupt and conscienceless management of the "State" governments. - -In several of the reconstructed "States" the Democrats had made strong -efforts to secure control of the "State" governments. The Amnesty Act -of May 22d, 1872, had removed the disqualifications of the Fourteenth -Amendment from all the Southern leaders, except such as had been -members of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, or had held -judicial, military, naval, or diplomatic office under the United -States, or had been heads of departments in ministerial office. A large -number of these leaders had thus been placed in a position to -participate as candidates for office and legislative position in the -election, and to aid greatly in the work of rescuing their "States" -from negro Republican rule. In Alabama and Louisiana they had very -nearly succeeded. In Alabama they had elected the Governor and a -majority of the members to the lower house of the legislature in the -autumn of 1870, and in 1872 they claimed to have elected a majority of -the members to both houses. - -[Sidenote: Events in Alabama.] - -In Alabama, the Democratic members-elect of the legislature convened in -the capitol, and the Republican members-elect in the court-house. The -Democratic Governor, Lindsay, recognized the Democratic legislature, -and the Democratic legislature then canvassed the votes for Governor -and declared the Republican candidate, D. P. Lewis, elected. Lewis then -recognized the Republican legislature, and telegraphed to Opelika for -United States soldiers to come to Montgomery. They arrived by the next -train, and, backed by these, the Governor and his friends, in and {269} -out of the legislature, succeeded in constituting a legislature with a -small Republican majority in both houses; and the whites fell back -again under black rule, discouraged and exhausted by the exertions and -the failure to escape from it. - -[Sidenote: Events in Louisiana.] - -In Louisiana the events were far more extraordinary and violent. -Warmoth's rule was approaching its end, and his Republican enemies, -what was known as the Custom House faction, the United States -officials, were fairly panting to get at him. To foil them, he went -over to the Democrats and promised to give them a fair chance to elect -their candidate for Governor and their candidates for the legislature. -For this he expected protection from them against the Custom House -gang, to whom he had denied what they had conceived to be their proper -share of the public plunder, and who, if in possession of the "State" -government, would make him answer for it. Warmoth supposed he was able -with his election machinery to give the "State" to the Democrats -whether the voters should do so or not. The election took place at the -same time as the presidential election, November 4th, 1872. The returns -were sent by the supervisors and commissioners of elections to Warmoth, -and he delivered them to his Returning Board, consisting of himself, -the Secretary of State, F. J. Herron, and one John Lynch; the other two -members of the Board as constituted by the legislature, by the act of -1870, viz., Lieutenant-Governor Pinchback and one Anderson, being -disqualified from serving, since both of them were candidates for -office at this election. The Governor had his suspicions aroused about -the loyalty of both Herron and Lynch to him before the count took -place, and having the legal power to remove Herron, he did so at once -and appointed one John Wharton, a friend upon whom he could rely, in -{270} Herron's place. Lynch now refused to act with them, and Herron -denied the power of the Governor to dismiss him from the Secretaryship -of State, and from his _ex officio_ membership in the Returning Board. -Warmoth and Wharton proceeded, however, to supply the place of Lynch, -as they might do under the law, and Herron and Lynch proceeded to -supply the place of Warmoth. - -The Warmoth Board had the returns, and it was also generally felt that -the Democratic candidate for Governor, John McEnery, had been chosen by -the voters. Moreover, the right of Herron to retain the office of -Secretary of State was immediately brought before the supreme court of -the "State," and the court gave its decision against Herron's -contention. It seemed now certain that the Warmoth Returning Board -would declare McEnery to have been elected Governor. But the Republican -candidate, W. P. Kellogg, then a Senator from Louisiana in Congress, -was watchful and resourceful. He secured from United States District -Judge Durell an injunction which forbade the Warmoth Board to do -anything except in the presence of the Lynch Board, and forbade McEnery -from claiming his election under the returns which might be given out -by the Warmoth Board. - -[Sidenote: Warmoth and Durell.] - -Warmoth met this by a move which was equally a _coup de surprise_. The -legislature had at its last session passed a law vesting the power to -select the members of the Returning Board in the senate. The Governor -had not signed this bill, and probably never intended to sign it, since -it proposed to take the control of the Board out of his hands, but it -now seemed to furnish him a way of escape from Durell's order. He -hastily signed the bill and promulgated it as law, and as the senate -was not in session, proceeded to appoint the members of the new Board -himself, under the power of the Governor to make temporary appointments -{271} to office when the senate was not in session. He appointed one -Dr. Feriet chairman of the Board, and put the election returns in his -hands. This Board declared that McEnery had been elected Governor and -that the Greeley electors had been chosen. The Governor published these -decisions officially on the 5th day of December, and the affair seemed -to have been closed. But to the surprise of everyone concerned, and of -the whole country, in the middle of the night following, Judge Durell -issued an order to the United States Marshal, S. B. Packard, to take -possession of the capitol and hold it at the pleasure of the Judge -against all unlawful bodies attempting to convene therein. The Judge -claimed that Warmoth had committed a contempt against his court in the -Returning Board proceeding, and he declared that the Lynch Board was -the legal body. His order furthermore required the commander of the -United States troops to furnish a detachment of soldiers to sustain the -United States marshal in taking possession of the capitol, and in -enforcing the Lynch Board's canvass and decision. - -A more palpable outrage upon the lawful powers of a "State" could -hardly have been conceived. The Judge had not a scintilla of authority -upon which to rest his proceeding. It is claimed that he was drunk when -he made the order. But this can hardly have been true, that is he could -not have been any more than ordinarily drunk, since the order was not -withdrawn when he became ostensibly sober again, but was made the basis -of a proceeding which lasted through many days, and the results of -which were the counting in of Kellogg and of a Republican legislature -by the Lynch Board, the immediate instalment of the Lynch Board -legislature, the almost immediate impeachment of Warmoth by it and his -removal from the governorship, the installation of the {272} -Lieutenant-Governor, the negro Pinchback, in his seat, the recognition -of the Lynch Board legislature and of Pinchback by the President of the -United States as the lawful legislature and executive of Louisiana, and -the inauguration of Kellogg as Governor at the end of the -Warmoth-Pinchback term. If this was all the work of a drunken spree, it -must have been a very long one, and there must have been many -participants in it besides the Judge. - -The Warmoth Board Governor and legislature undertook to set up -government also, sustained as they undoubtedly were both by the law, -and by public opinion in Louisiana and probably throughout the country, -and partially organized a militia force. It was the fighting between -this militia and the metropolitan police in the streets of New Orleans -which occasioned the suppression of the McEnery government at last by -United States soldiers. - -[Sidenote: The downward course between 1872 and 1874.] - -[Sidenote: The elections of 1874.] - -For two years more now the government of the adventurers, based on -negro support, continued in the "States" south of the Tennessee line, -except Georgia. Property was decreasing in amount and value; taxes were -being doubled; and new bond issues were being made, and the bonds sold -at a great reduction upon their face value, or stolen outright. But the -day of deliverance was coming. The conscience of the Nation had been -aroused, and in the elections of 1874 the voters throughout the country -delivered a stunning rebuke to the party responsible for the hideous -situation in the South. It is true that other issues were influential -in producing the _bouleversement_ of 1874, especially the financial -panic of 1873 and the corruption in the circles of the Federal -Administration itself, the Whiskey ring frauds, and the Indian agent -peculations. We must also {273} remember that at this very election -several of the Southern "States" relieved themselves of Republican rule -and sent solid, or almost solid, Democratic delegations to Congress. -But with all proper allowance for the effect of these things, there -still remained, as the chief cause of the change of view in the North, -the revolt of the popular conscience against being any longer dragooned -into the support of the policy of the Republican party in the Southern -"States," and the popular disgust at the everlasting "waving of the -bloody shirt" whenever the dominance of that party seemed anywhere -threatened. At any rate, it was a clean sweep, and from a majority of -two-thirds in the Forty-third Congress, the Republicans found -themselves in possession of only about one-third of the seats in the -Lower House of the Forty-fourth Congress. - -[Sidenote: The change in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas.] - -Moreover, three more of the Southern "States" freed themselves, at this -time, from "Black Republican" rule. In Alabama, the respectable whites -had now about all gone into the Democratic ranks, and with the election -of George S. Houston as Governor, and a legislature in large majority -Democratic, the "State" won at last its self-government. Likewise by a -similar fusion of all the respectable whites into the Democratic party, -A. H. Garland was elected Governor of Arkansas and a legislature with a -large Democratic majority was chosen, and from that time forward the -"State" government has been in the hands of its own citizens. The same -result was reached in Texas, where the union of the respectables of all -parties upon the Democratic candidates elected Richard Coke Governor -and a legislature of reputable white men. - -[Sidenote: The status in South Carolina in 1874.] - -[Sidenote: Governor Chamberlain.] - -Even South Carolina very nearly escaped her thraldom, and came near to -electing a white Democrat Governor. As it was, she got a moderate -Republican for {274} Governor, Mr. D. H. Chamberlain, a Northerner -indeed, but a man of great ability and undoubted honesty, who did -everything in his power to redeem the "State" from the miserable -condition into which the errors and crimes of his predecessors had -brought it. He naturally soon found himself in conflict with some of -the leaders of his own party in the "State" and at Washington, and was -greatly impeded by them in carrying out his own purposes. At last, in -1875, the break between him and the members of his party in the -legislature was completed by the act of the legislature in electing the -notorious F. J. Moses, Jr., and the negro, W. J. Whipper, "State" -judges. The Governor was so incensed at this act of downright depravity -that he refused to commission the two judges-elect to the judicial -offices to which they had been chosen. Whipper threatened to use force -to gain possession of the office, and the Governor issued his -proclamation threatening to arrest every person who should give Whipper -any aid or support in this attempt as disturbers of the public peace. -The Governor triumphed and protected the "State" against the terrible -degradation which impended over it, but his brave attitude ruined him -with the radical and base elements of his party. - -[Sidenote: The day of complete deliverance.] - -[Sidenote: The status in Mississippi in 1875.] - -The day of complete deliverance was now, however, rapidly approaching. -The election of 1875 in Mississippi showed that the domination of the -"Black Republicans" in the Southern "State" governments could last no -longer. Here was a "State" in which the negro population exceeded the -white very largely, but in the election of 1875 the whites finally got -together and what they could not accomplish in one way they did in -another. The whites organized themselves into rifle clubs, attended the -Republican {275} meetings and insisted upon a division of the time -between their own speakers and the Republican speakers at these -meetings. A great deal of fraud and intimidation was practised, and -some violence was exercised, but always in such a manner as not to -provoke the calling of United States troops to the scene. The immediate -occasion of these desperate movements on the part of the whites was the -treatment accorded the petition made by the taxpayers' convention of -the "State" to the legislature for relief from the intolerable burdens -under which the taxpayers were suffering. This petition of the 4th of -January, 1875, recited that between the years 1869 and 1874 the rate of -"State" taxation had been raised from ten cents on the hundred dollars -of assessed value of lands to one dollar and forty cents, and that in -many cases the increase in the rate of the county levies had been even -greater, so that the whole product of the soil was hardly sufficient to -pay the taxes. The negro legislature laughed at these representations, -and did not deign to consider them, much less to do anything to satisfy -the frightful grievances complained of. It was now a choice between -complete destruction and the employment of any means necessary to -escape from it. There was no use in talking about observing the letter -of the law at such a moment. The law was iniquitous and it was rapidly -destroying all that was left of prosperity, civilization, morality and -decency. If it would not yield, it had to be broken. The movement was -successful. It was really a revolution. It resulted in the election of -a Democratic legislature in November of 1875, the disruption of the -Republican party in the "State," the framing of an impeachment against -the Republican Governor, Ames, his resignation and departure from the -"State," and the accession of the {276} Democrat, John M. Stone, to the -gubernatorial office. - -It was thus that the eventful year 1876 was introduced, and it was an -earnest of the relief which was now to come to the remaining "States" -of the South suffering under the rule of the adventurers and their -negro allies. - -[Sidenote: Fiat money and the resumption of specie payments.] - -While the Republican party had step by step, and almost unconsciously, -involved itself in the support of dishonest and oppressive government -at the South, it was, on the other hand, fighting the battle for -financial honesty in the Nation at large against the fiat money heresy -and the schemes of repudiation invented and supported by the national -Democracy. Its Congressional majority had passed the Refunding Acts of -July 14th, 1870, and January 20th, 1871, for refunding the debt of the -United States in coin bonds bearing five, four and one-half and four -per centum interest. These acts authorized the issue of eighteen -hundred millions of dollars in these new bonds, five hundred millions -payable after ten years, and bearing five per centum interest, three -hundred millions payable after fifteen years and bearing four and -one-half per centum interest, and one thousand millions payable after -thirty years and bearing four per centum interest. By the Act of March -18th, 1869, the Republican Congress had declared that all of the -obligations of the United States should be paid in coin or its -equivalent, unless otherwise specifically stipulated in the law -authorizing the obligation. This Act was made applicable to past, as -well as future, obligations. It rested on the principle that debts must -be paid in the best money of the country unless otherwise agreed to in -the contract. This is, of course, the sound principle both of morals -and finance, and no act of Congress pronouncing {277} it would have -been considered necessary, except for the great fact that the -Democratic party, in its campaign of 1868, had espoused the opposite -doctrine and had fought the campaign largely under that issue. The Act, -however, might of course be repealed, and in that case the question as -to whether the principal sum of the greater part of the national -indebtedness should be paid in coin would be again opened, since the -laws authorizing the incurring of these obligations provided only for -the payment of the interest upon them in coin. It was in order to -forestall the possibility of a repeal of the Act of March 18th, 1869, -as well as in order to make a large saving in the interest charge, that -these Refunding Acts were passed. - -After the panic of 1873 had resulted in such a depression of business -and depreciation of values throughout the country as to create greater -discontent with the existing political management, and this discontent -had manifested itself so distinctly in the elections of 1874, -announcing to the Republican party that after March 5th, 1875, a -Democratic majority would prevail in the House of Representatives, it -was manifest to the Republican leaders, in Congress and out of -Congress, that if anything was to be done in regard to the resumption -of specie payment, anything for bringing the paper currency of the -United States up to a coin value, it must be done speedily, and on the -21st of December, 1874, Mr. Sherman reported a bill from the Finance -Committee to the Senate for this purpose, which became a law on the -14th day of January following, and which provided for the redemption of -the fractional currency with silver coins of the value of ten, -twenty-five and fifty cents, so rapidly as these coins could be minted; -abolished the charge of one-fifth of one per centum on the coinage of -gold, making the coinage of gold at the mints of the {278} United -States free; repealed the law limiting the aggregate amount of the -circulating notes of the national banking associations, and the law for -the withdrawal of national-bank currency from, and its redistribution -among, the several "States" and Territories; ordered the Secretary of -the Treasury in issuing new circulating notes to the national banking -associations to retire United States legal tender notes to the amount -of eighty per centum of such issues, until the United States legal -tender notes should be reduced to three hundred millions of dollars, -and after January 1st, 1879, to redeem these legal tender notes in coin -on their presentation at the office of the Assistant Treasurer of the -United States in the city of New York, in sums of not less than fifty -dollars; and, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to do this, -authorized him to use any unappropriated surplus revenue which might -be, from time to time, in the Treasury, and to sell bonds of the -description mentioned in the Act of July 14th, 1870, in such amounts as -he should find necessary to accomplish the purpose. - -[Sidenote: The inflation bill of 1874 and the veto of it by the -President.] - -It is true that the Republican majority in Congress had not taken this -high ground concerning the public credit and sound money without some -wavering. The President himself had become frightened by the panic of -the autumn of 1873, and in his annual message of December 1st following -had made recommendations that might be regarded as favorable to an -inflation of the existing body of paper money. His party friends in -Congress very soon produced a bill which, among other things, provided -for the increase of the United States notes and the national bank notes -to the extent of about one hundred millions of dollars, and passed it. -But the President had either thought the question out more fully, or -had been in receipt of some very sound {279} advice, after he wrote the -message of December 1st, 1873. On the 22d of April, 1874, he sent a -special message to Congress vetoing the bill. This stand of the -President recalled the Republicans in Congress from their economic -aberrations, and set them again upon the course which led to the Act of -the 14th of January, 1875. - -While at the moment this law for the resumption of specie payments in -the short period of four years, or rather less, from the time of its -enactment seemed a rather hazardous, not to say desperate, move on the -part of the Republicans, it soon became manifest that they could have -done nothing so calculated to strengthen the hold of the party upon the -solid and conservative men of the country as just this very thing. Many -of these men who had usually voted with the Republicans disapproved of -the Southern policy of the party, and were on the point of turning -against it. With the Resumption Act the financial policy of the -Republican party, and of the country, was dragged to the front, and the -Southern policy was forced backward, and made to constitute a less -prominent issue in the campaign of 1876. This was not only wise party -management, but it was also a fortunate thing for the entire country. -The country was not yet in a position to endure a Democratic -administration, and, on the other hand, it was surfeited with -reconstruction Republican administrations. It wanted a sound money -Republican administration, which would devote itself to the development -of the economic interests of the whole people, and would let the -"State" governments in the South have a chance to work out their own -salvation. And this was just what it got in the election of 1876, and -in the administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes. - - - - -{280} - -CHAPTER XIII - -THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - -The Republican National Convention of 1876--The Platform--The -Nominees--The National Democratic Convention of 1876--The Platform--The -Nominees--The Campaign and the Election--The Count and the -Twenty-second Joint Rule--Views in Regard to the Power to Count the -Electoral Vote--The Republicans in Advantage in the Count of the -Vote--The Electoral Commission Bill--The Passage of the Bill--The -Members of the Commission--The Fifth Justice--Justice David Davis--The -Counting of the Electoral Vote by Congress--The Double Returns from -South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Oregon--The Counsel before the -Commission--The Republican Position--The Democratic Position--The -Decisions of the Commission--Mr. Hayes Declared President--The Truth in -Regard to the Election--Mr. Hayes's Southern Policy--The Result of His -Policy--Reconciliation between the North and the South. - - -[Sidenote: The Republican National Convention of 1876.] - -[Sidenote: The platform.] - -When the managers of the Republican party met in National nominating -convention at Cincinnati, on the 14th of June, 1876, they rightly -divined the policy which alone could lead them to victory in the -elections of the following autumn. They constructed their platform in -such a way as to place the financial issue in the foreground, with the -pledges of the party to uphold the public credit, and to place the -currency of the country on a coin basis. They also declared the -pacification of the South to be a sacred duty, and pledged the {281} -party to a thoroughgoing reform of the civil service. Connected -therewith were, of course, the usual platitudes about the civil and -political liberty and equality of every American citizen and of -everybody else. - -[Sidenote: The nominees.] - -While there was no name before the convention commanding universal -popular assent, as had been the case at the second nomination of -Lincoln and the two nominations of Grant, still there was one which, in -so far as its possessor was known, inspired strong, if not -enthusiastic, confidence. It was not pronounced in the first balloting -so loudly as that of the brilliant Blaine, or the stolid Morton, or the -arrogant Conkling, but, as the voting continued, more and more of the -ballots contained it, and at last on the seventh round, it received a -majority of the votes. The choice was a wise one. Mr. Hayes had been a -good soldier, a valuable member of the National legislature, and an -excellent Governor of his native "State," in which office he was -serving for a third term at the time of his nomination for the -Presidency. He was a man of sound sense, unimpeachable character, -generous feeling, pleasing manners, and resolute will. There was a -tendency at first on the part of the friends of some of the -disappointed aspirants to belittle his qualities, and to represent him -as a weak man, and his conciliatory methods were often mistaken for -weakness by those who were not his rivals or his enemies, or the -friends of his rivals or his enemies; but as history sets his character -and his work in their proper perspective they both stand out more and -more strongly, and make his Administration appear to be one of the most -important in American annals. Especially does it honor him for his -earnest, faithful and successful battle for sound money and the -maintenance of the public faith, and for his determination to put an -end to the support by Federal {282} bayonets of the "carpet-bag," negro -"State" governments of the South. - -[Sidenote: The National Democratic Convention of 1876.] - -[Sidenote: The platform.] - -A fortnight after the nomination by the Republican convention of -Rutherford B. Hayes for President and William A. Wheeler for -Vice-President, the Democratic leaders met at St. Louis for the purpose -of issuing the campaign creed of their party and choosing its candidate -for the chief magistracy of the Nation. The platform put forward by -them was remarkable for its length, its language of fierce -vituperation, and its loud calls for reform. Its specific propositions -were the reduction of the duties on foreign imports to a revenue basis, -and the repeal of the Resumption Act of 1875, on the strange ground -that it obstructed the return to specie payments. - -[Sidenote: The nominees.] - -Their candidate had virtually been determined on before they met. It -could be nobody else than the popular Governor of New York, Samuel J. -Tilden, shrewd in business, rich, the most successful political manager -New York had produced since Van Buren, greatly heralded as the very -archpriest of reform, the hope of the young men in politics; but not a -statesman in the highest sense of the word, nor a demagogue in the -lowest sense of that word--a genuine American politician of the first -order. He was nominated on the second ballot, and by a unanimous vote. -With him was placed as candidate for the second place the popular Mr. -Hendricks of Indiana. It was a strong ticket, and it was generally -believed that it would win. Mr. Tilden himself felt sure of the -electoral votes of all the Southern "States" and of New York, Indiana, -New Jersey and Connecticut. - -[Sidenote: The campaign and the election.] - -Mr. Tilden quietly managed his own campaign, while Mr. Hayes left his -political interests in the hands of the {283} very astute chairman of -the National committee of the Republican party, Senator Chandler of -Michigan. There was not much doubt on the morning following the -election, the morning of the 8th November, that the Democrats had -triumphed. Almost all of the Republican newspapers conceded it. But the -Republican managers knew that they could do what they pleased with the -electoral votes of South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, through their -canvassing boards in these "States," with the power in these boards to -throw out the returns from any place where, in their opinion, there had -been any violence, intimidation, fraud or bribery exercised or -attempted; and when the managers found that they were pretty sure of -the electoral votes of all of the Northern Commonwealths, except -Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Indiana, they simply added to the -one hundred and sixty-six electoral votes of which they were -practically sure the nineteen votes of Louisiana, Florida and South -Carolina, of which they were absolutely sure, if needed, and sent out -from their head-quarters the positive announcement that Hayes and -Wheeler had been elected by a majority of one electoral vote. - -[Sidenote: The count and the twenty-second joint rule.] - -But the final count of the electoral vote must be in the presence of -the two Houses of Congress assembled in one place, and the Democrats -were in majority in one of the Houses, and the twenty-second joint -rule, as it was called, which had been applied since the count of the -electoral vote of 1864 for the ascertainment of the result of the -returns to Congress, ordained that the electoral vote of any "State" -might be thrown out by either House. If this rule should be considered -as still in force, and be applied in the impending count, the -Democratic House of Representatives could reject the returns of the -{284} Republican authorities in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, -and thus secure the election of Mr. Tilden. This rule, however, was not -necessarily binding upon this Congress, as it had not been re-enacted -by the Houses composing it. That is, either House could lawfully refuse -to acquiesce in its further application. The Republicans now repudiated -it, although it was their predecessors who had created it. - -[Sidenote: Views in regard to the power to count the electoral vote.] - -Some of the Republicans now claimed that the Constitution vested the -Vice-President, or rather the President of the Senate, with the power -to count the electoral votes. The language of the Constitution was, and -still is, "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the -Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the -votes shall then be counted." No President of the Senate had, however, -ever ventured to determine whether a disputed return, in case any such -had been received by him, was to be counted, and Mr. Ferry, the -President of the Senate, gave his Republican friends to understand that -he did not feel like assuming any such responsibility. - -[Sidenote: The Republicans in advantage in the count of the vote.] - -Nevertheless, the Republicans were in decided advantage. They had the -President of the United States to execute by force whatever they might -resolve upon, and they had the President of the Senate, whose scruples -the Democrats had not discovered, and, of course, they had one House of -the Congress, the Senate. - -[Sidenote: The Electoral Commission Bill.] - -The Democrats felt that they must make an effort to change the -situation. They, therefore, quickly seized upon a suggestion made by a -Republican member of the Judiciary Committee of the House of -Representatives, Mr. G. W. McCrary, and voted a measure in the House -for the appointment of {285} members to a joint committee of the two -Houses, which committee should immediately report a proposition for -counting the electoral votes. This was the 14th of December, 1876. The -Senate agreed to this measure on the next day. Three Republicans and -four Democrats were appointed by the House, and four Republicans and -three Democrats by the Senate, and the committee so constituted -reported, on the 18th of January, 1877, the famous Electoral Commission -bill. - -[Sidenote: The passage of the Bill.] - -The essential provisions of the bill were, first, the creation of a -Commission composed of five members of the House of Representatives, -five members of the Senate, and five Justices of the Supreme Court of -the United States, the members from the House to be chosen by the -House, the members from the Senate to be chosen by the Senate, while -the Justices of the Supreme Court from the first, third, eighth and -ninth circuits were designated in the bill, and they were authorized to -select a fifth from among the other members of the Court; second, the -fixing of the rule that the electoral vote of any "State" from which -only a single return had been received should be counted unless _both_ -Houses should decide otherwise, and of the other rule that when more -than one return had been received from any "State," the Commission -should forthwith decide which return should be counted, and this return -should be counted unless _both_ Houses should reject the decision, or -order otherwise; and third, the reservation of any right existing under -the Constitution and laws to question before the courts of the United -States the titles of the persons who should be declared elected -President and Vice-President to these respective offices. The bill was -subjected to a most thorough discussion in _both_ Houses. It passed the -Senate on the 24th of January by a vote of forty-seven to seventeen. -Twenty-one {286} Republicans and twenty-six Democrats voted in favor of -it, and sixteen Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. It -passed the House on the 26th by a vote of one hundred and ninety-one to -eighty-six. Thirty-three Republicans and one hundred and fifty-eight -Democrats voted for it, and sixty-eight Republicans and eighteen -Democrats voted against it. It is certainly fair, therefore, to call it -a Democratic measure. The President signed the bill, nevertheless, on -the 29th. - -[Sidenote: The members of the Commission.] - -The Senate immediately chose Messrs. Edmunds, Frelinghuysen and Morton, -Republicans, and Messrs. Bayard and Thurman, Democrats, to represent it -upon the Commission, and the House chose Messrs. Garfield and Hoar, -Republicans, and Messrs. Abbott, Hunton and Payne, Democrats. The -Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the bill as members of the -Commission were Messrs. Clifford, Strong, Miller and Field. Strong and -Miller were understood to be Republicans, and Clifford and Field -Democrats. Upon these four the duty was imposed to select the fifth -Justice. - -[Sidenote: The fifth Justice.] - -Since without the fifth Justice the Commission would consist of seven -Republicans and seven Democrats, it was evident that this Justice would -be the umpire in every question of disputed returns which the two -Houses could not themselves settle by concurrent agreement. The -responsibility which this Justice would have to bear would be one of -the most onerous and solemn duties ever imposed upon any mortal. It -could be no less than the making of a President, and it might be the -determination of the question whether there should be another civil -war. It was not a responsibility to be courted, but no man upon whom it -might fall could, with honor, refuse to accept it. - -It was the general feeling throughout the {287} discussion of the bill -that the man who would be chosen was Judge David Davis. He had been a -Republican and a close personal friend of Lincoln, but had latterly -inclined toward the Democracy, and, it was thought, had favored the -election of Mr. Tilden. He was regarded as the man of least political -prejudice among a set of men of very little political prejudice. The -Democrats, however, were entirely willing to risk their cause in his -hands, because they believed it was strong enough on its merits to -convince any unprejudiced mind, and there is little question that the -Republicans were afraid to risk their cause in his hands, because they -knew that they must win on every point or lose altogether, and they -hesitated to take such desperate chances unless whatever political -prejudice might exist in the mind of the umpire should be on their -side. - -[Sidenote: Justice David Davis.] - -But to the apparent surprise of everybody and to the consternation of -the Democrats, Justice Davis was chosen by the Illinois legislature, on -the 25th of January, the day after the bill passed the Senate, and the -day before it passed the House, United States Senator, and a few days -after the bill passed the House, he accepted the position, which act -involved his resignation at an early day of his judicial office; and as -he was now to leave the bench and go into the political branch of the -Government, as a Democratic Senator, elected by the Democrats of the -Illinois legislature, there appeared to him an evident impropriety in -his acting on the Commission as a representative of the unpolitical -branch of the Government, and especially as that member upon whom the -weightiest responsibility would fall, and who would, therefore, be -expected to act with greatest political impartiality, and with an eye -single to public justice. Whether Justice Davis sought this election to -the senatorship at this juncture or not, {288} in order to escape the -great responsibility that was about to fall upon him, we do not know. -He was not a particularly brave man. He was a big, fat man, a good -liver, and loved his ease. Ordinarily men will not exchange the high -and life-long office of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United -States for a seat in the Senate. Unless he had his eye upon the -Presidency of the United States, it would be very hard to explain his -action in exchanging his high judicial position for the senatorship on -any other ground than his desire to escape the terrible responsibility -of deciding whether Tilden or Hayes should be President. It is even -more difficult to account for the action of the Democrats in the -legislature of Illinois. They certainly did not intend to harm the -chances of Mr. Tilden by this act. The Republicans might have invented -such a scheme for disposing of the Justice, but for Democrats to have -been concerned in any such movement is incredible. It is probable that -it was simply a blunder on their part. They did not appreciate the -incompatibility between the position of a Democratic Senator-elect and -membership on the Electoral Commission as a judicial representative. -They thought that as the Justice would not take his seat in the Senate -until after the 4th of March he would remain a member of the Supreme -Court until then, and as such would be fully qualified for the place on -the Commission. The legislature at Springfield had no such delicate and -discriminating sense of official proprieties as obtained in Washington, -and throughout the more fastidious East. - -The Democrats in the House of Representatives learned of the election -of Justice Davis to the Senate on the morning of the day they were to -vote on the passage of the Electoral Commission bill. Even they did not -fully realize that it meant that the Justice {289} would not serve on -the Commission. Moreover, they had gone to such lengths with the bill -that it was too late to turn back. So far as is known the Justice did -not inform them or anybody else of his intention to accept the -senatorship, or of his scruples about being a member of the Commission, -until after the bill became law. When he did do so, the correctness of -his position was so clear that the four Justices named in the Act -immediately selected Justice Joseph P. Bradley as the fifth judicial -member of the Commission. Bradley was a Republican, as were the other -three members of the court, Waite, Hunt and Swayne. That is, after -Justice Davis was disposed of there remained only Republicans to choose -from, and Bradley being regarded as the least partisan, and the most -learned in the law, was selected. He fully realized the vast -responsibility which had been thus unexpectedly thrust upon him, but he -accepted it bravely and without flinching, and discharged it with honor -and success. - -[Sidenote: The counting of the electoral vote by Congress.] - -The Houses of Congress, and also the Electoral Commission, met on the -1st day of February to count the electoral vote. The Democrats still -felt sure of success, since they would win the election, if successful -upon a single point, while the Republicans, to be successful, must win -upon every point. On the other hand, the hopes of the Republicans had -been raised by gaining the majority of the Commission. - -[Sidenote: The double returns from South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana -and Oregon.] - -When the returns were opened by the President of the Senate two sets of -returns were found from each of the four "States," Florida, Louisiana, -South Carolina, and Oregon. In the case of Florida the electors voting -for Hayes and Wheeler sent with their votes the certification of the -"State" Canvassing Board and of the Governor to their election. The -case of South Carolina was the same. {290} In the case of Louisiana the -electors voting for Hayes and Wheeler sent with their votes the -certification of Governor Kellogg and of the "State" Canvassing Board -acting with him to their election, and the electors voting for Tilden -and Hendricks sent the certification of John McEnery, claiming to be -Governor, and the Canvassing Board acting with him, to their election. - -The Oregon case was more complicated. The three Republican electors -received the highest number of votes, as reported by the Secretary of -State, who by the laws of Oregon was the "State" canvassing officer, to -the Governor. But one of them, Watts, held the office of postmaster in -a small place at the time of his election, and the Constitution of the -United States provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person -holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be -appointed an elector." The Democratic Governor of Oregon decided in his -own mind that Watts was not eligible, and made out his certification to -include, beside the two Republican electors who were eligible, one -Cronin, the Democrat receiving the highest number of votes for elector, -although the number received by him was a minority of all the votes -cast for the electoral tickets. This certificate was attested by the -Secretary of State, and was given to Cronin. When the day for the -meeting of the electors came around Cronin presented himself holding -the Governor's certificate, the only certificate which had been issued -to the electors by Governor Grover. But in spite of the fact that he -had this technical advantage, the two Republican electors, whose names -were included in the Governor's certificate, refused to act with him, -and he refused to let them have the certificate to attach to their -return of the electoral vote to the President of the Senate of the -United States unless they should so act. Both parties persisted {291} -in their refusals. Whereupon Cronin selected one J. N. Y. Miller and -one John Parker to fill up the electoral college of Oregon and these -three cast two electoral votes for Hayes and Wheeler and one for Tilden -and Hendricks, and, after attaching the Governor's certification to the -record of their vote in due form, sent this return to the President of -the Senate of the United States, as required by the Constitution. At -the same time the two Republican electors, Odell and Cartwright, met to -cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth. Watts was also present. He -had resigned his office of postmaster, and now he resigned his position -as elector. The other two accepted his resignation, and immediately -chose him an elector. The three then cast the electoral vote of the -Commonwealth for Hayes and Wheeler. As we have seen, they did not have -the certification of their election by the Governor to attach to their -votes, as required by the law of the United States, but they procured -from the Secretary of State a certified copy of the canvass of the -votes for the electors, which showed the election of the three -Republican candidates, and sent this, and also a copy of their -proceedings in accepting the resignation of Watts, and then electing -him an elector, along with their report of the vote of the electors for -President and Vice-President, to the President of the Senate. - -[Sidenote: The counsel before the Commission.] - -Both the Republicans and the Democrats were represented by most able -counsel before the Electoral Commission. William M. Evarts, Stanley -Matthews, E. W. Stoughton, and Samuel Shellabarger were pitted against -a formidable array both as to ability and numbers on the other side, -Judge J. S. Black, Matthew H. Carpenter, Charles O'Conor, J. A. -Campbell, Lyman Trumbull, Ashbel Green, Montgomery Blair, George -Hoadly, William C. Whitney, R. T. Merrick and A. P. Morse. - -{292} [Sidenote: The Republican position.] - -The Republicans took their stand at the outset upon the principle that -Congress could not go behind the returns of the "State" Canvassing -Board or officer, in counting the electoral vote from any "State." They -contended that in the election of the President and Vice-President, the -Constitution had separated the procedure into two distinct parts, and -had assigned the first part to the control of the several "States" -exclusively, and the second part to the control of Congress -exclusively; that up to the completion of the election of the electors -the exclusive control of the "States" respectively extended, but that -all control after that point had been reached was in Congress, and that -Congress had no power whatever, under the Constitution, to revise, -interfere with, or examine into, that part assigned by the Constitution -to the "States" respectively, and, on the other hand, that Congress was -bound to disregard any act of the "States," or of any of the officers -or agents of the "States," in that part assigned exclusively by the -Constitution to its own control. There is no question that this was all -sound constitutional law and that the Democrats would have to abandon -entirely their old "States'" rights doctrine and go over to the most -extreme nationalism in order to combat it. - -[Sidenote: The Democratic position.] - -It did not appear to them necessary to do this in order to win their -case. One single electoral vote from any one of the four "States," from -which double returns had been received, would elect Tilden and -Hendricks. It did not seem to them that the line between the powers of -the "States" and those of Congress over the election of the President -and Vice-President could under the existing facts be drawn anywhere -without giving them at least this one vote. If the returns as certified -to by the Governors and the "State" canvassing officer, officers, or -boards, of these four {293} "States" should be received and counted -they would have this one vote from Oregon. If, on the other hand, the -popular vote for the electors as it came into the hands of the "State" -canvassing officers or boards was to be received and counted, then they -would have the electoral votes of at least Louisiana, Florida, or South -Carolina, and perhaps of all of them. But the Republicans contended -that the line between "State" control and Congressional control was to -be drawn between the Governor's certification and the report of the -"State" canvassing officer, officers, or board to the Governor of the -result of the vote for the electors. The certification issued by the -Governor, they held, was ordered by Congressional law and was under -Congressional control, even when the "State" canvassing officer, -officers, or board should join with the Governor in the certification -of the persons chosen electors. The report of the vote for the electors -by the "State" canvassing officer, officers, or board to the Governor -was thus the final act under "State" control, was the final act in the -election of the electors. This was unquestionably sound constitutional -law. But it would give all the electoral votes from all four of the -"States," from which double returns had been received, to Hayes and -Wheeler, and would elect them by one vote. - -[Sidenote: The decisions of the Commission.] - -The view of the counsel for the Republican candidates prevailed with a -majority of the Commission. By a majority of a single vote the -Commission gave all the electoral votes of the four "States" from which -double returns had been received to Hayes and Wheeler, and since the -decisions of the Commission were final unless negatived by both Houses -of Congress, and the Republican Senate, of course, sustained the -decisions of the Commission, there was nothing for the Democrats to do -but submit or have recourse to violence. Threats were freely expressed -of having {294} Mr. Tilden take the oath of office, and then conducting -him, under the support of a large armed body, to the White House and -installing him there. But it was observed that the Southern Democrats -did not participate in these menacing declarations, and it was soon -learned that Mr. Tilden himself would not lend himself to any such -desperate movement. Moreover, the existing President had, with his -usual promptness and decision, prepared himself to meet all exigencies, -and had let it be known that he would uphold the decisions to which -Congress and its Commission might come by any power necessary to -accomplish the result. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Hayes declared President.] - -In the early morning of March 2d, the count was completed, and Hayes -and Wheeler were proclaimed by the presiding officer of the Senate, Mr. -Ferry, elected President and Vice-President of the United States by a -majority of one electoral vote. The popular vote for the electors was -about eight millions three hundred thousand. Of this vast number the -Tilden electors had received the majority by about two hundred and -fifty thousand, according to the Republican count, and by about three -hundred thousand, according to the Democratic count. It must be -remembered, however, that it is quite possible for the candidate of one -party to receive a popular majority throughout the whole country, and -the candidate of the other to receive a majority of the electoral -votes, simply because the popular vote is counted, in electing the -electors, by "States" and not in the aggregate. - -[Sidenote: The truth in regard to the election.] - -The truth in regard to the whole transaction of the election probably -is that the Democrats did in some places in the South intimidate -voters; that the Republican "State" canvassing officers, making this a -justification, or an excuse, did throw out votes that ought to have -been counted; and that the existing law of {295} elections, -administered by Republicans, was capable of being so interpreted as to -give legal warrant to all that was done by them. A perfectly fair -election in the "States" of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, -with the law of suffrage then obtaining, would probably have resulted -in a popular majority for the Republican candidates for electors. -Accepting the law of suffrage as then existing for the basis of our -reasoning, it will have to be conceded that the Republicans were in the -right both morally and legally, and that the title of Hayes and Wheeler -to the offices of President and Vice-President was entirely sound and -unimpeachable. They were inaugurated on the 5th day of March, 1877, -without any attempt at resistance or disturbance from any quarter. - -[Sidenote: Mr. Hayes's Southern policy.] - -During the counting of the electoral vote it was suspected that the -friends of Mr. Hayes were giving some assurances to the Southerners in -Congress in regard to what the policy of his Administration would be -concerning the "State" governments in the South. The unwillingness of -the Southern Democrats to join with their party associates of the North -in any revolutionary projects was attributed partly to this. While -there is no evidence that Mr. Hayes ever pledged himself to the -Southerners in regard to anything, still it is probably true that his -views concerning the unwisdom of the employment of the military power -of the United States in upholding the negro-Republican "State" -governments in the South were imparted to them by his friends. At any -rate, he announced in his inaugural address that he considered the -re-establishment of local self-government in these "States" to be one -of the prime objects of his Administration, and he speedily withdrew -the support of the military power of the United States from the three -{296} negro-Republican "State" governments, and left them to their own -resources. - -[Sidenote: The result of his policy.] - -The result was that, although the Republican candidates for Governor -and for the members of the legislature in these three "States" received -about the same vote as the Republican presidential electors, and in -January of 1877 actually assumed power, the Democratic candidates -ousted them from the offices, and in sufficient number from the -legislative seats, and established at last Democratic white rule in all -the "States" of the South. In Florida the Republican, M. L. Stearns, -gave way to the Democrat, George F. Drew, in the gubernatorial office; -in South Carolina D. H. Chamberlain gave way to Wade Hampton, and in -Louisiana, S. B. Packard gave way to Francis T. Nicholls. - -Order and peace were quickly established everywhere, and the plundered -and impoverished South could at last take hope and feel courage to make -a new effort to recover some degree of prosperity and some measure of -domestic content. For ten years the dark night of domination by the -negro and adventurer had rested upon the unhappy section, until it had -been reduced to the very abomination of desolation. Broken in health -and fortune, sick at heart, conscious of the terrible degradation which -had been imposed upon them, and politically ostracized, the better part -of the white population of the South had staggered and groped through -the hideous experiences of this period, and such of them as had not -perished during the awful passage had now at last been relieved of the -frightful scourge, and half dazed, as if just recovering from a -terrible nightmare, found themselves again in the places of power and -responsibility. But they brought with them, as their dominant passion, -undying hatred of the Republican party as the author of all their woes, -and as their {297} dominant policy, the stern and unbending resolve to -stand together as one man against every movement which had even the -slightest tendency toward a restoration of the hated conditions from -which they had escaped. No sane mind can wonder at "the solid South," -or at the Democratic South. Life, property, happiness, honor, -civilization, everything which makes existence endurable demanded that -the decent white men of the South should stand shoulder to shoulder in -defending their families, their homes and their communities from any -return of the vile plague under which they had suffered so long and so -cruelly; and human instinct determined that this should be done in -connection with that party which was hostile to the Republican party. -The differences which lead to a fair fight and the wounds which are -received in it are easily healed, but indignities heaped upon a fallen -foe create a bitterness of heart that lasts so long as life endures. - -[Sidenote: Reconciliation between the North and the South.] - -Slavery was a great wrong, and secession was an error and a terrible -blunder, but Reconstruction was a punishment so far in excess of the -crime that it extinguished every sense of culpability upon the part of -those whom it was sought to convict and convert. More than a quarter of -a century has now passed since the blunder-crime of Reconstruction -played its baleful part in alienating the two sections of the country. -Until four years ago little progress had been made in reconciling them. -It is said now that the recent war with Spain, in which men from the -North and men from the South marched under the same banner to battle -and to victory, has buried the hatchet forever between them. But they -had done this many times before, and yet it did not prevent the attempt -to destroy the Union. It cannot be in this alone that the South feels -increased security against the doctrines and the {298} policies and -interferences of the Republican party with regard to the negro -question, the great question which has made and kept the South solidly -Democratic. It is something far more significant and substantial than -this. It is to some the pleasing, though to others startling, fact, -that the Republican party, in its work of imposing the sovereignty of -the United States upon eight millions of Asiatics, has changed its -views in regard to the political relation of races and has at last -virtually accepted the ideas of the South upon that subject. The white -men of the South need now have no further fear that the Republican -party, or Republican Administrations, will ever again give themselves -over to the vain imagination of the political equality of man. It is -this change of mind and heart on the part of the North in regard to -this vital question of Southern "State" polity which has caused the now -much-talked-of reconciliation. - - - - -{299} - -CHAPTER XIV - -INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1867 AND 1877 - -The Purchase of Alaska--The Contention of the House of Representatives -in Regard to its Power over Treaties--The Senate's Position and the -Compromise--Irritation of the American People against Great -Britain--The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty--President Grant's Statements in -His First Annual Message and in His Second Annual Address--Sir John -Rose's Mission to the United States--The Joint High Commission--The -Treaty of Washington--The Alabama Claims and the Geneva -Convention--Triumph of the Diplomacy of the United States--Organization -of the Tribunal and Filing of the Cases--The Controversy between Mr. -Fish and Lord Granville--The Filing of the Counter Cases and the -Argument--Obstacles--Decision of the Tribunal in Regard to National and -Indirect Damages--The Decision of the Tribunal in the Case of the -_Florida_--The Decision in the Case of the _Alabama_--The Decision in -the Case of the _Shenandoah_, and other Vessels--International -Principles Settled by the Geneva Tribunal--The Northwest Boundary -Question--The Fisheries Question--The Halifax Commission and Award--The -Burlingame Treaty with China--The Attempt to Annex the Dominican -Republic to the United States--The Treaty--The Treaty before the -Senate--Its Rejection--The President's Attempt to Renew -Negotiations--The Committee of Inquiry--The Report of the -Committee--The Abandonment of the Scheme. - - -The two chief products of American diplomacy in the decade between 1867 -and 1877 were the purchase of Alaska, and the treaty of Washington with -Great Britain. - -[Sidenote: The purchase of Alaska.] - -The purchase of Alaska, the northwest corner of the North American -continent, together with the islands {300} adjacent thereto, a vast -region of some five hundred thousand square miles in extent, inhabited -chiefly by a few savage tribes, was effected by a treaty, negotiated by -Mr. Seward and the Russian diplomatist, Baron Stoeckl, and ratified by -the Senate of the United States on the 30th of March, 1867. - -[Sidenote: The reasons for and against the purchase.] - -The proposition came from the side of Russia, and it appeared that -Russia was more eager to sell than the United States was to buy. The -price agreed on was seven millions two hundred thousand dollars in -gold, and most people in the United States thought, at the time, that -this great sum was being paid for nothing but a barren area of snow and -ice. The country was declared to be utterly worthless by some of the -best informed men in Congress, and a man of no less ability and -influence than Mr. Shellabarger opposed the purchase on the ground that -it involved an extension of territory dangerous to the existence of the -Republic. - -On the other hand, such men as General Banks and Mr. Stevens contended -that from the point of view of a business transaction alone it was -worth the money; and Mr. Higby, of California, told his colleagues that -they were mistaken in regard to the climate of the region. The -consideration, however, which seems to have had most weight was -gratitude toward Russia, whose government had manifested the most -friendly feeling for the Union in the struggle against the giant -rebellion, and had even threatened interference in behalf of the Union -against interference in behalf of the Confederacy by any other European -state. That acute observer of political opinion, Mr. Blaine, affirmed -that a like offer from any other European government would most -probably have been declined. - -{301} [Sidenote: A real political reason for the purchase.] - -It is, however, almost certain that Mr. Seward had another very -profound reason for making the purchase, one which he could not very -well proclaim from the housetops, especially as the feeling on his -part, and on the part of the Government and of the people of the North, -was most kindly toward Russia. It was this: The United States would in -this way and at a comparatively small cost rid herself forever of any -danger of Russian colonization on the North American continent, and of -the danger of any complications between Russia and Great Britain upon -this continent. This was a most important political consideration, one -which much overbalanced the price paid for the territory and the cost -of its administration. - -[Sidenote: The contention of the House of Representatives in regard to -its power over treaties involving the payment of money by the United -States.] - -When the bill for making the appropriation to pay for Alaska came -before the House of Representatives, that body raised the question of -the power of the House over treaties involving the payment of money by -the United States, by asserting in the preamble of the bill that its -consent was necessary to the validity of such treaties. It did so on -the ground that as an independent legislative body it could refuse any -appropriation at its own discretion, and that as all foreign countries -were bound to know this from the wording of the Constitution, no -foreign country could consider a treaty with the United States, -involving financial obligations by the United States, as completed -until the House of Representatives should have voted the appropriation -of the amount stipulated in the agreement. - -[Sidenote: The Senate's position and the compromise.] - -The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doctrine, and rejected -the bill with the preamble containing it as it came from the House of -Representatives. {302} The bill then went to a conference committee of -the two Houses, and this committee invented a preamble which read: -"Whereas the President has entered into a treaty with the Emperor of -Russia, and the Senate thereafter gave its advice and consent to said -treaty, and whereas said stipulations cannot be carried into full force -and effect, except by legislation to which the consent of both Houses -of Congress is necessary; therefore be it resolved," etc. Both Houses -adopted the bill in this form and it became law July 27th, 1868. - -The contention of the House was good political science, but it is still -doubtful whether it is the constitutional law of the United States or -not. The more recent constitutions of even the European states, such as -those of Germany and France, make the consent of both houses of the -legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties involving the -appropriation of money, or the assumption of any financial obligation. -This is as it should be; and the Constitution of the United States -ought to be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle. - -[Sidenote: Irritation of the American people against Great Britain.] - -[Sidenote: Change of Ministry and Parliamentary majority in 1867.] - -We have, in the preceding volume of this series, followed the history -of the relations of the United States with Great Britain down to the -close of the rebellion, and have referred to the general irritation on -the part of the loyal people of the United States against the British -government for its attitude in regard to the acts of its subjects in -furnishing warships and munitions to the Confederates. There were many -who favored turning the great military power with which the United -States emerged from the Civil War against Great Britain, and forcing a -settlement of those difficulties by the trial of arms; but Seward -remained in the direction of the foreign affairs of the Union, and he -had had enough of war. Moreover, he {303} foresaw a change of -government in Great Britain, and with it he hoped for a change of -sentiment on the part of the new government on the international -question. This event happened in consequence of the parliamentary -election of 1867. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr. Gladstone's -cabinet was first Lord Stanley, and then the Earl of Clarendon, both of -them very different in character from Lord John Russell. From the -outset each of them manifested a sincere desire to reach an amicable -settlement of all differences with the United States. The trouble at -this juncture seems to have been the extravagance of the claims of the -United States. Mr. Adams, whose patience had become much worn, talked -about private damages, national damages and an apology. The British -Ministers thought this too preposterous to be seriously meant. - -[Sidenote: The Johnson-Clarendon treaty.] - -Before, however, the discussion had fairly begun Mr. Adams returned to -the United States, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson was sent out to the British -Court. Mr. Johnson yielded much of the ground assumed by Mr. Adams in -reference to claims for national injury, and in January of 1869 -concluded an agreement with the Earl of Clarendon for submitting to -arbitration the claims for direct damage to property rights. - -[Sidenote: President Grant's statement in his first Annual Message.] - -The Senate of the United States promptly rejected the treaty with much -feeling, because it did not contain proper provision, in its view, for -the reparation of wrongs to the Nation. The feeling among the people of -both countries ran so high that the Governments deemed it wise to -cease, for a time, negotiations upon the subject. The new President, -Grant, in his Message of December 6th, 1869, described the situation in -the following language: - -{304} "Toward the close of the last Administration a convention was -signed in London for the settlement of all outstanding claims between -Great Britain and the United States, which failed to receive the advice -and consent of the Senate to its ratification. The time and the -circumstances attending the negotiation of that treaty were unfavorable -to its acceptance by the people of the United States, and its -provisions were wholly inadequate for the settlement of the grave -wrongs that had been sustained by this Government, as well as by its -citizens. The injuries resulting to the United States by reason of the -course adopted by Great Britain during our late Civil War in the -increased rates of insurance, in the diminution of exports and imports -and other obstructions to domestic industry and production, in its -effect upon the foreign commerce of the country, in the decrease and -transfer to Great Britain of our commercial marine, in the prolongation -of the war and the increased cost, both in treasure and lives, of its -suppression, could not be adjusted and satisfied as ordinary commercial -claims which continually arise among commercial nations; and yet the -convention treated them as such ordinary claims, from which they differ -more widely in the gravity of their character than in the magnitude of -their amount, great even as is that difference. Not a word was found in -the treaty, and not an inference could be drawn from it, to remove the -sense of the unfriendliness of the course of Great Britain in our -struggle for existence, which had so deeply and universally impressed -itself upon the people of this country. Believing that a convention -thus misconceived in its scope and inadequate in its provisions would -not have produced the hearty, cordial settlement of pending questions, -which alone is consistent with the relations which I desire to have -firmly established {305} between the United States and Great Britain, I -regarded the action of the Senate in rejecting the treaty to have been -wisely taken in the interests of peace and as a necessary step in the -direction of a perfect and cordial friendship between the two -countries. A sensitive people, conscious of their power, are more at -ease under a great wrong wholly unatoned than under the restraint of a -settlement which satisfies neither their ideas of justice nor their -grave sense of the grievance they have sustained. The rejection of the -treaty was followed by a state of public feeling on both sides which I -thought not favorable to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiations. -I accordingly so instructed the Minister of the United States to Great -Britain, and found that my views in this regard were shared by Her -Majesty's Ministers. I hope that the time may soon arrive when the two -Governments can approach the solution of this momentous question with -an appreciation of what is due to the rights, dignity and honor of -each, and with the determination not only to remove the causes of -complaint in the past, but to lay the foundation of a broad principle -of public law which will prevent future differences and tend to firm -and continued peace and friendship." - -[Sidenote: The President's statement in his second annual message.] - -For another year things drifted, and the views of the two Governments -seemed to be getting wider apart, when President Grant wrote in his -Message of December 5th, 1870: - -"I regret to say that no conclusion has been reached for the adjustment -of the claims against Great Britain growing out of the course adopted -by that Government during the Rebellion. The Cabinet of London, so far -as its views have been expressed, does not appear to be willing to -concede that Her Majesty's Government was guilty of any negligence, or -did or permitted any act during the War {306} by which the United -States has just cause of complaint. Our firm and unalterable -convictions are directly the reverse. I therefore recommend to Congress -to authorize the appointment of a commission to take proof of the -amount and the ownership of these several claims, on notice to the -representative of Her Majesty at Washington, and that authority be -given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, so that -the Government shall have the ownership of the private claims, as well -as the responsible control of all the demands against Great Britain. It -cannot be necessary to add that whenever Her Majesty's Government shall -entertain a desire for a full and friendly adjustment of these claims -the United States will enter upon their consideration with an earnest -desire for a conclusion consistent with the honor and dignity of both -nations." - -This was what is now called "a twist of the lion's tail." It was -something of a twist, although it was accompanied with the offer of the -olive branch, instead of the sword. It was effective, even more -effective for the conciliatory tone of the final paragraph. Moreover, -with the German armies encamped around Paris and throughout France, the -affairs of Continental Europe were too unsettled and precarious for -Great Britain to run the risk of any serious complications with the -United States. - -[Sidenote: Sir John Rose's mission to the United States.] - -[Sidenote: The Joint High Commission.] - -Accepting the President's message as an invitation to renew -negotiations, the British Government, at the beginning of the next year -(1871), sent Sir John Rose to Washington to sound the President in -regard to the matter. The President greeted his advances with great -cordiality, and on the 26th of the month (January), Sir Edward -Thornton, the British Minister to the United States, formally proposed -to the Hon. Hamilton Fish, the Secretary of State, the appointment of a -Joint High {307} Commission, to consist of five persons representing -each Government, to sit at Washington, for the purpose of settling the -questions between the two Governments relative to Great Britain's North -American possessions. Mr. Fish immediately expressed the willingness of -his Government to enter upon the negotiation, provided the differences -growing out of the events of the Civil War should be included among the -subjects to be considered. The British Government accepted Mr. Fish's -proviso, and the respective Governments proceeded to appoint the -members of the Commission. President Grant designated Hamilton Fish, -Ebenezer R. Hoar, Justice Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Schenck and George -H. Williams. Her Majesty selected Earl de Grey and Ripon, Sir John -Macdonald, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton and Professor -Mountague Bernard. These eminent gentlemen proceeded immediately upon -their momentous undertaking, and on the 8th of May (1871) concluded the -treaty between the two Governments, known as the Treaty of Washington, -which was duly ratified, and on the 4th of July proclaimed to the -world. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty of Washington.] - -The first eleven articles of this agreement relate to the claims for -damages arising from the incidents of the Civil War, known as the -Alabama Claims. This was the subject of transcendent importance in the -Treaty; this was the subject which was, by these articles, referred to -the Court of Arbitration to sit at Geneva. - -They contain, in the first place, an expression of regret for the -escape of the Confederate vessels from British ports and for the -depredations committed by them. - -They provide, secondly, for a tribunal of arbitration, composed of five -members, one of whom should be {308} named by the President of the -United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, one by the King of Italy, -one by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the Emperor -of Brazil; and, in case either of these last three mentioned should -fail to name an arbitrator, they provide that one should be named by -the King of Sweden and Norway; and finally, that one agent should be -named by each of the high contracting parties to represent it generally -in all matters connected with the arbitration. - -[Sidenote: The Alabama claims and the Geneva convention.] - -They provide, in the third place, that "the Arbitrators shall meet at -Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall -have been named, and shall proceed impartially carefully to examine and -decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the -Governments of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty -respectively," and that "all questions considered by the Tribunal, -including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the -arbitrators." - -They provide, in the fourth place, that each of the two high -contracting parties should deliver his written or printed case, -together with all the evidence in support of it, to each of the -arbitrators and to the agent of the other party, as soon as possible -after the organization of the Tribunal, and within a period not -exceeding six months from the 17th of June, 1871; that within four -months after the delivery on both sides of the case, each party might -put in a counter case, with additional evidence, in reply to the case -of the other party; that the arbitrators might extend the time, under -certain circumstances, for delivering the counter case; that "within -two months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of -the counter case on both sides," the agent of each party should deliver -to each of {309} the arbitrators "and to the agent of the other party a -written or printed argument showing the points and referring to the -evidence upon which his Government relies"; and that the arbitrators -might require further argument by counsel, giving to each party an -equal chance to be heard. - -They provide, in the fifth place, that the Tribunal should consider the -case of each vessel separately; that it might, however, award a gross -sum, or that in case it did not award a sum in gross, the high -contracting parties should appoint two members of a board of assessors, -and request the Italian Minister at Washington to appoint a third, -which board should determine the amounts due in the cases in which the -arbitrators had pronounced responsibility. - -They provide, in the sixth place, that in deciding the matters -submitted the arbitrators should be governed by the following rules: - -"A neutral government is bound, first, to use diligence to prevent the -fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any -vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise -or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also -to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of -any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel -having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such -jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either -belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval -operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or -augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. -Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as -to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the -foregoing obligations and duties." - -{310} They provide, in the seventh place, that the high contracting -parties would "agree to observe these rules as between themselves in -the future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime -powers, and to invite them to accede to them." - -And they provide, finally, that the result of the proceedings of the -Tribunal and the Board of Assessors, in case such board should be -appointed, should be accepted as a final settlement of all the claims -known as the Alabama Claims, and should be a bar to any further -proceedings in regard to them. - -[Sidenote: Triumph of the diplomacy of the United States.] - -It will be seen that the Government of the United States had in this -Treaty substantially won all of the points for which it had contended. -The Queen's Government had apologized. It had agreed that the general -principles of international law in regard to the duties of neutrals -toward belligerents should take precedence over municipal statutes, and -should not be limited by municipal statutes. And it had agreed that the -Tribunal of Arbitration should decide _all questions_ laid before it by -the Governments of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty -respectively. - -It is true that Her Majesty's Government qualified its acceptance of -the rules to be applied in determining its responsibility by inserting -an explanation in the Treaty of the following tenor: "Her Britannic -Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to -declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing -rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in -force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but -that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of -strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of -making satisfactory provision for the {311} future, agrees that, in -deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those -claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had -undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules." - -And it is also true that, while, according to the letter of the Treaty, -the United States Government was left unfettered as to the character of -the claims which it might lay before the Arbitrators, Her Majesty's -Government had been led to expect more moderation in this respect than -the popular sentiment in the United States seemed to indicate. - -[Sidenote: The arbitrators, agents and counsel.] - -The two Governments and the high personages invited by them proceeded -in due time to appoint the Arbitrators. The President of the United -States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Her Majesty named Chief -Justice Alexander Cockburn; the Italian King designated Count Frederic -Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confederation designated Mr. Jacob -Staempfli, and the Emperor of Brazil named the Baron d'Itajubá. - -The President of the United States also appointed Mr. J. C. Bancroft -Davis as the agent of the United States before the Tribunal, and Mr. -Caleb Cushing, Mr. William M. Evarts and Mr. Morrison R. Waite as -counsel. - -Her Majesty's Government also appointed Lord Tenterden as the agent of -Great Britain before the Tribunal, and Sir Roundell Palmer as chief -counsel. - -[Sidenote: Organization of the Tribunal and filing of the cases.] - -On the 15th of December, 1871, the Arbitrators organized the Tribunal -at Geneva with Count Frederic Sclopis in the chair as presiding -officer, and with Mr. Alexander Favrot as secretary. The printed case -of each of the high contracting parties was filed immediately by the -agent of each, and the Tribunal ordered the counter cases to be filed -{312} on or before the 15th day of the following April. The Tribunal -then adjourned to June 15th following, unless sooner called together by -the secretary. - -[Sidenote: The controversy between Mr. Fish and Lord Granville.] - -The contents of the case of the United States became immediately known -to the British Ministers, but not for some weeks to the British people. -The Ministers were not apparently disturbed in mind about it, although -they discovered at once that it contained claims for national damages -and indirect damages as well as for direct damages to individuals; but -as soon as the newspapers got hold of this fact, they raised a -tremendous hue and cry, and accused those who had prepared the case of -taking an unfair advantage of the wording of the treaty. The Minister -of the United States in London, General Schenck, informed Mr. Fish by -cable of the agitation in London over the subject and of the demand of -the newspapers that the claim for national and indirect damages should -be withdrawn. Mr. Fish replied firmly that "there must be no withdrawal -of any part of the claim presented." At this moment the session of -Parliament opened and the Queen's speech contained a criticism of the -extravagance of the claims of the United States in the case submitted -to the Tribunal. The matter was warmly debated in Parliament, and on -February 3d the British Foreign Minister, Lord Granville, opened a -diplomatic discussion with Mr. Fish upon the subject. Mr. Fish, -however, held his ground with great courage and ability, insisting that -the claims of every character should be disposed of by the Tribunal in -order to remove them from the domain of further controversy and in -order to establish perfect harmony in the relations of the two -countries. - -[Sidenote: The filing of the counter cases and the argument.] - -Before this discussion terminated the day arrived for the filing of the -counter cases. They were both {313} promptly filed with a reservation -of all rights by each of the high contracting parties. The diplomatic -discussion culminated in an attempt to make a supplemental treaty, -which should provide that the Government of the United States should -withdraw its claims for national losses and indirect losses, on the -condition that no such losses should be claimed by either Government in -the future. But the day arrived for the filing of the arguments before -anything was effected. The agent of the United States filed his -argument on the day fixed, the 15th of June, but the British agent only -filed a statement setting forth the differences between the two -Governments in the interpretation of the Treaty in respect to claims -for national and indirect damages, and the late negotiations and -discussions between the two Governments concerning these differences. -The British agent also expressed the hope that, if time were given, -these negotiations would prove fruitful, and asked the Arbitrators to -adjourn for eight months. - -[Sidenote: Obstacles.] - -[Sidenote: Decision of the Tribunal in regard to national and indirect -damages.] - -It looked as if the work of the commissioners, who had framed the -Treaty, and of the Arbitrators, who had now given six months of their -time to its execution, would go for naught, and that the Governments -and the people of the two countries would be thrown back into the -relations existing during the years 1869 and 1870, with intensified -feelings of hostility. The Arbitrators realized the seriousness of the -situation and did not yield to the request of the British agent. They -adjourned to the 19th of the month, that is for four days only, in -order to deliberate upon the proposition. When they reassembled on the -19th the President of the Tribunal announced that the Arbitrators had -decided to inform the two high contracting parties, at that {314} -juncture, that the Arbitrators did not consider the claims for national -and indirect damages to be a good foundation in international law "for -an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations;" -but were unanimously of the opinion that such claims should "be wholly -excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, -even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to -the competency of the Tribunal to decide them." The President said -further, that the Arbitrators made this announcement in order that the -Government of the United States might consider if it would adopt some -course in reference to these claims, which would relieve the Tribunal -from deciding upon the request of the British agent for an adjournment. - -The President of the United States was duly informed of this -announcement by the Tribunal, and, upon the advice of the learned -counsel for the United States, he instructed the agent of the United -States to make the following reply to the Tribunal: - -"The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, -respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of -the Tribunal for, first, the losses in the transfer of the American -commercial marine to the British flag, second, the enhanced payment of -insurance, and, third, the prolongation of the war and the addition of -a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the -Rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as -determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public -law involved." - -This reply was read to the Tribunal on the 25th of June, and on the -27th the British agent, under instructions from his Government, -withdrew his request for an adjournment and filed his argument. - -{315} It was supposed by the Americans that the whole case on both -sides was now in, and that, unless the Arbitrators should require -further argument or statement in reference to specific points, the -Tribunal would now proceed to make its decisions. But the British -counsel and the British agent immediately petitioned the Tribunal to be -allowed to prepare and present another argument, and to have six weeks' -time in which to do it, and even the member of the Tribunal appointed -by the British Government exerted himself to secure this delay and this -new opportunity for the British agent and his counsel. The Tribunal -felt, however, that it was in possession of the evidence and the -argument necessary for determining the question before it, and refused -the request. - -The Tribunal now adjourned to the 15th of July, in order to give its -members time and opportunity to study the cases. On the 15th, the -arbitrators reassembled and invited the agent and counsel of each of -the high contracting parties to sit with them in their conferences. To -all others, however, the doors were closed. They spent some two days -discussing the order of the procedure which they should follow, and -finally adopted the order proposed by Mr. Staempfli, and also indicated -in the Treaty itself, which was to take up the case of each vessel -separately, and allow each Arbitrator to express a provisional opinion -upon it, which opinion, however, should not be conclusive even on the -Arbitrator himself who gave it. - -[Sidenote: The decision of the Tribunal in the case of the _Florida_.] - -On the 17th of the month (July), the Tribunal proceeded to take up the -case of the _Florida_ and to hear the opinions of the Arbitrators upon -it. Four of the five Arbitrators were of the opinion that the British -Government had failed to exercise due diligence in the discharge of its -neutral duties toward the United States in this case. Sir Alexander -{316} Cockburn alone disagreed with this view. The four also held that -the tenders of the _Florida_ should follow the lot of their principal. -The reading of the opinion in the case of the _Florida_ was finished on -the 22d, and the Tribunal adjourned to the 25th. - -Upon the reassembly of the arbitrators, Baron d'Itajubá called on the -British counsel for a statement or an argument on the questions of due -diligence, and of the effect of commissions held by Confederate war -vessels which had entered British ports, and of the legitimacy of coal -supplies to Confederate vessels in British ports. Of course the counsel -of the United States would be permitted to reply. - -[Sidenote: The decision in the case of the _Alabama_.] - -The Tribunal approved the proposition, and then proceeded to the case -of the _Alabama_. The Arbitrators agreed unanimously in their views of -this case, holding the Government of Great Britain guilty of a lack of -due diligence. The case of the tender to the _Alabama_ was viewed in -the same light. - -[Sidenote: The decision in the case of the _Shenandoah_, and other -vessels.] - -The Tribunal then took up the case of the _Shenandoah_. The Arbitrators -were unanimously of the opinion in this case that the British -Government had not failed in due diligence anterior to the time when -the vessel entered the port of Melbourne. On the other hand, three of -the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, Mr. Adams and Mr. Staempfli, held that -the British Government was responsible for all the acts of this vessel -committed after leaving Melbourne. - -In regard to all the other vessels mentioned in the case of the United -States, excepting only the _Retribution_, the Arbitrators were -unanimous in the opinion that the British Government had not failed in -due diligence in the discharge of its duties as a neutral, and in -regard {317} to the _Retribution_ three of the five Arbitrators held -the like opinion. After hearing the additional arguments called for, -the Tribunal closed the doors on the 26th of August, and, without the -presence even of agents or counsel, deliberated upon the momentous -questions submitted to it. On the 9th of September the decision was -adopted. The Tribunal then adjourned to the 14th, upon which day the -decision was to be proclaimed to the world. - -The public session of the Tribunal on the 14th was a solemn and an -imposing affair with nothing to mar the satisfaction of those who -participated in it, except the discourtesy of Sir Alexander Cockburn, -who not only kept the assembly waiting for his appearance long past the -appointed hour, but departed with unseemly haste at the close of the -valedictory pronounced by the president, Count Sclopis. - -The award followed the line of the opinions already recited. It -convicted the British Government of a lack of due diligence in the -discharge of its neutral duties in the cases of the _Alabama_ and the -_Florida_ and their respective tenders, and also in the case of the -_Shenandoah_ from the time she left the port of Melbourne, but -exonerated it in all other cases. - -The award also repeated the decision announced by Count Sclopis, on the -19th of June, excluding the claims for national and indirect damages, -and then fixed the amount due to the United States from Great Britain -in the gross sum of "fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars in -gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States -for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of -the Tribunal." Sir Alexander Cockburn refused to sign the award, and -filed a statement of his reasons for his dissent. The other four -members of the Tribunal signed {318} it, and as the majority rule had -been provided for in the Treaty, both of the high contracting parties -were duly bound, and so regarded themselves. - -[Sidenote: International principles settled by the Geneva Tribunal.] - -As to principles decided by the entire procedure of the commissioners -and of their Governments in the formation of the Treaty, and of the -Arbitrators in making the award, we may say, first, that all questions -of damages resulting from the lack of due diligence on the part of a -neutral in the fulfilment of the duties of neutrality were regarded as -proper subjects for arbitration, and that the determination of the -question whether the claims presented, or any of them, are a good -foundation for an award of compensation was also regarded as a proper -question for arbitration; second, that due diligence to be exercised by -neutral governments is diligence "in exact proportion to the risks to -which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to -fulfil the obligations of neutrality on their part"; third, that the -fact that a commission was only subsequently given by a belligerent to -a vessel constructed, equipped or armed for the belligerent in the port -of the neutral does not heal the violation of the duties of neutrality -by the neutral in not using due diligence to prevent such construction, -equipment or armament in its ports; fourth, that the privilege of -ex-territoriality accorded to vessels of war can never be appealed to -for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality; fifth, that -no neutral can excuse itself from the due discharge of the duties of -neutrality on account of imperfections in its own laws and government; -and sixth, that the cost to the belligerent of pursuing vessels, which -have been enabled to operate against the belligerent on account of the -dereliction of the neutral, and all indirect loss resulting therefrom, -do not constitute a "good foundation for an {319} award of compensation -or computation of damages between nations." - -[Sidenote: The Northwest boundary question.] - -Two other questions of great importance were placed in course of -solution by the Treaty of Washington. One was the contention between -the two high contracting parties concerning the boundary line between -the United States and British Columbia from the point where the -forty-ninth parallel of north latitude intersects the middle of the -channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island to the -Pacific Ocean. The contention on the part of Great Britain was that -this line should run, according to the stipulations of the Treaty of -June 15th, 1846, through the Rosario Straits, and on the part of the -United States that it should run through the Canal de Haro. The high -contracting parties agreed, in the thirty-fourth article of the Treaty -of Washington, to submit this question to the arbitration and award of -His Majesty the German Emperor, whose decision thereon should be final -and without appeal. The German Emperor, William I., accepted this duty; -and on the 21st of October, 1872, announced his award, upholding the -contention of the United States. - -[Sidenote: The Fisheries question.] - -The other question was that which related to the common rights of -fishing to be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the two high -contracting parties along the Atlantic coast. The eighteenth article of -the Treaty provided that the inhabitants of the United States should -have for the term of twelve years, in common with the subjects of Her -Britannic Majesty, the right to take sea fish "of every kind, except -shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and -creeks, of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and -the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands {320} -thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the -shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and -islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying -their nets and curing their fish." By article nineteenth the same right -was accorded to British subjects, in common with the citizens of the -United States, along "the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United -States north of the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and on the -shores of the several islands adjacent thereunto, and in the bays, -harbors and creeks of the said sea-coasts and shores of the United -States and of the said islands." Finally, by article twenty-first free -trade between Canada and Prince Edward's Island and the United States -in the produce of their respective sea-fisheries was established. - -[Sidenote: The Halifax commission and award.] - -The contention on the part of Great Britain in regard to this subject -was that the rights and privileges accorded to the citizens of the -United States by these articles were more valuable than those conceded -to the subjects of Great Britain by the United States, and that a sum -of money should be paid to Great Britain by the United States in offset -thereof. The United States denied the British assumption, and the two -high contracting parties agreed, in the twenty-third article of the -Treaty, to leave this matter to the arbitration and award of three -commissioners, one to be appointed by the President of the United -States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and a third by the President and -the Queen conjointly, provided they could agree upon a person within -three months from the date when the Treaty should take effect and, if -not, then by the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at the Court of St. James. - -The President named, as the representative of the United States, the -Hon. Ensign H. Kellogg. The Queen {321} appointed, as her -representative, Sir Alexander T. Galt. And the two high contracting -parties not being able to agree upon the third member of the -commission, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to the Queen named Maurice -Delfosse, the Belgian Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States. -Delfosse had been proposed by the British Government to the Government -of the United States as the third commissioner, and the President had -objected to him as being the representative of a country whose -interests were too nearly allied with those of Great Britain. It was -naturally understood by the President that this had disposed of -Delfosse, and the Government at Washington was taken by surprise when -the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at London, Count Beust, made it -manifest that he should name Mr. Delfosse. Mr. Fish, the Secretary of -State, with true diplomatic instinct, immediately accommodated himself, -however, to the situation, and congratulated Delfosse upon his -appointment. Count Beust announced the choice of Delfosse on the 2d of -March, 1877, nearly six years after the Washington Treaty was -negotiated and signed, during which period the fisheries of -Newfoundland were brought under the same agreements as those of Canada, -Prince Edward's Island, and the United States above the thirty-ninth -parallel. The Commission finally met at Halifax in the latter half of -the year 1877 and on November 23d, 1877, made its award, sustaining by -a vote of two to one the contention of Great Britain, and adjudging -that the United States Government should pay the Government of Great -Britain the sum of five millions five hundred thousand dollars in gold. - -The representative of the United States, Mr. Kellogg, dissented from -the decision; and it was felt in the United States that the Government -had been overreached in the matter. Considerable delay in the {322} -payment of the amount thus resulted, and some controversy over it with -Great Britain occurred. But finally, on November 21st, 1878, the draft -for the amount was delivered to the British Government by Mr. Welsh, -the Minister of the United States at the Court of St. James. - -Two other events of an international character happened within the -decade between 1867 and 1877 to which brief reference should be made, -viz., the Chinese Treaty of 1868, and the strong and persistent attempt -of President Grant to bring Santo Domingo under the sovereignty of the -United States. - -[Sidenote: The Burlingame Treaty with China.] - -In 1861 Anson Burlingame, a citizen of the United States and a resident -of Massachusetts, was sent as Minister of the United States to China. -He was a diplomatist of much skill, and he succeeded in making such a -deep impression upon the Emperor of China that the latter, on his -resignation as Minister of the United States to China in 1867, made him -Envoy Extraordinary from China to the United States and the European -states for the purpose of securing treaties of amity and commerce -between China and the states of the civilized world. He came -immediately to the United States and negotiated with Mr. Seward, the -Secretary of State of the United States, the Treaty of July 28th, 1868, -whereby freedom of emigration and immigration between China and the -United States was established, upon the principle of the "inherent and -inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance" expressly -subscribed to by the United States and China in the Treaty; the -residence of Chinese consuls in the ports of the United States, with -the same privileges and immunities as the British and Russian consuls -enjoyed in said ports, was agreed to; and freedom of religion for -citizens of {323} the United States in China, and Chinese converts to -the Christian religion in China, and for Chinese subjects in the United -States, was mutually pledged. This Treaty was heralded at the time as -being an immense advance in bringing China into close sympathy with -modern civilization. But very soon the "labor element," as it assumes -to call itself, in the United States, began to find fault with the -liberal provisions upon the subject of emigration and immigration, and -has succeeded in forcing the Government of the United States back from -its ideal position to the old ground of national exclusiveness. The -example set by the United States has been accepted by the Chinese -Government as a justification of its old methods, and as an excuse for -dropping back into them in great measure. - -[Sidenote: The attempt to annex the Dominican Republic to the United -States.] - -At the moment of General Grant's accession to the presidency there was -civil commotion in the Dominican Republic. Buenaventura Baez was the -legal President of the Republic, but he had lost the support of a very -large proportion of the population, who were following a leader named -Cabral. Cabral and his party were so strong that Baez feared the -overthrow of his government, and sought to avert it by proposing -annexation to the United States. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty.] - -In July of 1869, President Grant sent General Orville E. Babcock to -Santo Domingo with written instructions from the Secretary of State, -Mr. Fish, to inquire into the political situation there and into the -value and resources of the country. Babcock, terming himself -aide-de-camp to the President of the United States, succeeded somehow -or other in so impressing his importance and authority upon the willing -Baez and his confederates as to move them to sign a treaty for the -annexation of the Dominican Republic to the United States. It appears -that he pledged the {324} President of the United States to use -privately all his influence with the members of Congress for the -ratification of the Treaty. - -[Sidenote: The Treaty before the Senate.] - -On the 10th of January, 1870, President Grant sent this proposed Treaty -to the Senate for ratification. He must have thought that there would -be no difficulty in securing for it the approval of that body, for his -message was only three lines in length and contained no argument. It -was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it soon became -manifest that a serious opposition to ratification was developing -itself. The President now procured from the Dominican representative at -Washington an agreement to an extension of the time for ratification, -and in communicating this to the Senate on May 31st he went into an -argument in support of the proposed treaty. He said, among other -things, that the acquisition of this country would cut off one hundred -millions of dollars' worth of the imports of the United States and -largely increase its exports, and would thus enable the United States -to extinguish its large debt abroad; that it would give the United -States military command of the entrance to the Caribbean Sea and "the -Isthmus transit of commerce"; and that it was necessary in order to -maintain the Monroe Doctrine. He declared that the inhabitants of Santo -Domingo yearned "for the protection of our free institutions and laws, -and our progress and civilization." And he affirmed that he had -information that a European Power was standing ready to offer two -millions of dollars for the possession of Samana Bay alone. It would be -difficult to find another message of a President of the United States -which contained an equal amount of such extravagant nonsense. - -[Sidenote: Its rejection.] - -The Committee on Foreign Affairs thoroughly sifted the subject, and -recommended that the proposed Treaty {325} be not ratified, and the -Senate, despite the influence of the Administration, sustained the -Committee. This action of the Senate occurred on the 30th of June. The -President was surprised, mortified and indignant. He was especially -angry with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator -Sumner, and was from that moment determined to oust Sumner from that -position. - -[Sidenote: The President's attempt to renew negotiations.] - -In his next annual message, that of December 5th, 1870, he took up the -matter again, went over all of his old arguments expressed in even more -extravagant language than before, and added the prophecy that if the -United States did not take Santo Domingo, European nations would -acquire the Bay of Samana and create there a great commercial city to -which the United States would become tributary without receiving -corresponding benefits, and that then the folly of the rejection of so -great a prize by the United States would be recognized. He then asked -Congress to authorize him to appoint a commission to negotiate a treaty -with the authorities of Santo Domingo for its annexation to the United -States, and suggested that the treaty so negotiated might be ratified -by a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, instead of by the -Senate alone. - -[Sidenote: The Committee of Inquiry.] - -These recommendations and suggestions and the language in which they -were expressed were felt to be most exasperating by those Senators and -Representatives who opposed the President's scheme, and the President's -supporters saw quickly that Congress would not sanction any such -measure as he proposed. In place of it, Senator Morton, of Indiana, -offered in the Senate a resolution to empower the President to appoint -a commission, composed of three persons, to go to Santo Domingo and -inquire into the {326} political situation and the resources of the -country. This resolution finally passed under strong opposition, and -the House of Representatives concurred in it with the proviso, which -the Senate accepted, that the resolution should not be construed as -committing Congress in any manner or degree to the policy of annexing -Santo Domingo to the United States. - -[Sidenote: The report of the commissioners.] - -The President appointed as commissioners Benjamin F. Wade, Andrew D. -White and Samuel G. Howe. These gentlemen proceeded to Santo Domingo, -made their inquiries, and furnished the President with a report -sustaining his views and recommendations. - -[Sidenote: The abandonment of the scheme.] - -On the 5th of April, 1871, the President submitted this report to -Congress, accompanied by a message which contained a justification of -his own conduct in the whole matter, and an attack upon those who -opposed his policy of annexation, especially upon Senator Sumner. It -was a very undignified, not to say puerile, document, and ought never -to have been written, much less sent. It revealed, however, the fact -that the President understood at last that he must abandon his pet -scheme. He did it, however, with a very bad grace, and in his last -annual message he repeated for the third time his old arguments in -favor of his miserable project, "not," he said, "as a recommendation -for a renewal of the subject of annexation," but in vindication of his -conduct in regard to it. It is needless to add that none of his fearful -predictions about European occupation of Santo Domingo, in case the -United States should fail to seize it, and the destruction of the -Monroe Doctrine, have come to pass. On the other hand, the Monroe -Doctrine has attained an almost monstrous growth which at times appears -as likely to threaten as to preserve the peace of the two {327} -Americas, and the poor little Dominican Republic, which was incapable -of self-government, still exists and seems to be bettering its -condition by its own efforts, while the great European city in the Bay -of Samana, to which the United States was to become tributary, has not -even the substance of a mirage in the waters upon which the vast -marines of the world were to ride in approaching its docks and -landings. Such has been the fulfilment of the prophecy upon which was -based the supposed necessity of expansion beyond the seas! - -{328} - - - - -{329} - -INDEX - - -Abbott, Josiah G., on electoral commission, 286 - -Adams, Charles Francis, joins liberal republicans, 264; - candidate for presidential nomination, 265; - returns from England, 303; - at Geneva arbitration, 311, 316 - -Adams, John Q., nominated for vice-presidency, 267 - -Alabama, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - convention and election in, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 146; - election in, 149; - disfranchisements in, 150; - voting on constitution, 151, 153, 197; - act on admission of members from, 198; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - republicans get control in, 268, 269; - change in character of government, 273 - -_Alabama_, the, case of, 316, 317 - -_Alabama_ claims, 307, 308, 316, 317 - -Alaska, purchase of, 299-302 - -Alexandria, Va., Pierpont government at, 13, 224 - -Alta Vela, matter of claim to, 177, 178 - -Ames, Adelbert, resigns as governor of Mississippi, 275 - -Anderson, T. C., in Louisiana politics, 269 - -Arkansas, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - Lincoln's acts toward, 12; - presidential reconstruction in, 15; - congressmen refused seats, 15; - in Lincoln's message, 19; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - attitude of Johnson to, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - disfranchisements in, 150; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 197; - act of June, 1868, as to, 198, 199, 201; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - change in character of government, 273 - -Ashburn, George W., in convention of 1866, 100 - -Ashley, James M., action on thirteenth amendment, 29 - -Austin, Tex., convention at, 229 - - -Babcock, Orville E., mission to Santo Domingo, 323 - -Baez, Buenaventura, in Dominican politics, 323 - -Baird, Absalom, New Orleans riot, 94-97 - -Baltimore, Md., republican convention at, 20; - democratic convention at, 266 - -Banks, Nathaniel P., appoints election in Louisiana, 14; - views on purchase of Alaska, 300 - -Bayard, Thomas F., on electoral commission, 286 - -Bell, John, desertion of the Union cause, 221 - -Benton, Thomas H., in convention of 1866, 100 - -Bernard, Mountague, on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Beust, Count, names Delfosse for Halifax commission, 321 - -Bingham, John A., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - on impeachment committee, 174; - impeachment manager, 175; - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177; - offers amendment as to Georgia, 242 - -Black, Jeremiah S., counsel for Johnson, 176; - his withdrawal, 177, 178; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Blaine, James G., proposes amendment to reconstruction bill, 115, 116; - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177; - in convention of 1876, 281; - views on purchase of Alaska, 300 - -Blair, Francis P., nominated for vice-presidency, 211; - conduct in the campaign, 211, 212 - -Blair, Montgomery, in convention of 1866, 99; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Blow, Henry T., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57 - -Borie, Adolph E., becomes secretary of the navy, 231; - resigns, 232 - -Botts, John Minor, in convention of 1866, 100 - -Boutwell, George S., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - on impeachment committee, 174; - impeachment manager, 175; - becomes secretary of the treasury, 232 - -Bradley, Joseph P., on electoral commission, 289 - -Brodhead, James O., letter from F. P. Blair, 211 - -Brown, B. Gratz, joins liberal republicans, 264; - nominated for vice-presidency, 265 - -Browning, Orville H., enters cabinet, 90; - in convention of 1866, 99 - -Brownlow, William G., elected governor of Tennessee, 25; - in convention of 1866, 100 - -Bullock, Rufus B., share in reconstruction of Georgia, 237-239, 241, - 244 - -Burlingame, Anson, treaty with China, 322 - -Butler, Benjamin F., impeachment manager, 175; - signs letter on Alta Vela claim, 177; - attack on Johnson, 181; - proposes bill as to Georgia, 240; - withdraws his amendment, 242 - - -Cabral, in Dominican politics, 323 - -Cameron, Simon, in convention of 1866, 100 - -Campbell, James, in convention of 1866, 99 - -Campbell, John A., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Canada, the fisheries question, 320-322 - -Canby, Edward R. S., supersedes Sickles, 143 - -Carpenter, Matthew H., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Carpenter, testimony as to Ku-Klux, 259 - -Cartter, David K., action in case against Thomas, 171, 172, 174 - -Cartwright, J. C., Oregon elector of 1876, 291 - -Chamberlain, Daniel H., as governor of South Carolina, 274; - retires from the office, 296 - -Chandler, Zachariah, in convention of 1866, 100; - manages campaign for Hayes, 283 - -Chase, Salmon P., presides at impeachment of Johnson, 176; - rulings, 181; - puts final question, 191; - candidate for presidential nomination, 210 - -Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (5 Peters 1), 144 - -Chicago, Ill., democratic convention at, 207; - republican convention of 1868, 207 - -China, the Burlingame treaty, 322 - -Cincinnati, O., liberal republican convention at, 265; - republican convention of 1876, 280 - -Civil Rights, state legislation on, 45-52, 62; - bill on, in Congress, 68-70; - the bill criticised, 71; - bill passed over veto, 73 - -Clarendon, Earl of, treaty negotiated with Johnson, 303 - -Clements, White vs., 237 - -Cleveland, O., radical republican convention at, 20; - soldier convention at, 101 - -Clifford, Nathan, on electoral commission, 286 - -Cochrane, John, nominated for vice-presidency, 20; - withdraws, 21 - -Cockburn, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration, 311, 315, 317 - -Coke, Richard, elected governor of Texas, 249, 273 - -Colfax, Schuyler, elected Speaker, 42; - appoints committee on impeachment, 174; - nominated for vice-presidency, 207; - character of acceptance, 208 - -Columbia, S. C., made head-quarters of second military district, 135 - -Committee of the House on Elections, Georgia case referred to, 223 - -Committee of the House on Impeachment, appointed, 174; - proceedings, 175 _et seq._ - -Committee of the House on Reconstruction, reports bill, 112; - bill passed, 117; - Covode resolution referred to, 171; - reports impeachment resolution, 173; - reports bill as to Georgia, 240 - -Committee of the House on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth - amendment, 28; - Blaine moves reference to, 116 - -Committee of the House on the Rebellious States, 15 - -Committee of the Senate on Elections, Georgia case referred to, 223 - -Committee of the Senate on Finance, bill reported from, 277 - -Committee of the Senate on Foreign Relations, Sumner loses chairmanship - of, 264; - opposes Dominican treaty, 324, 325 - -Committee of the Senate on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth - amendment, 26-28; - proposes Freedmen's Bureau bill, 64; - reports a civil rights bill, 68; - action on bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act, 233 - -Committee of the Senate on the Rebellious States, 15 - -Congress of the United States, power vested in, 3; - action on State perdurance, 5; - power over territories, 6; - relation of its acts to Reconstruction, 12; - legislation on Reconstruction, 15; - action as to electoral vote of 1864, 21, 22; - twenty-second joint rule, 24, 25; - attitude to Tennessee, 26; - meeting of December, 1865, 40; - Johnson's views of powers of, 41; - demand of southerners for seats, 56; - joint committee on reconstruction, 57, 58; - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, 66; - passes civil rights bill, 70, 73; - the fourteenth amendment, 74-79; - proposal of committee on reconstruction, 80; - reports to, on reconstruction, 84-86; - passage of Freedmen's Bureau bill, 87-90; - relation to campaign of 1866, 98; - attacked by Johnson, 102; - effect of election of 1866, 104; - effect of Johnson's message on, 105; - passes bill for negro suffrage in District of Columbia, 107, 108; - bill vetoed, 107, 108; - bill passed over veto, 109; - vetoes sent to, 126; - encroachment on President's power, 128; - passes supplemental reconstruction bill, 129; - opening of fortieth Congress, 132; - passes bill interpreting Reconstruction Acts, 140; - passes bill over veto, 142; - as to powers of, 147; - attitude of southern whites to acts of, 149; - additional bill as to reconstructed States, 152, 153; - comment on the act, 154; - message to, of December, 1867, 158-160; - admission of Southern members, 198, 202; - action on proclamation of fourteenth amendment, 204; - friction with Johnson, 214; - annual message to, 214; - action on fifteenth amendment, 217; - question as to southern members, 223, 225; - admits members from Virginia, 228; - passes modification of Tenure-of-Office Act, 234; - readmission of Georgia, 235-244; - attitude to the South, 248; - bill to enforce the amendments, 253-255; - control of elections to, 256; - statute on the Ku-Klux, 257, 258; - legislation on finance, 276-279; - electoral count of 1877, 283, 284; - bill for electoral commission, 284, 285; - action as to Santo Domingo, 326. - _See_ House of Representatives; Senate; Statutes of the United States - -Conkling, Roscoe, on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - in convention of 1876, 281 - -Connecticut ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Constitution of the United States, government provided by the, 2-4; - relation of State government to, 5, 6; - powers of Congress over elections, 22; - eligibility to vice-presidency, 23, 24; - adoption of the thirteenth amendment, 26-30, 55; - the fourteenth amendment, 73-80, 82, 83; - fourteenth amendment in the campaign of 1866, 98; - fourteenth amendment rejected in South, 106, 109; - fourteenth amendment with reference to revival of State functions, - 110; - tests of, applied to reconstruction bill, 113; - in reconstruction bill, 120, 121; - interpreted by the Supreme Court, 144; - fourteenth amendment ratified in Arkansas, 197; - ratification of fourteenth amendment completed, 202-205; - action on fifteenth amendment, 217; - fifteenth amendment ratified by Georgia, 240; - provision for enforcement of amendments, 253-255 - -Covode, John, resolutions on Johnson, 171 - -Cowan, Edgar, action on the Stevens resolution, 57; - in convention of 1866, 99 - -Cox, Jacob D., in Pittsburg convention, 102; - becomes secretary of the interior, 231 - -Creswell, John A. J., in convention of 1866, 100; - becomes postmaster-general, 231 - -Cronin, E. A., Oregon elector in 1876, 290, 291 - -Curtin, A. G., in convention of 1866, 100 - -Curtis, Benjamin R., counsel for Johnson, 176; - argument, 182, 183 - -Cushing, Caleb, at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Custer, George A., in Cleveland convention, 101 - - -Davis, David, joins liberal republicans, 264; - candidate for presidential nomination, 265; - elected Senator, 287; - relation to electoral commission, 288 - -Davis, Henry Winter, bill on reconstruction, 15-18; - protest against Lincoln's proclamation, 19 - -Davis, J. C. Bancroft, at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Delaware, in election of 1866, 104; - votes for Seymour, 212 - -Delfosse, Maurice, on Halifax commission, 321 - -Dennison, William, resignation, 90, 142 - -District of Columbia, bill for negro suffrage in, 107; - bill vetoed, 108; - bill passed over veto, 109; - bill on colored schools in, 216 - -Dix, John A., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Dixon, James, action on the Stevens resolution, 57; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Doolittle, James R., action on the Stevens resolution, 57; - in convention of 1866, 99; - view of the Stanton case, 189; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Drew, George F., becomes governor of Florida, 296 - -Durant, Thomas J., in convention of 1866, 100 - -Durell, E. H., in Louisiana politics, 270, 271 - - -Edmunds, George F., on electoral commission, 286 - -Electoral Commission, creation, 284, 285; - membership, 286-289; - proceedings, 290-293 - -Emory, W. H., relations with Johnson, 175, 179, 181 - -English, James E., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Evarts, William M., counsel for Johnson, 176; - counsel before electoral commission, 291; - at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Ewing, Thomas, in Cleveland convention, 101; - nominated as secretary of war, 173 - - -Farragut, David D., accompanies Johnson to the West, 102 - -Favrot, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Federal government, system of, 1, 2 - -Ferry, Thomas W., announces result of 1876 election, 294 - -Fessenden, William P., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - theory of reconstruction, 60; - opinion on impeachment, 184; - view of the Stanton case, 189; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Field, Stephen J., on electoral commission, 286 - -Fish, Hamilton, becomes secretary of state, 232; - negotiations with Great Britain, 306, 307; - controversy with Granville, 312; - congratulates Delfosse, 321 - -Fisheries Question, the, 320-322 - -Flanders, Benjamin F., elected to House of Representatives, 14 - -Florida, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - convention in, 38; - adopts thirteenth amendment, 39; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - act on admission of members from, 198; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - contest as to election returns of 1876, 283, 289; - change of administration, 296 - -_Florida_, the, case of, 315-317 - -Fowler, Joseph S., vote on impeachment, 191 - -Freedmen's Bureau, created, 44, 45; - Grant's opinion of its officers, 63; - bill of 1866, 64-67; - bill passed over veto, 87-90. - _See_ Statutes of the United States - -Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., on electoral commission, 286 - -Frémont, John C., nominated for presidency, 20; - withdraws, 21 - - -Galt, Alexander T., on Halifax commission, 321 - -Garfield, James A., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177; - on electoral commission, 286 - -Garland, Augustus H., elected governor of Arkansas, 273 - -Geneva Arbitration, 307, 308, 311-318 - -Georgia, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - convention and election in, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - case of Georgia vs. Stanton, 146, 195; - registration in, 147; - election in, 148; - election in, 149; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - controversy in, 155; - act on admission of members from, 198, 199; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratification of fourteenth amendment, 205; - votes for Seymour, 212; - question in Congress as to representation of, 224; - question of representation of, 235-237; - military government in, 238, 239; - fifteenth amendment ratified, 240; - admission delayed, 241, 242; - finally restored to federal relations, 243, 244; - escape from negro rule, 247, 248; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Gerry, Elbridge, in convention of 1866, 100 - -Gillem, A. C., arrest of McCardle, 196 - -Granger, Gordon, in Cleveland convention, 101 - -Grant, Ulysses S., report on conditions at the South, 63; - accompanies Johnson to the West, 102; - acting Secretary of War, 143, 158; - injunction against sought, 146; - appointed acting secretary of war, 163; - his action thereon, 164, 165; - relations with Johnson, 166-168; - nominated for presidency, 207; - character of acceptance, 208; - attitude to reconstruction, 223; - proclamation as to Virginia, 227; - orders as to Mississippi and Texas, 229, 230; - policy characterized, 230, 231; - attitude to Tenure-of-Office Act, 231-234; - first annual message, 234; - suggestion as to Georgia, 235; - message of March, 1871, 257; - proclamation of March, 1871, 258; - proclamation of May, 1871, 259, 260; - proclamations of April and November, 1871, 260, 261; - relations with Sumner, 264; - nominated for second term, 267; - elected, 267; - veto of inflation bill, 279; - messages on relations with Great Britain, 303-306; - policy as to Santo Domingo, 323-326 - -Granville, Lord, controversy with Fish, 312 - -Great Britain, change in ministry, 303; - Grant's messages on relations with, 304-306; - the Geneva arbitration, 307-318; - the British Columbia boundary, 319; - the fisheries question, 320-322 - -Greeley, Horace, in convention of 1866, 100; - joins liberal republicans, 264; - nominated for presidency, 265, 266; - defeated, 267 - -Green, Ashbel, counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Grey and Ripon, Earl de, on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Grider, Henry, on joint committee on reconstruction, 57 - -Grimes, James W., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - view of the Stanton case, 189; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Groesbeck, William S., counsel for Johnson, 177 - - -Habeas Corpus, writ of, privileges suspended in District of Columbia, - 39 - -Hahn, Michael, elected to House of Representatives, 14; - elected Governor of Louisiana, 14 - -Halifax, N. S., fisheries commission at, 320, 321 - -Hamlin, Hannibal, count of electoral votes, 24 - -Hampton, Wade, in convention of 1868, 211; - becomes governor of South Carolina, 296 - -Hancock, Winfield Scott, supersedes Sheridan, 143; - in convention of 1868, 210 - -Harlan, James, resignation, 90, 142 - -Harris, Ira, on joint committee on reconstruction, 57 - -Hawley, Joseph R., in republican convention of 1866, 207 - -Hayes, Rutherford B., significance of his election, 279; - nominated for presidency, 281, 282; - the campaign, 283 _et seq._; - election formally declared, 294; - policy toward the South, 295, 296 - -Henderson, John B., introduces amendment abolishing slavery, 26, 27; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Hendricks, Thomas A., candidate for presidential nomination, 210; - nominated for vice-presidency, 282 - -Herron, Francis J., in Louisiana politics, 269, 270 - -Higby, William, views on purchase of Alaska, 300 - -Hill, Benjamin H., enters Senate from Georgia, 244 - -Hoadly, George, joins liberal republicans, 264; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Hoar, Ebenezer R., becomes attorney-general, 231; - on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Hoar, George F., on electoral commission, 286 - -Hood, John B., near Nashville, 23 - -House of Representatives of the United States, admits members from - Louisiana, 14; - refuses seats to members from Arkansas, 15; - action on thirteenth amendment, 28-30; - elects Colfax Speaker, 42; - the Stevens resolution, 42-44; - speech by Stevens, 58; - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, 66; - passes civil rights bill, 73; - representation in, 74; - election of 1866, 98; - effect of election of 1866, 104; - attempt to impeach Johnson, 109; - bill on reconstruction before the, 112-118; - resolution on confiscation act, 122; - tenure-of-office bill in, 125; - bill on reconstructed States, 153; - action on dismissal of Stanton, 171; - proceedings of impeachment against Johnson, 173 _et seq._; - passes bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act, 232, 233; - democrats secure control of, 253, 273; - jurisdiction over treaties, 301, 302. - _See_ Congress of the United States; Statutes of the United States - -Houston, George S., elected governor of Alabama, 273 - -Howard, Jacob M., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - illness delays vote on impeachment, 190 - -Howe, Samuel G., commissioner to Santo Domingo, 326 - -Hunt, Ward, 289 - -Hunton, Eppa, on electoral commission, 286 - - -Illinois, ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - Davis elected Senator from, 287 - -Indiana, election of 1886 in, 103; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Iowa, election of 1866 in, 103; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -d'Itajubá, Baron, at Geneva arbitration, 311, 316 - - -Jenkins, Charles J., institutes suit against Stanton, 145; - removed by Meade, 155 - -Johnson, Andrew, elected vice-president, 21; - calls Tennessee convention, 23; - proclamation of Feb. 25, 1865, 25; - becomes president, 30; - plan and acts as to reconstruction, 31-41; - proclamation of May 29, 1865, 33, 34; - identity of his plan with Lincoln's, 36; - proclaims federal law in force in Virginia, 37; - proclamations as to civil government, 39; - message of Dec., 1865, 40; - relation to congressional views of reconstruction, 61; - sends Grant and Schurz through the South, 63; - veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill, 66, 67; - speech of Feb. 22, 1866, 67; - veto of civil rights bill, 70, 71; - effect of it, 72; - veto overridden, 73; - as to fourteenth amendment, 80; - message as to Tennessee, 83; - veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill overridden, 88-90; - relations with Stanton, 90, 91; - changes in cabinet, 90; - relation to New Orleans riot, 95, 96; - endorsed by convention of 1866, 99; - criticized by conventions of 1866, 101, 102; - takes part in campaign of 1866, 102; - proclamation declaring war ended, 103; - message of Dec., 1866, 104, 105; - vetoes bill as to negro suffrage in District of Columbia, 107, 108; - bill passed over his veto, 109; - first attempt at impeachment, 109; - vetoes resolution on confiscation act, 122; - influence of Seward on, 124; - vetoes reconstruction bill and tenure-of-office bill, 126; - encroachment on his power, 128; - veto of supplemental reconstruction bill, 132, 133; - orders under the statutes, 135, 136, 138; - vetoes bill interpreting reconstruction acts, 140, 141; - distrust of Stanton, 140; - veto overridden, 142; - suspends Stanton, 142, 143; - Mississippi vs. Johnson, 145, 195; - supersedes Pope with Meade, 152; - the attempt to impeach, 157-194; - message on suspension of Stanton, 160-163; - relations with Grant, 164-168; - supersedes Stanton with Thomas, 169, 170; - Covode resolution, 171; - action of House on impeachment, 173 _et seq._; - vetoes overridden, 197, 199, 202; - proclaims reconstruction completed, 202; - conduct in campaign of 1868, 213; - last annual message, 214; - proclamation of Dec., 1868, 215; - veto of colored school bill, 216; - retirement, 218, 219; - relations with republicans, 219-221; - policy compared with Grant's, 230 - -Johnson, James, appointed governor of Georgia, 37 - -Johnson, Reverdy, on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - report on reconstruction, 86; - in convention of 1866, 99; - offers bill on reconstruction, 117; - negotiates treaty with Clarendon, 303 - -Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 57, 58; - recommendation on representation, 74; - proposes bill, 80; - its bill rejected, 82; - final report of, 84-86 - -Joint High Commission, 307 - -Julian, George W., on impeachment committee, 174; - joins liberal republicans, 264 - - -Kansas ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Kellogg, Ensign H., on Halifax commission, 320, 321 - -Kellogg, William P., in Louisiana politics, 270-272; - certificate in 1876 election, 290 - -Kendall vs. United States (12 Peters 524), 144 - -Kentucky, reconstruction in, 7, 13; - in Lincoln's message, 20; - in election of 1866, 104; - votes for Seymour, 212; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Kenzie, Lewis M., in convention of 1866, 100 - -Kernan, Francis, in convention of 1868, 209 - -Koontz, William H., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177 - -Ku-Klux, the, 250-252, 255; - act of April, 1871, 257, 258; - trials, 261 - - -Lawrence, William B., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Lewis, D. P., elected governor of Alabama, 268 - -Liberal Republicans, convention of 1872, 264, 265; - in campaign of 1872, 266 - -Lincoln, Abraham, views and acts as to reconstruction, 8-30; - his proposed oath of allegiance, 10; - attitude to the Pierpont government, 13; - course toward Louisiana, 14, 15; - proclamation of July 8, 1864, 18, 19; - message of Dec. 6, 1864, 19, 20; - renominated, 20; - re-elected, 21; - message of Feb. 8, 1865, 22; - views of powers of Congress, 24; - attitude to Brownlow's administration, 26; - nature of acts as to abolition, 26; - signs resolution on thirteenth amendment, 29; - assassinated, 30; - his cabinet retained by Johnson, 32; - identity of plan of reconstruction with Johnson's, 36 - -Lindsay, Robert B., course as governor of Alabama, 268 - -Logan, John A., on impeachment committee, 174; - impeachment manager, 175; - approves letter on Alta Vela claim, 177 - -Louisiana, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - Lincoln's acts toward, 12; - presidential reconstruction in, 14, 15; - in Lincoln's message, 19; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 21, 22; - attitude of Johnson to, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - contest for control of state government, 92-98; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - disfranchisements in, 150; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - act on admission of members from, 198; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - votes for Seymour, 212; - corruption in, 263; - contest for political control in, 269-272; - contested electoral vote of 1876, 283, 289, 290; - change of administration, 296 - -Louisville, Ky., democratic convention at, 267 - -Loyal League, the, 250, 252 - -Luther vs. Borden, (7 Howard 1), 144 - -Lynch, John, in Louisiana politics, 269-272 - - -Macdonald, John, on Joint High Commission, 307 - -McCardle, William H., case of, 195, 196 - -McClellan, George B., nominated for presidency, 20; - electoral votes, 21 - -McClernand, John A., in Cleveland convention, 101 - -McCrary, George W., suggests electoral commission, 284 - -McEnery, John, in Louisiana politics, 270-272; - certificate in 1876 election, 290 - -Maine, election of 1866 in, 103; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Marvin, William, appointed governor of Florida, 37 - -Maryland, in Lincoln's message, 20; - in election of 1866, 104; - votes for Seymour, 212; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Massachusetts ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Matthews, Stanley, in convention of 1866, 100; - joins liberal republicans, 264; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Meade, George G., supersedes Pope, 152; - report on Alabama election, 153; - removes Jenkins, 155; - proclamation of June, 1868, 238, 239 - -Merrick, Richard T., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Michigan ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Miller, J. N. Y., Oregon elector of 1876, 291 - -Miller, Samuel F., on electoral commission, 286 - -Miller enters Senate from Georgia, 244 - -Minnesota ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Mississippi, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - convention in, 38; - rejects thirteenth amendment, 39; - law on vagrancy, etc., 46-52, 62; - opinion of this legislation, 53; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - Mississippi vs. Johnson, 145; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - disfranchisements in, 151; - constitution rejected in, 156; - arrest of McCardle in, 196; - martial law in, 202; - no share in election of 1868, 212; - ratification of constitution, 229; - restored to federal relations, 229; - negro rule in, 249; - political conditions in 1875, 274, 275 - -Mississippi vs. Johnson (4 Wallace 475), 145, 193, 195 - -Missouri, Reconstruction in, 7, 13; - in Lincoln's message, 20; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - liberal republicans in, 265; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Monroe, John T., as mayor of New Orleans, 94 - -Montgomery, Ala., made head-quarters of third military district, 135 - -Moorhead, James K., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177 - -Morgan, Edwin D., vote on Freedmen's Bureau bill, 67 - -Morrill, Justin S., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57 - -Morse, Alexander P., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Morton, Oliver P., in convention of 1866, 100; - in convention of 1876, 281; - on electoral commission, 286; - resolution on Santo Domingo, 325 - -Moses, F. J., connection with South Carolina corruption, 262 - -Moses, F. J., Jr., judge-elect of South Carolina, 274 - - -Nashville, Tenn., convention at, 236 - -National Nominating Conventions, radical republican of 1864, 20; - democratic of 1864, 20; - republican of 1864, 20; - of 1866, 99-102; - republican of 1868, 207; - democratic of 1868, 208; - liberal republican of 1872, 264, 265; - democratic of 1872, 266; - republican of 1868, 267; - republican of 1876, 280, 281; - democratic of 1876, 282 - -Nebraska ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Nelson, Samuel, on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Nelson, Thomas A. R., counsel for Johnson, 176 - -Nevada ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -New Hampshire ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -New Jersey, ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - withdrawal of ratification, 203, 205, 206; - votes for Seymour, 212 - -New Orleans, La., convention at, 14; - riot at, 92-98; - head-quarters of fifth military district, 135 - -New York, ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - votes for Seymour, 212 - -New York, N. Y., democratic convention of 1868 at, 208 - -New York _Tribune_ prints protest of Wade and Davis, 19 - -Niblack, William E., motion in House, 43 - -Nicholls, Francis T., becomes governor of Louisiana, 296 - -North Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 35; - convention in, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - act on admission of members from, 198; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - recovery from negro rule, 249 - -Northcote, Stafford, on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Northwest Ordinance, 27 - -Norton, Daniel S., action on the Stevens resolution, 57; - vote on impeachment, 191 - - -O'Conor, Charles, nominated for presidency, 267; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Odell, W. H., Oregon elector of 1876, 291 - -Ohio, election of 1866 in, 103; - vote on negro suffrage in, 148; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - withdrawal of ratification, 203, 205, 206; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Ord, Edward O. C., in fourth military district, 135 - -Oregon, ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - votes for Seymour, 212; - contested electoral returns of 1876, 289-291 - - -Packard, S. B., takes possession of Louisiana capitol, 271; - retires from office of governor, 296 - -Palmer, Roundell, at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Parker, John, Oregon elector of 1876, 291 - -Parsons, Lewis E., appointed governor of Alabama, 37 - -Paschal, George W., in convention of 1886, 100 - -Patterson, David T., vote on impeachment, 191 - -Payne, Henry B., on electoral commission, 286 - -Pendleton, George H., nominated for vice-presidency, 21; - candidate for presidential nomination, 208 - -Pennsylvania, election of 1866 in, 103; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Perry, Benjamin F., appointed governor of South Carolina, 37 - -Philadelphia, Penn., conventions of 1866 at, 99, 100; - republican convention of 1872 at, 267 - -Phillips, Wendell, characterized by Johnson, 67 - -Pierpont, Francis H., attitude of Lincoln to, 13; - supported by Johnson, 37, 224 - -Pinchback, P. B. S., in Louisiana politics, 269, 272 - -Pittsburg, Penn., soldier convention at, 101 - -Poland, Luke P., connection with Thomas case, 174 - -Pope, John, in third military district, 136; - injunction sought against, 146; - election orders, 151; - recalled, 152 - -Preston, William, in convention of 1868, 210 - -Pulaski, Tenn., place of origin of Ku-Klux, 250 - - -Randall, Alexander W., appointed postmaster-general, 90; - accompanies Johnson to the West, 102 - -Rawlins, John A., becomes secretary of war, 232 - -Raymond, Henry J., views on reconstruction, 59; - vote on fourteenth amendment, 87; - in convention of 1866, 99 - -Reconstruction, theory of, 1-7; - Lincoln's views and acts as to, 8-30; - Seward's view of, 12; - in Louisiana, 14; - the Wade-Davis bill, 15-18; - relation of party conventions to, 20; - in Tennessee, 23, 25; - Johnson's plan as to, 31-41; - in North Carolina, 35; - in the several States, 37, 38; - views of House on, 43; - attitude of republicans, 44; - joint committee on, 57; - views of Stevens, 58; - views of Raymond and Shellabarger, 59; - theory of Sumner, 60; - reports of congressional committee, 84-86; - as an issue in the campaign of 1866, 98; - Johnson's defence of his policy as to, 102; - bill in the House, 112-114; - the Blaine amendment, 115, 116; - the Sherman bill, 117; - the bill as finally passed, 118-122; - vetoed by Johnson, 126; - republican motives in, 127; - supplemental bill on, 129-131; - vetoed, 132; - acts on, criticised, 133, 134; - application of acts on, 135-137; - congressional interpretation of acts on, 138; - bill interpreting the statutes on, 140; - application of statutes on, 146 _et seq._; - process of, declared completed, 202; - attitude of Grant toward, 223; - end of legislation on, 244; - reconstruction characterized, 297. - _See_ Statutes - -Republican party, schism threatened in, 20; - attitude to reconstruction, 44; - attitude to southern legislation, 52, 54; - feeling toward southern congressmen, 56; - attitude to views of Stevens, Raymond and Shellabarger, 59; - attitude to presidential reconstruction, 60, 61; - position on civil rights, 62; - attitude to Freedmen's Bureau bill, 89; - attitude to Stanton, 90, 91; - in campaign of 1866, 99, 101; - convention of 1866, 104; - in election of 1866, 104; - views on reconstruction, 110, 111; - motives in Reconstruction, 127; - interpretation of Johnson's message, 160; - action in vote on impeachment, 191; - effect of McCardle case on, 197; - convention of 1868, 207; - criticism of views of, 217; - relations with Johnson, 219-221; - control of Grant, 257; - revolt in the party, 264, 265; - convention of 1872, 267; - get control of Alabama legislature, 268, 269; - lose control in Congress, 273; - financial policy, 276; - convention of 1876, 280, 281; - campaign of 1876, 283 _et seq._; - views as to powers of Congress, 292 - -_Retribution_, the, case of, 316 - -Rhode Island ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Richmond, Va., made head-quarters of first military district, 135; - convention at, 226, 227 - -Robeson, George M., becomes secretary of the navy, 232 - -Rogers, Andrew J., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57 - -Rose, John, mission of, 306 - -Ross, Edmund G., vote on impeachment, 191 - -Rousseau, Lovell H., in Cleveland convention, 101 - -Russia, purchase of Alaska from, 300-302 - - -Safford, M. J., in convention of 1866, 100 - -St. Louis, Mo., Johnson's speech at, 102 - -Samana Bay, 324, 327 - -Santo Domingo, Sumner's position as to, 264; - attempt to annex to United States, 323-327 - -Schaffner law, the, 249 - -Schell, Augustus, in convention of 1868, 209 - -Schenck, Robert C., in convention of 1866, 100; - on Joint High Commission, 307; - at London, 312 - -Schofield, John M., assigned to first military district, 135, 226; - nominated as secretary of war, 190; - confirmed, 192; - retained by Grant, 231; - resigns, 232 - -Schriver, General, in Stanton-Thomas incident, 169, 170, 172, 173 - -Schurz, Carl, report on conditions at the South, 63; - in convention of 1866, 100; - joins liberal republicans, 264 - -Sclopis, Frederic, at Geneva arbitration, 311, 316, 317 - -Scott, R. K., views of Ku-Klux, etc., 259 - -Senate of the United States, refuses seats to members from Arkansas, - 15; - adopts thirteenth amendment, 26-28; - the Stevens resolution, 43, 44, 57; - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, 66; - passes civil rights bill, 70, 73; - effect of election of 1866, 104; - passes reconstruction bill, 118; - tenure-of-office bill in, 122, 125; - passes resolution on confiscation act, 122; - bill on reconstructed States, 153; - action on suspension of Stanton, 162, 163; - action on dismissal of Stanton, 170; - acts as court of impeachment, 176 _et seq._; - vote on impeachment, 190, 191; - confirms Schofield, 192; - resolution on the amnesty proclamation, 215, 216; - confirms Grant's nominees, 232; - admits members from Georgia, 244; - currency bill in, 277; - ratifies treaty with Russia, 300; - rejects Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 303; - rejects Dominican treaty, 324, 325. - _See_ Congress of the United States; Statutes of the United States - -Seward, William H., views on reconstruction, 12; - sends thirteenth amendment to states, 29; - retained by Johnson, 32; - calculation as to thirteenth amendment, 52, 55, 56; - announces adoption of thirteenth amendment, 55; - action on fourteenth amendment, 80; - accompanies Johnson to the west, 102; - influence on Johnson, 124; - proclaims ratification of fourteenth amendment, 202; - procedure as to the proclamation, 203-205; - negotiates purchase of Alaska, 300-301; - negotiates treaty with China, 322; - instructions to Babcock, 323 - -Seymour, Horatio, nominated for presidency, 210; - defeated, 212 - -Shaffer, J. W., secures letter on Alta Vela claims, 177 - -Sharkey, William L., appointed governor of Mississippi, 37; - institutes suit against Johnson, 145 - -Shellabarger, Samuel, theory of reconstruction, 59-61; - counsel before electoral commission, 291; - opinion of purchase of Alaska, 300 - -_Shenandoah_, the, case of, 316, 317 - -Shepley, George F., military governor of Louisiana, 14 - -Sheridan, Philip H., New Orleans riot, 94, 97; - in fifth military district, 135; - superseded by Hancock, 143 - -Sherman, John, offers bill on reconstruction, 117; - father-in-law of Ewing, 173; - reports currency bill, 277 - -Sickles, Daniel E., in second military district, 135; - superseded by Canby, 143 - -Sinclair, John G., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Skinner, J. B. L., postmaster-general _ad interim_, 186, 188 - -Slavery, adoption of the thirteenth amendment, 26-30 - -South Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - convention and election in, 38; - law on vagrancy, 46; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - character of convention in, 150; - ratifies constitution, 155, 197; - act on admission of members from, 198; - reconstruction declared complete, 202; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - request of governor for troops, 258; - proclamations of president as to, 260, 261; - corruption in, 262; - conditions in 1874, 274; - contested electoral returns of 1876, 283, 289; - change of administration, 296 - -Spaulding, J. R., joins liberal republicans, 264 - -Speed, James, resignation, 90, 142; - in convention of 1866, 100, 101 - -Staempfli, Jacob, at Geneva arbitration, 311, 315, 316 - -Stanbery, Henry, appointed attorney-general, 90; - in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, 145; - in case of Georgia vs. Stanton, 146; - arrest of Thomas, 172; - counsel for Johnson, 176 - -Stanley, Lord, secretary for foreign affairs, 303 - -Stanton, Edwin M., attitude to Johnson, 90, 91; - as to the New Orleans riot, 95, 96; - dissents from instructions on reconstruction, 136; - distrusted by Johnson, 140; - suspended, 142, 143, 158; - case of Georgia vs. Stanton, 146, 195; - message on suspension of, 160-162; - action of Senate as to, 162, 163; - superseded by Thomas, 169-172; - removal discussed before Senate, 178, 179; - power to remove, 185; - his violations of law, 189; - abdication, 192 - -Statutes of the United States, of Aug. 7, 1789, 184; - of May 8, 1792, 186, 187; - of Feb. 13, 1795, 179, 186, 187; - of July 31, 1861, 175; - of Feb. 20, 1863, 187, 188; - of Mar. 3, 1865, 44, 64, 65, 89; - of April 9, 1866, 68-73; - of July 16, 1866, 87-90; - of Feb. 5, 1873, 197; - of Mar. 2, 1867 (on reconstruction), 112-121, 126, 136, 159, 160, - 175, 179, 193, 197, 215, 235, 239, 243, 245, 247, 250-253; - of Mar. 2, 1867 (on tenure-of-office), 122-126, 160-163, 165, 166, - 174, 178, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 214, 231-234; - of Mar. 11, 1867, 155; - of Mar. 23, 1867, 129-133, 136, 159, 160, 193, 197, 235, 245, 247, - 250-253; - of June 22, 1868, 198; - of June 25, 1868, 202, 241, 249; - of June 28, 1868, 198; - of July 26, 1868, 302; - of Mar. 18, 1869, 276, 277; - of April 10, 1869, 229; - of Dec. 22, 1869, 239; - of May 31, 1870, 255, 256; - of July 14, 1870, 276, 278; - of July 15, 1870, 244; - of Jan. 20, 1871, 276; - of Feb. 28, 1871, 256; - of April 20, 1871, 257, 260, 261; - of May 22, 1872, 268; - of Jan. 14, 1875, 279, 283 - -Stearns, M. L., retires as governor of Florida, 296 - -Stephens, Alexander H., seeks seat in Congress, 56 - -Stevens, Thaddeus, proposes substitute thirteenth amendment, 28; - resolution on representation, 42-44, 57; - view of Mississippi legislation, 53; - on committee on reconstruction, 57; - views of reconstruction, 58; - characterized by Johnson, 67; - view as to effect of secession, 81; - introduces bill on reconstruction, 112; - refuses to accept the Blaine amendment, 115, 116; - on impeachment committee, 174; - impeachment manager, 175; - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, 177; - views on purchase of Alaska, 300 - -Stewart, Alexander T., nominated for secretary of treasury, 231; - declines, 232 - -Stockton, John P., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Stoeckl, Baron, negotiates treaty for sale of Alaska, 300 - -Stone, John M., elected governor of Mississippi, 276 - -Stoughton, E. W., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Strong, William, on electoral commission, 286 - -Sumner, Charles, theory of reconstruction, 60, 61; - characterized by Johnson, 67; - joins liberal republicans, 264; - relations with Grant, 264, 325 - -Supreme Court of the United States, relation of dicta to - reconstruction, 12; - decisions, 144-146, 179, 195, 196 - -Swayne, Noah H., 289 - - -Tennessee, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - in Lincoln's message, 20; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 21, 22; - Reconstruction in, 23, 25; - civil government established in, 25; - ratifies thirteenth amendment, 30; - attitude of Johnson to, 38; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 82, 83; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Tenterden, Lord, at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Tenure-of-Office Bill, the, introduced, 122, 123; - contents, 124, 125; - vetoed, 125; - case of Stanton, 162 _et seq._ - _See_ Statutes - -Terry, Alfred H., modifies Virginia vagrant act, 225, 226; - resumes military control in Georgia, 239 - -Texas, in Lincoln's proclamation, 11; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - war declared ended in, 103; - in the reconstruction bill, 112; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - martial law in, 202; - no share in election of 1868, 212; - restored to federal relations, 229, 230; - escape from negro rule, 247-249; - election of 1872 in, 267; - change in character of government, 273 - -Thomas, George H., in third military district, 135; - transferred, 136 - -Thomas, Lorenzo, appointed to supersede Stanton, 169-173; - his position discussed before Senate, 179, 181; - law as to appointment of, 186 - -Thornton, Edward, negotiations at Washington, 306, 307 - -Thurman, Allen G., on electoral commission, 286 - -Tilden, Samuel J., in convention of 1866, 99; - in convention of 1868, 209; - nominated for presidency, 282; - the campaign, 283 _et seq._ - -Townsend, E. D., orders from Stanton, 170; - in temporary charge of war department, 192 - -Trumbull, Lyman, reports thirteenth amendment, 26; - in convention of 1866, 100; - opinion on impeachment, 184; - view of the Stanton case, 189; - vote on impeachment, 191; - proposal as to Tenure-of-Office Act, 233; - joins liberal republicans, 264; - candidate for presidential nomination, 265; - counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -Twenty-second joint rule of Congress, 24, 25 - - -Union Leagues, formation of, 250, 252 - - -Vallandigham, Clement L., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Van Winkle, Peter G., view of the Stanton case, 189; - vote on impeachment, 191 - -Vermont, election of 1866 in, 103; - ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204; - election of 1872 in, 267 - -Vicksburg, Miss., made head-quarters of fourth military district, 135 - -Virginia, reconstruction in, 7; - omission from Lincoln's proclamation, 13; - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, 22; - reconstruction in, 37; - vote on thirteenth amendment, 55; - in the reconstruction bill, 112, 122; - registration in, 147; - election in, 149; - disfranchisements in, 151; - martial law in, 202; - no share in election of 1868, 212; - question in Congress as to representation, 224; - partition of, 224; - the vagrant act, 225, 226; - a military district, 226, 227; - restored to federal relations, 228; - escape from negro rule, 247, 248 - - -Wade, Benjamin F., bill on reconstruction, 15-18; - protest against Lincoln's proclamation, 19; - opinion of Johnson, 32; - commissioner to Santo Domingo, 326 - -Waite, Morrison R., 289; - at Geneva arbitration, 311 - -Walker, Robert J., in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, 145 - -War Department, Freedmen's Bureau organized in, 44 - -Ward, Hamilton, on impeachment committee, 174 - -Warmoth, Henry C., connection with Louisiana corruption, 263; - contest for control in Louisiana, 269-272 - -Washburne, Elihu B., on joint committee on reconstruction, 57; - becomes secretary of state, 231; - resigns, 232 - -Washington, treaty of, 299, 307-310, 319 - -Watts, John W., Oregon elector in 1876, 290, 291 - -Welles, Gideon, accompanies Johnson to the west, 102 - -Wells, David A., joins liberal republicans, 264 - -Wells, J. Madison, in contest for control of Louisiana, 93 - -Welsh pays Halifax award, 322 - -West Virginia ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Wharton, John, in Louisiana politics, 269, 270 - -Wheeler, William A., nominated for vice-presidency, 282; - election formally declared, 294 - -Wheeling, W. Va., government at, 224 - -Whipper, W. J., judge-elect of South Carolina, 274 - -Whiskey ring, 272 - -White, Andrew D., commissioner to Santo Domingo, 326 - -White, Horace, joins liberal republicans, 264 - -White vs. Clements, 237 - -Whitney, William C., counsel before electoral commission, 291 - -William I., Emperor, award as to northwest boundary, 319 - -Williams, George H., offers bill on reconstruction, 117; - introduces tenure-of-office bill, 122; - impeachment manager, 175; - motions, 191; - on Joint High Commission, 307 - -Wilson, Henry, theory of reconstruction, 60; - on impeachment committee, 174; - impeachment manager, 175; - elected vice-president, 267 - -Windom, William, introduces thirteenth amendment in House, 28 - -Winthrop, Robert C., in convention of 1866, 99 - -Wisconsin ratifies fourteenth amendment, 203, 204 - -Wood, Fernando, in convention of 1866, 99 - -Wool, John E., in Cleveland convention, 101 - - - - -THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES - -_Seven volumes, 12mo, with maps and plans. Price per volume, $1.00, -net._ - -THE COLONIAL ERA.--By Rev. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of -Ecclesiastical History in Yale University. - -THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION.--By WILLIAM M. SLOANE, Ph.D., -Professor of History in Columbia University. - -THE MAKING OF THE NATION.--By General FRANCIS A. WALKER, LL.D., late -President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. - -THE MIDDLE PERIOD.--By JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of -Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University. - -THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION.--By JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D., -Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia -University. 2 vols. - -RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.--By JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D., -Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia -University. - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Reconstruction and the Constitution -1866-1876, by John Willliam Burgess - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RECONSTRUCTION *** - -***** This file should be named 50295-8.txt or 50295-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/2/9/50295/ - -Produced by Ron Swanson - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/50295-8.zip b/old/50295-8.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5139751..0000000 --- a/old/50295-8.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50295-h.zip b/old/50295-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e4f3568..0000000 --- a/old/50295-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50295-h/50295-h.htm b/old/50295-h/50295-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 130d00c..0000000 --- a/old/50295-h/50295-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14742 +0,0 @@ - -<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> - -<html> -<head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> - <title>The Project Gutenberg e-Book of Reconstruction and the Constitution, by John W. Burgess</title> - <style type="text/css"> - <!-- - body {margin:12%; text-align:justify} - h1 {text-align:center} - h2 {text-align:center} - h3 {text-align:center} - h4 {text-align:center} - .sidenotes {float:right; padding-top: 6px; - padding-bottom: 4px; - padding-left: 20px} - .pagenum {position:absolute; left:92%; text-align:right;} --> - </style> -</head> - -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Reconstruction and the Constitution -1866-1876, by John Willliam Burgess - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - -Title: Reconstruction and the Constitution 1866-1876 - -Author: John Willliam Burgess - -Release Date: October 24, 2015 [EBook #50295] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RECONSTRUCTION *** - - - - -Produced by Ron Swanson - - - - - -</pre> - -<h4><i>THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES</i></h4> -<hr align="center" width="400"> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<h1>RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION</h1> -<h4>1866-1876</h4> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center><small>BY</small></center> -<h3>JOHN W. BURGESS, P<small>H</small>.D., LL.D.</h3> -<center><small>PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,<br> -AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,<br> -IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY</small></center> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center><small>NEW YORK</small><br> -CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS<br> -<br> -1905</center> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center><small>C<small>OPYRIGHT</small>, 1902, <small>BY</small></small><br> -<small>CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS</small></center> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center><small><small>TROW DIRECTORY<br> -PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY<br> -NEW YORK</small></small></center> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center>To the memory<br> -<br> -of<br> -<br> -RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH,<br> -<br> -pupil, colleague, and life-long friend,<br> -<br> -with grief too deep for words at his loss,<br> -<br> -this volume<br> -<br> -is affectionately inscribed<br> -<br> -by the Author</center> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<h3>PREFACE</h3> -<hr align="center" width="60"> -<br> -<p>In my preface to "The Middle Period" I wrote that the re-establishment -of a real national brotherhood between the North and the South could be -attained only on the basis of a sincere and genuine acknowledgment by -the South that secession was an error as well as a failure. I come now -to supplement this contention with the proposition that a corresponding -acknowledgment on the part of the North in regard to Reconstruction -between 1866 and 1876 is equally necessary.</p> - -<p>In making this demand, I must not be understood as questioning in the -slightest degree the sincerity of the North in the main purpose of the -Reconstruction policy of that period. On the other hand, I maintain -that that purpose was entirely praiseworthy. It was simply to secure -the civil rights of the newly emancipated race, and to re-establish -loyal Commonwealths in the South. But there is now little question that -erroneous means were chosen.</p> - -<p>Two ways were open for the attainment of the end sought. One was that -which was followed, namely, placing the political power in the hands of -the newly emancipated; and the other was the nationalization of civil -liberty by placing it under the protection of the Constitution and the -national Judiciary, and holding the districts of the South under -Territorial civil government until the white race in those districts -should have sufficiently recovered from its temporary disloyalty to the -Union to be intrusted again with the powers of Commonwealth local government.</p> - -<p>There is no doubt in my own mind that the latter was the proper and -correct course. And I have just as little doubt that it would have been -found to be the truly practicable course. The people in the loyal -Commonwealths were ready in 1866 to place civil liberty as a whole -under national protection; and not half of the whites of the South -entertained, at that moment, disloyal purposes or feelings. Even the -solid Democratic South was yet to be made; and I doubt most seriously -if it would ever have been made, except for the great mistakes of the -Republican party in its choice of means and measures in Reconstruction.</p> - -<p>I will not, however, enter upon the argument in reference to this -question at this point. That belongs to the body of the book. I will -only add that, in my opinion, the North has already yielded assent to -this proposition, and has already made the required acknowledgment. The -policy of Mr. Hayes's administration, and of all the administrations -since his, can be explained and justified only upon this assumption. -And now that the United States has embarked in imperial enterprises, -under the direction of the Republican party, the great Northern party, -the North is learning every day by valuable experiences that there are -vast differences in political capacity between the races, and that it -is the white man's mission, his duty and his right, to hold the reins -of political power in his own hands for the civilization of the world -and the welfare of mankind.</p> - -<p>Let the South be equally ready, sincere, and manly in the consciousness -and the acknowledgment of its share in past errors, and the -reconciliation will be complete and permanent!</p> - -<p>I have again to express my thanks to my friend and colleague, Dr. -Cushing, for his aid in bringing this volume through the press. I -desire also to acknowledge the courtesy of the New York <i>Independent</i> -for allowing parts of my article on the Geneva Award, published some -years ago in that esteemed journal, to be incorporated in the last -chapter of this book.</p> - -<div align="right">J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>. </div> - -<p> <small>323 W<small>EST</small> 57<small>TH</small> -S<small>T.</small>, N<small>EW</small> Y<small>ORK</small> C<small>ITY</small>,<br> - January 22d, 1902</small>.</p> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CONTENTS</h3> -<hr align="center" width="60"> -<br> -<p><a href="#chap1">CHAPTER I</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> T<small>HEORY OF</small> R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap2">CHAPTER II</a><br> -P<small>RESIDENT</small> L<small>INCOLN'S</small> V<small>IEWS AND</small> -A<small>CTS IN</small> R<small>EGARD TO</small> R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap3">CHAPTER III</a><br> -P<small>RESIDENT</small> J<small>OHNSON'S</small> P<small>LAN OF</small> -R<small>ECONSTRUCTION AND</small> H<small>IS</small> P<small>ROCEEDINGS IN</small> -R<small>EALIZATION OF IT</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap4">CHAPTER IV</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> C<small>ONGRESSIONAL</small> P<small>LAN OF</small> R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap5">CHAPTER V</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> C<small>ONGRESSIONAL</small> P<small>LAN</small> (<i>Continued</i>)</p> - -<p><a href="#chap6">CHAPTER VI</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> C<small>ONGRESSIONAL</small> P<small>LAN</small> (<i>Continued</i>)</p> - -<p><a href="#chap7">CHAPTER VII</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> C<small>ONGRESSIONAL</small> P<small>LAN</small> (<i>Completed</i>)</p> - -<p><a href="#chap8">CHAPTER VIII</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> E<small>XECUTION OF THE</small> R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small> A<small>CTS</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap9">CHAPTER IX</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> A<small>TTEMPT TO</small> R<small>EMOVE THE</small> P<small>RESIDENT</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap10">CHAPTER X</a><br> -R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small> R<small>ESUMED</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap11">CHAPTER XI</a><br> -P<small>RESIDENT</small> G<small>RANT AND</small> R<small>ECONSTRUCTION</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap12">CHAPTER XII</a><br> -"C<small>ARPET</small>-B<small>AG</small>" <small>AND</small> N<small>EGRO</small> -D<small>OMINATION IN THE</small> S<small>OUTHERN</small> S<small>TATES BETWEEN</small> -1868 <small>AND</small> 1876</p> - -<p><a href="#chap13">CHAPTER XIII</a><br> -T<small>HE</small> P<small>RESIDENTIAL</small> E<small>LECTION OF</small> 1876 <small>AND -ITS</small> C<small>ONSEQUENCES</small></p> - -<p><a href="#chap14">CHAPTER XIV</a><br> -I<small>NTERNATIONAL</small> R<small>ELATIONS OF THE</small> U<small>NITED</small> -S<small>TATES BETWEEN</small> 1867 <small>AND</small> 1877</p> - -<p><a href="#index">INDEX</a></p> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<h2>RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION</h2> -<br> -<br> -<br><span class="pagenum"><a name="page1"><small><small>[p. 1]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<h2>RECONSTRUCTION</h2> -<br> -<br><a name="chap1"></a> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER I</h3> -<center>THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side1">The Conception of a "State" in a System of Federal -Government</a>—<a href="#side2">The -Different Kinds of Local Government Provided for in the Constitution of -the United States</a>—<a href="#side3">Local Government Under the Constitution of the -United States</a>—<a href="#side4">"State" Destructibility in the Federal System of -Government—The Effect on "State" Existence of the Renunciation of -Allegiance to the Union</a>—<a href="#side5">The Idea of "State" Perdurance</a>—<a href="#side6">The -Constitutional Results of Attempted Secession</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side1"></a> -<div>The key to the solution of the question of Reconstruction is the proper -conception of what a "State" is in a system of federal government. This is - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The conception<br> -of a "State" in<br> -a system of<br> -federal<br> -government.</b></small> -</div> - -a conception which is not easy to acquire, and which, when acquired, -is not easy to hold. The difficulty lies, chiefly, in the tendency to -confound the idea of a "State" in such a system with a state pure and -simple. Until the distinction between the two is clearly seen and -firmly applied, no real progress can be made in the theory and practice -of the federal system of government. Now the fundamental principle of a -state pure and simple is sovereignty, the original, innate, and legally -unlimited power to command and enforce obedience by the infliction of -penalties for disobedience. On the other hand, the nature of a "State" -in a system of federal <span class="pagenum"><a name="page2"><small><small>[p. 2]</small></small></a></span> -government is a very different thing. Such a -"State" is a local self-government, under the supremacy of the general -constitution, and possessed of residuary powers. In the federal system -of the United States, it is a local self-government, under the -supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and of the laws and -treaties of the central Government made in accordance with that -Constitution, republican as to form, and possessed of residuary -powers—that is, of all powers not vested by the Constitution of the -United States exclusively in the central Government, or not denied by -that Constitution to the "State."</div> -<br> -<a name="side2"></a> -<div>It must be kept in mind that this is not the only kind of local -government known in the constitutional law and practice of the United - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The different kinds<br> -of local government<br> -provided for in the<br> -Constitution of<br> -the United States.</b></small> -</div> - -States. There is, and always has been, since the establishment of the -federal system in 1789, for the larger part of the population which -declared united independence of Great Britain in 1776, another kind of -local government for a part of the United States, a local government -which is not self-government, a local government which is but an agency -of the central Government. In fact, there have been at times three -kinds of local government in the political system of the United States, -viz., local government by the executive department of the central -Government—that is, local government by executive discretion, martial -law—local government as an agency of the legislative department of the -central Government—that is, Territorial government—and "State" -government. That is to say, since 1789 the whole of the United States, -territorially, has never been under the federal system of government, -but has <i>always</i> been partly under federal government and partly under -the exclusive government of Congress, and has <i>sometimes</i> been partly -under federal government, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page3"><small><small>[p. 3]</small></small></a></span> -partly under the exclusive government of -Congress, and partly under the exclusive government of the President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side3"></a> -<div>The Constitution of the United States recognizes and provides for all -three of these species of local government, and vests in Congress the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Local government<br> -under the<br> -Constitution of<br> -the United States.</b></small> -</div> - -power of advancing the population of a district, the confines of which -district shall be determined by Congress itself, from the lower to the -higher forms of local government. While the Constitution does not -expressly impose upon Congress the duty of making or permitting the -change from one kind of local government to another, it impliedly -indicates that Congress shall determine the kind of local government -which the population of any particular district shall enjoy in -accordance with the conditions prevailing, at any given moment, among -them. If the maintenance of law and order requires the immediate -exercise of military power, Congress may, and should, permit the -continuance of the President's discretionary government. If, on the -other hand, this is not necessary, Congress may, and should, confer -civil government, under the Territorial form, and when the population -of a Territory shall have become ripe for local self-government and -capable of maintaining it, Congress may, and should, allow the -Territory to become a "State" of the Union, a Commonwealth.</div> -<br> -<a name="side4"></a> -<div>Such being the nature of a "State" of the Union and such the method of -its creation, what reason is there for speaking of the "States" in a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>"State" destructibility<br> -in the system of<br> -federal government.</b></small> -</div> - -system of federal government as indestructible? As they emerge from the -status of Territories under the exclusive power of Congress, upon -having attained certain conditions, why may they not revert to the -status of Territories upon having lost these conditions of "State" -existence; nay, why may <span class="pagenum"><a name="page4"><small><small>[p. 4]</small></small></a></span> -they not revert to the status of martial -law by having lost all of the conditions of civil government? The -dictum "once a State always a State" in a system of federal government -has no sound reason in it. Under the Constitution of the United States, -every "State" of the Union may through the process of amendment be made -a province subject to the exclusive government of the central -authorities; and when those who wield the powers of a "State" renounce - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The effect on "State"<br> -existence of the<br> -renunciation of<br> -allegiance to the<br> -Union.</b></small> -</div> - -the "State's" allegiance to the United States, renounce the supremacy -of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws of the central -Government made in accordance therewith, then from the point of view of -political science it will become a state pure and simple, a -sovereignty, if and when it permanently maintains, by its own power or -by the assent of the United States, this attitude against the United -States, but from the point of view of the constitutional law of the -United States it simply destroys one of the fundamental conditions of -local self-government, and gives, thus, warrant to the central -Government to resume exclusive government in the district, and over the -population which has become disorganized by refusing obedience to the -supreme law of the land, as fixed by the Constitution of the United -States. Whether the central Government has the physical power, at a -given moment, to do this or not, is another question. It certainly has, -at the outset, the legal right. The "State" is no longer a "State" of -the Union, nor has it become a state out of the Union. It is simply -nowhere. The land is there and the people are there, but the form of -local government over it and them has been changed from local -<i>self</i>-government to a Congressional or a Presidential agency, as the -case may be.</div> -<br> -<a name="side5"></a> -<div>Neither is there any reason for holding that the old -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page5"><small><small>[p. 5]</small></small></a></span>"State" -organization perdures as an abstract something under the forms of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The idea of "State"<br> -perdurance.</b></small> -</div> - -Congressional or Presidential rule, and will emerge of itself when -these are withdrawn. If the "State" form of local government should be -established again over that same district and over the population -inhabiting it, it would be an entirely new creation, even though it -should recognize the forms and laws and obligations of the old "State." -It must be, however, remembered that both the executive and judicial - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The acceptance of<br> -this idea by the<br> -Government of<br> -the United States.</b></small> -</div> - -departments of the United States Government committed themselves fully -to this theory of "State" perdurance as an abstract something -unaffected by the loss of the conditions of the "State" form of local -government through the rebellion of the "State" organization against -the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and -that Congress did the same thing, at first, in some degree. It was this -error which caused all of the confusion in the ideas and processes of -Reconstruction, and we ought, therefore, to rid ourselves of it at the -start, at the same time that we recognize its influence over the minds -of those who engaged in the difficult work of the years between 1865 -and 1876.</div> -<br> -<a name="side6"></a> -<div>From the view which we take of the nature of a "State" in a system of -federal government, and its possible destructibility, there is not much - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The constitutional<br> -results of attempted<br> -secession.</b></small> -</div> - -difficulty in determining the constitutional results of an attempt upon -the part of such a "State" to break away from its connections in that -system. What it does, stripped of all misconception and verbiage, is -simply this: it forcibly resists the execution of the whole supreme law -of the land, and destroys the prime condition of its own existence by -making it necessary for the central Government to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page6"><small><small>[p. 6]</small></small></a></span>assert exclusive -power in the district where this happens. Naturally the executive -department of the central Government must act first, and subdue by -force the force which has been offered against the supremacy of the -Constitution and laws of the United States. After that shall have been -accomplished, the question as to how the population in the rebellious -district shall be civilly organized anew, is one for the legislative -department of the central Government exclusively. Congress may fashion -the boundaries of the district at its own pleasure, and may establish -therein such a Territorial organization of civil local government as it -may see fit, and is limited in what it may do in this respect only by -the constitutional immunities of the individual subject or citizen -under every form of civil government provided or allowed by the -Constitution of the United States. Congress may also enable the -existing population of such a district, or such part of that population -as it may designate, to organize the "State" form of local government, -and may grant it participation in the powers of the central Government -upon an equality with the other "States" in the federal system. These -things are matters in which the President, as the executive power, -cannot interfere. As participant in legislation, however, he may, at -his own discretion, use his powers of recommendation and veto.</div> -<br> -<div>If rebellion against the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the -United States should not be committed by an existing "State" -organization, but by a new organization claiming to be the "State" -organization within the district concerned, the existing organization -remaining loyal, but requiring the aid of the central Government to -maintain its authority, then the withdrawal of that aid by the -President after the accomplishment of its purpose would, of course, -leave the old <span class="pagenum"><a name="page7"><small><small>[p. 7]</small></small></a></span> -"State" organization with restored authority, and -Congress would have no function to perform in the re-establishment of -civil government in such a district, or in the readmission of its -population to participation in the central Government. This was the -course followed in Missouri and Kentucky, and it was the course, which, -at first, was attempted in the case of Virginia. In the first two cases -it was entirely correct. In the last it had to be abandoned, for -reasons, and on account of conditions, which will be explained later.</div> -<br> -<div>What we have, therefore, in the theory and history of Reconstruction is -the case of existing "State" organizations forcibly resisting the -execution of the supreme law of the land, and stricken down by the -executive power of the central Government in the attempt, that power -being exercised at its own motion and in its own way.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap2"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page8"><small><small>[p. 8]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER II</h3> -<center>PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD TO RECONSTRUCTION</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side7">Did Mr. Lincoln Have any Theory of -Reconstruction?</a>—<a href="#side8">Mr. Lincoln's -Plan</a>—<a href="#side9">Mr. Lincoln's Oath of Allegiance, and the Loyal Class to be -Created by the Taking of this Oath</a>—<a href="#side10">The Proviso in this -Plan</a>—<a href="#side11">Seward's -Idea of Reconstruction and the Views of Congress and the Judiciary</a>—<a href="#side12">Ten -Per Centum "State" Governments</a>—<a href="#side13">Reconstruction in Louisiana under Mr. -Lincoln's Plan</a>—<a href="#side14">The New Orleans Convention—The Election of a -Governor—The Constitutional Convention of April, 1864, and the -Constitution Framed by it and Adopted by the Voters—Reconstruction in -Arkansas</a>—<a href="#side15">The Beginning of Resistance in Congress to the President's -Plans—The Wade-Davis Bill</a>—<a href="#side16">Analysis of this Measure</a>—<a href="#side17">The President's -Attitude toward the Bill—The President's Proclamation of July 8th, -1864</a>—<a href="#side18">The Wade-Davis Protest against the President's -Proclamation</a>—<a href="#side19">The -President's Message of December 6th, 1864</a>—<a href="#side20">The Threatened Schism in the -Republican Party and the Presidential Election of 1864</a>—<a href="#side21">The Refusal of -Congress to Count the Electoral Vote from any "State" which had Passed -the Secession Ordinance</a>—<a href="#side22">Reconstruction in -Tennessee</a>—<a href="#side23">The Twenty-second -Joint Rule</a>—<a href="#side24">Reconstruction in Tennessee -Continued</a>—<a href="#side25">Civil Government -Re-established in Tennessee</a>—<a href="#side26">The Thirteenth Amendment to the -Constitution of the United States</a>—<a href="#side27">The Proposition of Amendment as it -Came from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate—The Passage of the -Proposition by the Senate</a>—<a href="#side28">The House -Draft</a>—<a href="#side29">Rejection of the Senate's -Draft in the House</a>—<a href="#side30">Reconsideration of the Senate's Measure in the -House, and its Final Passage</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side7"></a> -<div>Some of the ardent admirers of Mr. Lincoln are disposed to dispute the -proposition that he had any theory -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page9"><small><small>[p. 9]</small></small></a></span> -of Reconstruction. It seems, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Did Mr. Lincoln<br> -have any theory<br> -of Reconstruction?</b></small> -</div> - -however, that they are unconsciously influenced in this by their desire -to escape the conviction that Mr. Lincoln held an erroneous theory of -Reconstruction. It does not seem that one can read impartially Mr. -Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863, without coming to the -conclusion that Mr. Lincoln had a very decided notion on the subject. -It is true that he said that it must not be understood that no other -possible mode of Reconstruction than that proclaimed by him would be -acceptable, but he laid down a very distinct mode, and he said it was -the best he could suggest under existing impressions.</div> -<br> -<a name="side8"></a> -<div>This plan recognized, in the first place, the continued existence of -the "States" in rebellion as "States" of, and in, the Union. More - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Lincoln's plan.</b></small> -</div> - -exactly, it regarded the rebellion against the United States within -these "States" as the act of combinations of disloyal persons, and not -as the act of the "States" at all. These combinations had subverted the -loyal governments within these "States," but the "States" themselves -were not disloyal, because they could not be. They were impersonal -entities, incapable of committing treason or any other wrong. According -to this view the work of Reconstruction consisted simply in placing the -loyal element in a "State" in possession of the government of the -"State."</div> -<br> -<div>In the second place, therefore, Mr. Lincoln's plan contained the -principle that the work of Reconstruction was an executive problem. It -was the work of the Executive, through the power of pardon, to create a -loyal class in a "State" which had been the scene of rebellion, and it -was the work of the Executive to support that class by the military -power in taking possession of, organizing, and operating, the "State" -government.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page10"><small><small>[p. 10]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side9"></a> -<div>And so, Mr. Lincoln undertook to create such a class by constructing an -oath of future loyalty and allegiance to the United States of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Lincoln's oath<br> -of allegiance, and<br> -the loyal class to<br> -be created by the<br> -taking of this oath.</b></small> -</div> - -following tenor: "I, —— ——, do solemnly swear, 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 acts of Congress passed during the existing -rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, -modified, or held void, by Congress or by decision of the Supreme -Court; and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support -all proclamations of the President during the existing rebellion having -reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified by the Supreme -Court. So help me God;" and by ordaining that all persons who would -voluntarily take this oath, unless they had been civil or diplomatic -officers of the "so-called Confederate Government," or military -officers thereof above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in -the navy, or had left seats in the United States Congress or judicial -office under the United States, or had resigned commissions in the army -or navy of the United States, in order to aid in the rebellion, or had -been engaged in treating colored persons found in the United States -service in any capacity, or white persons in charge of them, in any -other manner than as prisoners of war, would be regarded as having -re-established their loyalty and allegiance to the United States.</div> -<br> -<div>And he then undertook to put this class in possession of the functions -and powers of the "loyal State governments" subverted by the rebellion, -by proclaiming and declaring, "that whenever in any of the States of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page11"><small><small>[p. 11]</small></small></a></span> -Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, -Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of -persons, not less than one-tenth in number of the votes cast in such -State at the Presidential election of the year <small>A.D.</small> 1860, each having -taken the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a -qualified voter by the election law of the State existing immediately -before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall -re-establish a State government which shall be republican and nowise -contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government -of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of -the constitutional provision which declares that 'the United States -shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of -government and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on -application of the Legislature, or the executive (when the Legislature -cannot be convened) against domestic violence.'"</div> -<br> -<a name="side10"></a> -<div>It is true that Mr. Lincoln was careful to say in this proclamation -that "whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The proviso<br> -in this plan.</b></small> -</div> - -to seats, constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective -Houses, and not to any extent with the Executive," but it is plain that -he did not think the Houses could constitutionally use their power of -judging of the qualifications and elections of their members to keep -members from "States" reconstructed upon his plan from taking their -seats on the ground that these "States" had not been properly reconstructed.</div> -<br> -<div>And it is also true that there occurs in the proclamation another -paragraph which appears to militate against the theory of the -perdurance of a "State" through the period of its rebellion against the -United States. It reads: "And it is suggested as not improper that in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page12"><small><small>[p. 12]</small></small></a></span> -constructing a loyal State government in any State the name of the -State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution and the general -code of laws as before the rebellion be maintained, subject only to the -modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and -such others, if any, not contravening such conditions which may be -deemed expedient by those framing the new State government."</div> -<br> -<div>It certainly may appear from this language that while Mr. Lincoln -regarded it as convenient and desirable that the new "State" should be -considered a continuation of the old "State," yet that he did not look -upon it as absolutely necessary. Still, it seems more probable that -this was only his cautious habit of leaving open a way of escape out of -any position when necessity or prudence might require its abandonment -than that he doubted the correctness of his idea of the -indestructibility of the "States" in spite of the rebellion of a part -of their population, or even of the whole of their population.</div> -<br> -<a name="side11"></a> -<div>Mr. Lincoln was not alone in this view of the nature of the "States" of -the Union and the problem of Reconstruction. His able Secretary of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Seward's idea of<br> -Reconstruction,<br> -and the views<br> -of Congress and<br> -the Court.</b></small> -</div> - -State certainly agreed with him; the resolutions and acts of Congress -down to that time may be better explained upon this theory than upon -any other; and so far as the Supreme Court had dealt with the question, -its dicta, if not its exact decisions, had indicated the same trend of -opinion. The President felt, therefore, no hesitation in applying his -plan in the specific cases that were in a condition for its -realization.</div> -<br> -<div>Before treating of his reconstruction of Louisiana and Arkansas under -this plan, however, there are two points of the proclamation which - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Virginia not in need<br> -of Reconstruction<br> -according to President<br> -Lincoln's view.</b></small> -</div> - -should be briefly noticed. <span class="pagenum"><a name="page13"><small><small>[p. 13]</small></small></a></span> -The first is the omission of Virginia -from the names of the "States" to which the proclamation should apply. -The reason for this is simple, and easily understood. The President had -always recognized what was called the Pierpont Government at Alexandria -as the true government of Virginia. Virginia, therefore, according to -his view needed no reconstruction. It belonged in the class with -Kentucky and Missouri.</div> -<br> -<a name="side12"></a> -<div>The other point is the proposition to found "State" government upon ten -per centum of the population of the "State." Now we know that "State" - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ten per centum<br> -"State" governments.</b></small> -</div> - -government in the federal system of the United States is local -self-government. But local self-government cannot really exist where -the part of the population holding the legal authority does not really -possess the sinews of power; and where the conditions of the society -are democratic, or anything like democratic, one-tenth of the -population cannot really possess the sinews of power. The actual power -to make their government valid, to enable their government to govern -would have to come from the outside. While this may happen under -certain temporary exigencies without destroying local self-government -on the whole, yet it cannot be permitted as a principle upon which to -build a local self-government, a "State" in a federal system. -Provincial governments, Territorial governments may be sustained in -that way, but the distinguishing principle of "State" government -forbids it. It is simply not "State" government when holding in this -way the power to govern, as the principle of its life, no matter what -name we may give it. Upon this point, then, Mr. Lincoln's reasoning was -crude and erroneous, and when applied was destined to result in -mischievous error.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page14"><small><small>[p. 14]</small></small></a></span> - -<a name="side13"></a> -<div>As far back as the first week in December of 1862 General Shepley, then -Military Governor of Louisiana, had, by permission from the President, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction in<br> -Louisiana under<br> -Mr. Lincoln's plan.</b></small> -</div> - -ordered an election for members of Congress, in the districts over -which his jurisdiction extended. The President had cautioned him -against any choice of Northern men at the point of the bayonet, and had -declared to him that such a procedure would be "disgraceful and -outrageous." The General heeded the warning, and two old citizens of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The election of<br> -members of<br> -Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -Louisiana, Messrs. Hahn and Flanders, were chosen, and were admitted by -the House of Representatives to their seats. This happened in February -of 1863, and it was certainly good evidence that the House of -Representatives was, at that moment, resting on the theory of the -perdurance of the "State" of Louisiana throughout the rebellion within -its limits against the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side14"></a> -<div>Things went no further than this, however, during the year 1863, the -military situation requiring the whole thought and activity of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The New Orleans<br> -convention.</b></small> -</div> - -Government. On the 8th of January, 1864, however, a convention was held -at New Orleans for the purpose of advancing the work of reconstruction. -This convention requested General Banks to appoint an election for -officers of the "State" government. The General complied, naming the -22d day of February following for the election, and the 4th of March -for the installation of the officers so chosen. Mr. Hahn was elected - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The election of a<br> -governor.</b></small> -</div> - -and duly installed Governor, and was soon after declared by the -President to be "invested, until further orders, with the powers -hitherto exercised by the Military Governor of Louisiana." The next -step was for the new Governor to order an election of delegates to a -constitutional convention and the assembly of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The constitutional<br> -convention of<br> -April, 1864, and<br> -the constitution<br> -framed by it and<br> -adopted by the<br> -voters.</b></small> -</div> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page15"><small><small>[p. 15]</small></small></a></span>the same in -convention, for the purpose of so amending and revising the -constitution as to make it fit the new conditions created by the war. -This was done in March and April of 1864, and an anti-slavery -constitution was established for Louisiana. The instrument drafted and -proposed by the convention was adopted by the voters. Eight thousand -four hundred and two votes were cast upon the question of adoption, -about sixteen per centum of the vote cast at the Presidential election -of 1860. This brought the action of the voters within the President's -ten per centum rule. The vote was almost five to one in favor of -adoption. The President's scheme was now put to the practical test, -both in Louisiana and Arkansas, during the spring of 1864.</div> -<br> -<a name="side15"></a> -<div>Congress was, however, by this time becoming convinced that -Reconstruction was a legislative problem, that is, a problem to be - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The beginning<br> -of resistance in<br> -Congress to the<br> -President's plan.<br><br> -The Wade-<br> -Davis bill.</b></small> -</div> - -solved by Congressional acts and constitutional amendment. This is -evidenced not only by the fact that neither House would admit -representatives from Arkansas elected under the new "State" -organization to seats, but by the more pronounced attitude expressed in -what is known as the Wade-Davis measure upon the direct question at -issue. These gentlemen, Mr. Benjamin F. Wade and Mr. Henry Winter -Davis, the former the chairman of the "Committee on the Rebellious -States" in the Senate, and the latter the chairman of a committee -having the same name and functions in the House, originated a bill and -carried it through both Houses of Congress, which, for the first time, -embodied the views of Congress on the subject of Reconstruction. This -bill was finally passed on July 4, 1864, and it contained provisions of -the following tenor: The eleven "States" which had passed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page16"><small><small>[p. 16]</small></small></a></span> -secession ordinances were all treated as rebellious communities, and -the President was authorized to appoint a provisional governor for -each. This governor should exercise all the powers of civil government -in the community to which he might be appointed until "State" -government should be recognized by Congress as restored therein. An -oath of future allegiance to the Constitution of the United States was -then prescribed, and the provisional governor in each "State" was -ordered, whenever rebellion in his "State" should be suppressed, to -direct the United States Marshal to enroll all the white male citizens -of the United States, resident within the "State," in the respective -counties of the "State," and give them the opportunity to take the oath -of allegiance to the United States. The bill then directed that when a -majority of such citizens should take this oath, they might be -permitted to elect delegates to a convention, which convention might -take action for the establishment of "State" government. The bill -disqualified all persons who had held any office, civil or military, -"State" or Confederate, in rebellion against the United States, or who -had voluntarily borne arms against the United States, from voting for -delegates, or from being elected as delegates, to the convention. The -bill then provided that the convention thus elected and assembled might -form a "State" constitution, but must insert in it clauses abolishing -slavery, repudiating all debts, "State" or Confederate, created by, or -under the sanction of, the usurping power, and disqualifying all -persons who had held office civil or military, "State" or Confederate, -under the usurping power, except civil offices merely ministerial, and -military offices below the rank of colonel, from voting or being -elected governor or members of the legislature. The bill then provided -for the submission of the constitution so formed to the voters, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page17"><small><small>[p. 17]</small></small></a></span> -and if ratified by a majority thereof, required the provisional -governor to certify the same to the President. It then provided that -the President, after obtaining the consent of Congress thereto, should -proclaim the new "State" government as established, and as the -constitutional government of the "State," after which Representatives -and Senators in Congress, and electors of the President, might be -chosen in said "State." Finally, the bill abolished slavery at once in -all the rebellious "States" and imposed penalties upon all persons -attempting thereafter to hold anyone in involuntary servitude; and -declared all persons who should thereafter hold office civil or -military, "State" or Confederate, in the rebel service, except an -office purely ministerial or under the grade of colonel, not to be -citizens of the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side16"></a> -<div>A brief analysis of this bill will show that Congress was nearer to -some doctrine on the subject of Reconstruction than was the President. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Analysis of<br> -this measure.</b></small> -</div> - -In the first place, Congress claimed Reconstruction as a legislative -problem. This was undoubtedly the true theory upon that point. In the -second place, Congress required the loyalty to the United States of at -least a majority of the white adult males as the basis of "State" -government, local self-government. That also was undoubtedly true -political theory as has been already explained. In the third place, -Congress asserted the power to abolish slavery within the limits of -those "States" whose legislatures or conventions had passed the -ordinances of secession. That is, Congress dealt with these districts -not as "States" of the Union, but as territories or districts subject -to the exclusive authority of the central Government. Congress was here -beginning, at least, to act upon the idea that the districts in -rebellion did not perdure, as "States," -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page18"><small><small>[p. 18]</small></small></a></span>throughout the rebellion, -but had lost thereby the forms, powers and functions of "State" -governments, and were neither out of the Union nor in the Union as -"States," but were under the central Government of the Union as -territory inhabited by a population disorganized as to local -government. This was also sound political science, and the President -ought to have heeded its teachings.</div> -<br> -<a name="side17"></a> -<div>But he did not. He did not, it is true, veto the bill. He simply -allowed the session to expire without signing it. This having happened - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -attitude toward<br> -the bill.<br><br> -The President's<br> -proclamation<br> -of July 8, 1864.</b></small> -</div> - -in less than ten days from the time it was submitted to him, the bill -failed, as provided in such cases by the Constitution. He, however, -issued on the 8th of July a proclamation in regard to the subject, in -which he objected to the setting aside of the "free State constitutions -and governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and -Louisiana;" doubted the competency of Congress to abolish slavery -within the "States;" expressed the hope and expectation that this might -be done for the whole country by constitutional amendment; declared his -willingness to have the loyal people in any of the rebellious "States" -reconstruct their governments upon the Congressional plan, if they -should choose to do so; but declared also his unwillingness to commit -himself inflexibly to any single plan of restoration; and virtually -asked the voters to make the difference between himself and Congress -upon the subject an issue in the coming Presidential election.</div> -<br> -<a name="side18"></a> -<div>This was one of the boldest acts of Mr. Lincoln's career as President, -and it is little wonder that men of so much intelligence, courage and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Wade-Davis<br> -protest against<br> -the President's<br> -proclamation.</b></small> -</div> - -tenacity as Messrs. Wade and Davis did not allow the proclamation to go -unanswered. Congress had adjourned, as we have seen, before the -appearance of the proclamation. There was, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page19"><small><small>[p. 19]</small></small></a></span>therefore, no way for -Congress as a whole to make immediate answer. Messrs. Wade and Davis -believed that the public interests would suffer if the answer should be -postponed until the next meeting of Congress. They, therefore, issued a -protest against the proclamation over their own names. The protest was -printed in the New York <i>Tribune</i> of August 5, 1864. It was an -intemperate arraignment of the President. It declared, among other -things, that "a more studied outrage on the legislative authority of -the people had never been perpetrated;" that the President had "greatly -presumed on the forbearance which the supporters of his Administration" -had "so long practised, in view of the arduous conflict in which" they -were "engaged and the reckless ferocity of" their "political -opponents;" that he must understand that their support was not of a man -but of a cause; and that he must confine himself to his executive -duties, and leave political reorganization to Congress.</div> -<br> -<div>Such denunciations of the President's purposes could have but one -effect, viz., the strengthening of his hands by the support of the -people, who so generally trusted him, in the election of 1864. It -injured Mr. Davis so much that he failed of even a renomination for his -seat in Congress.</div> -<br> -<a name="side19"></a> -<div>The President, on the other hand, used his triumph with great tact and -moderation. He made no reference, in his message of December 6, 1864, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -message of<br> -December 6, 1864.</b></small> -</div> - -either to his proclamation or to the protest which had been so fiercely -hurled against it. He simply informed Congress that important movements -had occurred during the year "to the effect of molding society for -durability in the Union;" and that "12,000 citizens in each of the -States of Arkansas and Louisiana" had "organized loyal State -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page20"><small><small>[p. 20]</small></small></a></span> -governments, with free constitutions, and" were "earnestly struggling -to maintain and administer them." He also spoke of the gratifying -situation and movements in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee.</div> -<br> -<a name="side20"></a> -<div>It may be that Mr. Lincoln did not interpret his great victory at the -polls in November preceding as a specific approval of his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The threatened schism<br> -in the Republican<br> -party, and the<br> -Presidential election<br> -of 1864.</b></small> -</div> - -Reconstruction policy. In the spring and early summer of 1864, the -Republican party was threatened with schism largely upon the subject of -Reconstruction. Eight days before the meeting of the regular nominating -convention of the party, that is on the 31st of May, some three hundred -and fifty men, representing, or professing to represent, the more -radical element of the party, met in convention at Cleveland, Ohio. -General John Cochrane of New York was made chairman of the body, and -General John C. Frémont and General John Cochrane were nominated by it -for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States. The -twelfth section of the platform provided, "that the reconstruction of -the rebel States belongs to the people, through their representatives -in Congress, and not to the Executive."</div> -<br> -<div>The regular convention met June 7th at Baltimore, and adopted a -platform which took no sides in regard to Reconstruction, but simply -sought to rally all Union men around the President for the purpose of -saving the Union and putting an end to the rebellion. Many war -Democrats took part in it who favored Lincoln's ideas of -Reconstruction, and many Republicans who did not. The Democratic -convention met at Chicago August 27th and adopted a platform which -virtually proclaimed the war a failure, and demanded a cessation of -hostilities preparatory to a compromise with the Confederates. Their -nominee, General McClellan, with whom was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page21"><small><small>[p. 21]</small></small></a></span>associated on the ticket -Mr. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, repudiated the platform but accepted -the nomination and made the race.</div> -<br> -<div>Under the condition of schism in the Republican ranks, his chances -seemed at first fair. But on September 21st, Generals Frémont and -Cochrane, the nominees of the radical Republicans, withdrew from the -contest, and the reunion of the Republican party on the Baltimore -platform was effected. It was thus a question whether the overwhelming -electoral vote for Lincoln and Johnson, two hundred and twelve to -twenty-one for McClellan and Pendleton, meant the approval of Lincoln's -views and acts in Reconstruction, and it certainly behooved the -President to exercise some caution in so interpreting it, especially as -there was no such wide difference in the popular vote, the McClellan -electors having received 1,835,985 votes to 2,330,552 for the Lincoln -electors. There is no question, however, that the President still -believed in the correctness of his method and was determined to pursue -the course upon which he had entered.</div> -<br> -<a name="side21"></a> -<div>Neither was there any sign manifested that Congress would desist from -pressing its views of its own powers in the matter. Both Houses had - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>No change in the views<br> -of Congress caused by<br> -the Presidential election.<br><br> -The refusal of Congress<br> -to count the electoral<br> -vote from any "State"<br> -which had passed the<br> -secession ordinance.</b></small> -</div> - -refused to admit members from the reconstructed "States," and now they -passed a joint resolution, on February 4th, 1865, which prohibited the -counting of any electoral votes for President and Vice-President in the -election of 1864, from "States" which had passed the secession -ordinance. Elections had been held in Louisiana and also in Tennessee, -and this resolution was intended to prevent the counting of the votes -which the persons chosen electors for Louisiana and Tennessee should -send in. The resolution was sent to the President for his signature. He -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page22"><small><small>[p. 22]</small></small></a></span> -hesitated for several days, but approved it at last on the day -that Congress counted the electoral votes, February 8th. In doing so, -however, he addressed a message to Congress informing the two Houses -that he had signed it out of deference to their views, and saying that -"in his own view, however, the two Houses of Congress, convened under -the twelfth article of the Constitution, have complete power to exclude -from counting all electoral votes deemed by them to be illegal; and it -is not competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct that power by -a veto, as would be the case if his action were at all essential in the -matter. He disclaims all rights of the Executive to interfere in any -way in the matter of canvassing or counting electoral votes, and he -also disclaims that, by signing said resolution, he has expressed any -opinion on the recitals of the preamble or any judgment of his own upon -the subject of the resolution." The recitals of the preamble referred -to read thus: "Whereas, the inhabitants and local authorities of the -States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, -Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee rebelled -against the Government of the United States, and were in such condition -on the 8th day of November, 1864, that no valid election for electors -of President and Vice-President of the United States, according to the -Constitution and Laws thereof, was held therein on said day, etc."</div> -<br> -<a name="side22"></a> -<div>Louisiana, which had fulfilled the President's conditions of -reconstruction, was thus included in this list, and also Tennessee, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction<br> -in Tennessee.</b></small> -</div> - -where by order of Governor Andrew Johnson, the candidate for -Vice-President on the Lincoln ticket, an election of electors had been -held. Tennessee had not, at the time of the counting of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page23"><small><small>[p. 23]</small></small></a></span> -electoral vote, completed any process of reconstruction. The -convention, called at Governor Johnson's instigation to meet at -Nashville for the purpose of nominating candidates for Presidential -electors, had called a constitutional convention to meet in Nashville -on December 19th, following the Presidential election, for the purpose -of undertaking the work of reconstruction. Hood's advance upon -Nashville delayed its meeting, however, until January 3d. This -convention took the old constitution of Tennessee as its starting-point -and subjected it to a pretty thorough revision in the direction of a -"free State government." It also prescribed a rather stiff test oath -for all persons offering to vote upon the adoption of the amendments, -an oath which not only promised future loyalty to the Constitution of -the United States, such as Lincoln had prescribed, but which also -required the taker of it to swear that he was an active friend of the -Government of the United States, and an enemy of the so-called -Confederate States. The amended constitution had not, however, been -submitted to the voters at the date when Congress counted the electoral -vote, that is, before the 8th of February, 1865, and of course no -"State" government had been elected under the amended constitution. The -vote upon the constitution occurred on the 22d of February, and the -election of the Governor and the members of the Legislature under it -occurred on March 4th.</div> -<br> -<div>The case of Tennessee did not from this point of view appear as strong -as that of Louisiana. But it is difficult to see how the Republicans -could have consistently rejected the vote of Tennessee after having -nominated and elected a citizen of Tennessee as Vice-President of the -United States. It is certainly implied in the Constitution of the -United States that no man is <span class="pagenum"><a name="page24"><small><small>[p. 24]</small></small></a></span> -eligible to the office of -Vice-President unless he be at the time of his election a citizen of a -"State" of the Union. The Constitution implies that the Vice-President -shall have the same qualifications as the President; and it distinctly -says that in giving their vote, the electors in each "State" shall vote -for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of -the same State with themselves." If an inhabitant of Tennessee could be -lawfully Vice-President of the United States, it does certainly seem -implied that Tennessee was, at the time, a "State" of the Union in -regular standing.</div> -<br> -<div>However this may have been, the President was certainly correct in -saying that Congress was vested with full power over the count of the -electoral vote, and that the Executive had no control over it -whatsoever. It was a bit of harmless good humor that he signed the -resolution as a perfunctory matter, and it was calculated to improve -the temper of the somewhat irritated members of Congress.</div> -<br> -<a name="side23"></a> -<div>Congress was not, however, formally notified of the fact that he had -signed the measure until after the counting of the vote had been - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The twenty-second<br> -joint rule.</b></small> -</div> - -finished, and the two Houses met the exigency by the enactment of what -was known as "the twenty-second joint rule," according to which the -consent of both Houses was required to count the electoral vote from -any "State" or any body or place professing to be a "State." As a -matter of fact, the Vice-President, Mr. Hamlin, declared that he had in -his possession returns from the "States" of Louisiana and Tennessee, -but held it to be his duty not to present them, and he did not present -them. He knew that the President had signed the joint resolution, -although Congress had not been officially notified of it, and he acted -under the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page25"><small><small>[p. 25]</small></small></a></span> -resolution as law. The joint rule would have required -the presentation of these votes to the joint meeting of the two Houses, -and would have required the concurrence of the two Houses, acting -separately, to have included them in the count. The joint rule was, -therefore, not applied to the case for which it was enacted, but it -remained unrepealed for more than ten years, and then showed itself a -sort of Nemesis to its creators.</div> -<br> -<a name="side24"></a> -<div>Tennessee pursued, however, the course of reconstruction upon which she -had set out. Her test oath, as we have seen, required virtually that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction in<br> -Tennessee continued.</b></small> -</div> - -the basis of her reorganization should be the men who had <i>remained</i> -loyal throughout the rebellion. It differed thus from Mr. Lincoln's -oath, which rehabilitated those who would promise future loyalty. The -vote in favor of the new constitution, which was the old constitution -of the "State" amended by articles abolishing slavery, nullifying -secession, and repudiating the debt created in aid of the rebellion, -was more than twenty-five thousand, nearly twenty per centum of the -vote for Presidential electors in 1860. This certainly much more than -fulfilled all of Mr. Lincoln's conditions.</div> -<br> -<a name="side25"></a> -<div>Governor Johnson issued his proclamation on February 25th, 1865, -declaring the adoption of the new constitution, and ordering the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Civil government<br> -re-established in<br> -Tennessee.</b></small> -</div> - -election of the Governor and legislative members under it for March -4th. W. G. Brownlow was chosen Governor. The newly elected legislature -did not meet, however, until April 2d, and Mr. Brownlow was not -inaugurated as civil Governor until April 7th. As Mr. Johnson was -inaugurated Vice-President on March 4th, he had been obliged to lay -down the military governorship on that date, in fact, a few days -before, and Mr. Brownlow had been appointed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page26"><small><small>[p. 26]</small></small></a></span>in his stead. Upon -Brownlow's inauguration as civil Governor, the military régime in -Tennessee was formally ended. Lincoln acquiesced certainly in this change.</div> -<br> -<div>It remained now for Congress to show its attitude, when the Senators -and Representatives from Tennessee should present themselves for -admission to seats in the two Houses. As this could not happen until -the following December, the history of this point must be deferred -until the events between March 4th and December 4th are related.</div> -<br> -<a name="side26"></a> -<div>The experiences of the year 1863 with the slavery problem had convinced -the President and the leaders of the Republican party in Congress that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Thirteenth<br> -Amendment to the<br> -Constitution of the<br> -United States.</b></small> -</div> - -abolition must be effected by a constitutional amendment. The military -acts of the President in this direction were, as all the purely -military measures of the Executive, temporary, and with the -re-establishment of peace would cease to have force; and it was by this -time pretty clear that but few of the "States" would abolish slavery by -their own act. Already on January 11, 1864, had the proposition for a -constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the length and -breadth of the United States been presented in the Senate by Mr. John -B. Henderson of Missouri, and referred to the Judiciary Committee of -that body for consideration and report.</div> -<br> -<div>The language of the first article of Mr. Henderson's proposition read: -"Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, -shall not exist in the United States." When it came back from the -Judiciary Committee, as reported by Mr. Trumbull, it was called Article -XIII., and read: "Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, -except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been -duly convicted, shall <span class="pagenum"><a name="page27"><small><small>[p. 27]</small></small></a></span> -exist in the United States or any place -subject to their jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to -enforce this article by appropriate legislation."</div> -<br> -<a name="side27"></a> -<div>It will be advantageous in our further consideration of this article to -recall briefly the reasons for these divergencies. The language used by - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The proposition of<br> -amendment as it<br> -came from the<br> -Judiciary Committee<br> -of the Senate.</b></small> -</div> - -the Judiciary Committee corresponds almost exactly with the wording of -the ordinance of the Northwest Territory of 1787; and it is entirely -evident that the Judiciary Committee had that act in mind when it -reported the article. Mr. Henderson's proposition was that slavery or -involuntary servitude should not exist in the <i>United States</i>. He well -understood that it did not require a constitutional amendment to -abolish slavery from those parts of the country where "States" had not -been formed. He knew that Congress could do that. The Judiciary -Committee, however, did not think it wise or necessary to "make two -bites of a cherry." They preferred to make their prohibition apply to -the whole country. They knew that the phrase <i>United States</i> was -capable of being interpreted to mean only that part of the country -where "States" existed, and they preferred and intended to make their -prohibition of slavery extend to the whole country. From abundant -caution they used the words United States, with the additional words -"any place subject to their jurisdiction," in order to cover all -territory over which the flag of the Union should fly in sovereign power.</div> -<br> -<div>The second section, giving to Congress special power to enforce this -article, seems, at first, unnecessary, because according to the last -paragraph of Section 8, Article I., of the Constitution, Congress is -vested with the authority to make all laws necessary and proper to -carry into execution all the powers vested by the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page28"><small><small>[p. 28]</small></small></a></span>Constitution in -any department or officer of the Government. This abolition of slavery -was, however, a restriction on the "States." It laid a new limitation -upon their powers, and hence it was thought that Section 8 of Article -I. might not apply in the execution of such a provision against the -"States." But if we regard the provision from the point of view of the -rights of an individual to his freedom against any "State" law to the -contrary, then we must see that the amendment does invest the United -States courts with the power to impose the restriction in behalf of the -individual seeking deliverance from the attempt of a "State" to enslave -him or to continue his enslavement. And once the power vested in the -courts to do this the general provision of Article I., Section 8, will -certainly apply. The resolution offered by the Judiciary Committee -passed the Senate by the requisite majority on the 8th of April, 1864.</div> -<br> -<a name="side28"></a> -<div>During this same period, Mr. William Windom, of Minnesota, offered in -the House of Representatives a resolution upon the subject in the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The House<br> -draft.</b></small> -</div> - -identical words of the Senate's resolution. It was referred to the -Judiciary Committee of the House, February 15, 1864. While it lay in -the room of the Committee, Mr. Stevens offered a substitute for it, -which read: "Slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment -for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, is forever -prohibited in the United States and all its Territories." This is -another bit of evidence for the proposition that what was meant by the -words "or any place subject to their jurisdiction" in Mr. Trumbull's -resolution was all parts of the country not enjoying "State" government -in local matters.</div> -<br> -<a name="side29"></a> -<div>The Senate resolution was sent into the House on the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Rejection of the<br> -Senate's draft<br> -in the House.</b></small> -</div> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page29"><small><small>[p. 29]</small></small></a></span>31st of May, -and was there lost on June 15th, having received a large majority, -indeed, in its favor, but not a two-thirds majority.</div> -<br> -<a name="side30"></a> -<div>Foreseeing the failure of the resolution at that juncture, Mr. J. M. -Ashley, of Ohio, voted against the measure, although a stanch friend of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconsideration of<br> -the Senate's measure<br> -in the House, and<br> -its final passage.</b></small> -</div> - -it. His purpose was of course to be able to move, at some future and -more propitious time, a reconsideration of the subject. He did not, -however, feel that that time had arrived until after the election and -the military victories of the autumn of 1864 had manifested the temper -of the voters on the question of abolition and demonstrated the power -of the Union to carry such a measure into execution. On the 31st of -January, 1865, Mr. Ashley moved a reconsideration of the Senate -resolution lost in the House on the 15th of the preceding June. -Reconsideration was immediately voted, and the Senate resolution was -then carried by the requisite two-thirds majority.</div> -<br> -<div>The proposed amendment was then sent to the President, who signed it, -February 1st, 1865. Whereupon the Senate immediately passed another -resolution, declaring that it was through an inadvertency that the -measure had been sent to the President for his signature, that asking -the President of the United States to sign a proposed constitutional -amendment was an error, was without precedent in the practice of the -Government, and that the President's approval should not be -communicated to the House. A concurrent resolution was then passed by -the two Houses authorizing the President to submit the proposed article -of amendment to the "States" for ratification. The Secretary of State -immediately sent it to the legislatures of all the "States" which could -be reached by him, and during the summer and autumn to the legislatures -of all the "States;" <span class="pagenum"><a name="page30"><small><small>[p. 30]</small></small></a></span> -and the new legislature of Tennessee ratified -it on the 5th of April, 1865, that is, more than a week before -Lincoln's death.</div> -<br> -<div>Such was the condition of things when the assassin's bullet ended the -life of the great and good President and brought the Vice-President, -Mr. Johnson, into the office.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap3"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page31"><small><small>[p. 31]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER III</h3> -<center>PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HIS PROCEEDINGS IN -REALIZATION OF IT</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side31">The Character of Mr. Johnson</a>—<a href="#side32">The -Radical Nature of Johnson's First -Views on Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side33">The Retention of Lincoln's Cabinet by Mr. -Johnson and the Modification of Johnson's Views by Mr. Seward's -Arguments</a>—<a href="#side34">Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of -May 29th, 1865</a>—<a href="#side35">The -Excepted Classes</a>—<a href="#side36">The Effect of -these Exceptions</a>—<a href="#side37">The President's -Plan</a>—<a href="#side38">The Realization of it—The Administering of the -Oath</a>—<a href="#side39">Reconstruction in North -Carolina</a>—<a href="#side40">The Identity of Johnson's Plan -with that of Lincoln</a>—<a href="#side41">Reconstruction in Mississippi—Reconstruction in -Georgia—Reconstruction in Alabama, South Carolina and -Florida</a>—<a href="#side42">Reconstruction in -Virginia</a>—<a href="#side43">Reconstruction in Louisiana, -Arkansas and Tennessee</a>—<a href="#side44">The Constitutional -Conventions of 1865</a>—<a href="#side45">The -Form of the Work Done in these Conventions, and its Substance</a>—<a href="#side46">The -Erection of "State" Governments and the Election of Members of -Congress</a>—<a href="#side47">The Orders of the President Putting the Civil Government of -the United States into Operation Everywhere</a>—<a href="#side48">The President's First -Annual Message</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side31"></a> -<div>Mr. Johnson was a man who rose from very low estate through his own -efforts. He was a man of considerable intellectual power and of great - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The character<br> -of Mr. Johnson.</b></small> -</div> - -will power. He was somewhat vain of his success and somewhat piqued by -the social neglect which he had suffered at the hands of the "old -families." He was intensely loyal to the Union, and could regard -secession and rebellion only as treason. Having suffered so much for -his loyalty, he was somewhat moved by considerations of revenge. He was -profoundly stirred by <span class="pagenum"><a name="page32"><small><small>[p. 32]</small></small></a></span> -the assassination of Lincoln, and apparently -believed it to have been planned by those high in authority in the -Confederacy; and he was possessed with an intense desire to -re-establish the Union on an enduring foundation.</div> -<br> -<a name="side32"></a> -<div>With such a history behind him, and such a disposition impelling him, -it is not to be wondered at that his policy in regard to Reconstruction - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The radical<br> -nature of Johnson's<br> -first views on<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -should have been more stringent than that of Mr. Lincoln. In fact it -was feared, even by the more radical Republicans, such, for instance, -as Mr. Wade, that he would be bloody minded in the treatment of the -rebel chiefs. He had, before his accession to the Presidency, declared -so often, and so vehemently, that "traitors should be arrested, tried, -convicted and hanged," that most men were expecting the strict -application of the criminal law to the Confederate leaders.</div> -<br> -<a name="side33"></a> -<div>Mr. Johnson retained Lincoln's Cabinet, and among them the conciliatory -and persuasive Seward, who, in about six weeks from the night of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The retention of<br> -Lincoln's Cabinet<br> -by Mr. Johnson, and<br> -the modification<br> -of Johnson's views<br> -by Mr. Seward's<br> -arguments.</b></small> -</div> - -assassination, at which time he himself was seriously wounded, returned -to his work in the State Department. There is no doubt that it was the -influence of Seward which modified the views and purposes of Mr. -Johnson. The compliant spirit manifested at this time by the -Confederate chiefs helped strongly in the same direction. By the 1st of -June, Seward had won Johnson completely for his plan of a rapid and -forgiving reconstruction by the Executive. Congress was not in session, -and the President was not inclined to call an extra session. The late -rebel chieftains were pressing for the political rehabilitation of -their section, and the President now fully believed that he had the -power to proceed with the problem of Reconstruction, and was inclined -to do so.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page33"><small><small>[p. 33]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side34"></a> -<div>On the 29th of May, he issued his proclamation of amnesty and pardon to -all persons who, having engaged in rebellion, had failed to take the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Johnson's Amnesty<br> -Proclamation of<br> -May 29, 1865.</b></small> -</div> - -benefits of Mr. Lincoln's proclamations of December 8, 1863, and March -26, 1864. To all such persons Mr. Johnson offered his pardon upon their -taking an oath of the following tenor: "I —— do solemnly swear (or -affirm) in the presence of 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."</div> -<br> -<a name="side35"></a> -<div>He, however, excepted the following classes of persons from the -benefits of the offer: 1st. Those who held or had held, under the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The excepted<br> -classes.</b></small> -</div> - -pretended Confederate Government, civil or diplomatic office or agency, -or military office above the rank of colonel in the army and lieutenant -in the navy, or military or naval office of any grade, if educated by -the United States Government in the Military Academy at West Point or -the United States Naval Academy; and all those who held, or had held, -the pretended office of Governor of a "State" in insurrection against -the United States;</div> -<br> -<div>2d. Those who had left seats in the Congress of the United States or -judicial stations under the United States to aid in the rebellion -against the United States, and those who had resigned or tendered -resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United -States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;</div> -<br> -<div>3d. Those who had, in any way, treated persons found in the service of -the United States, in any capacity, otherwise than lawfully as -prisoners of war;</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page34"><small><small>[p. 34]</small></small></a></span> -<div>4th. Those who had been engaged in destroying the commerce of the -United States on the high seas, or upon the lakes and rivers separating -the British Provinces from the United States, or in making raids from -Canada into the United States;</div> -<br> -<div>5th. Those who were, or had been, absent from the United States, or had -left their homes within the jurisdiction of the United States, and -passed beyond the military lines of the United States into the -pretended Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;</div> -<br> -<div>6th. Those who, at the time they might seek to obtain the benefits of -the proclamation by taking the oath, were prisoners of war, or under -civil or criminal arrest, and those who had taken the oath of -allegiance to the United States since December 8, 1863, and had failed -to keep it;</div> -<br> -<div>And, finally, those who had voluntarily participated in any way in the -rebellion and were the owners of taxable property to the value of more -than twenty thousand dollars.</div> -<br> -<a name="side36"></a> -<div>These exceptions would have shut out almost all of the leading men of -most of the "States" that passed secession ordinances from the benefits - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The effect<br> -of these<br> -exceptions.</b></small> -</div> - -of the proclamation, except for the subsequent provision in the -proclamation, which ordained that special application might be made to -the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted -classes, and held out the promise that such clemency would be as -liberally extended as might be consistent with the facts of the case -and the peace and dignity of the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side37"></a> -<div>Briefly, the President proposed to pardon the rebel leaders, upon -special personal application, as an act of high executive grace, and to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's plan<br> -in a sentence.</b></small> -</div> - -amnesty every one else in a body; and upon the basis of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page35"><small><small>[p. 35]</small></small></a></span>their -re-established loyalty to use the old electorate of the South in -reconstruction. How he succeeded we will now proceed to relate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side38"></a> -<div>In the first place, the machinery for administering the cleansing oath -was made very simple and accessible. Any commissioned officer, civil, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The realization of it.<br><br> -The administering<br> -of the oath.</b></small> -</div> - -military or naval, of the United States, and any officer, civil or -military, of a loyal "State" qualified by the laws of the "State" to -administer oaths, was declared by the President, through his Secretary -of State, to be competent to administer this oath of loyalty, a copy of -which should be given to the person taking it as his certificate of -restored citizenship, and another copy sent to the State Department at -Washington to be there deposited and kept in the archives of the Government.</div> -<br> -<a name="side39"></a> -<div>In the second place, and by a second proclamation, issued on the same -day, May 29th, the President appointed a Provisional Governor for North - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction in<br> -North Carolina.</b></small> -</div> - -Carolina, and authorized and commanded him to cause the election of -delegates to, and their assembly in, a constitutional convention of the -"State" for the reconstruction of the "State," and its restoration to -its constitutional relations to the United States. The electorate to be -employed by the Provisional Governor should be those persons who were -qualified to vote by the laws of North Carolina in force immediately -before the 20th of May, 1861, and had taken the oath prescribed in the -first proclamation.</div> -<br> -<div>This second proclamation also commanded the heads of the departments of -the United States Government to put the laws of the United States into -operation in North Carolina, the United States judges to open the -United States courts and proceed to business, and the military officers -in the district to aid the Provisional -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page36"><small><small>[p. 36]</small></small></a></span> -Governor in carrying the -duties assigned to him into effect, and to abstain from hindering, -impeding, or discouraging, in any manner, the organization of a "State" -government as authorized by the proclamation.</div> -<br> -<a name="side40"></a> -<div>It will thus be seen that Mr. Johnson's plan of Reconstruction was in -substance the same as that of Mr. Lincoln. It rested upon the theory of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The identity<br> -of Johnson's<br> -plan with that<br> -of Lincoln.</b></small> -</div> - -the indestructibility of the "States," their perdurance as "States" -throughout the period of rebellion, the commission of treason and -rebellion by combinations of private persons, the right of the -Executive to withdraw his military powers and put his civil powers in -operation, whenever, in his judgment, the circumstances would warrant -him in so doing, and his authority to recognize the old electorates of -the "States" in which rebellion had existed as the respective -constituent bodies of the "States," upon such terms and under such -limitations as he might prescribe. He did not lay down any rule as to -the numerical proportion which the modified electorates should bear to -the old, in order to make their acts legitimate, as Mr. Lincoln did; -and he did declare in his second proclamation that the North Carolina -convention, when convened, or the legislature that might be thereafter -assembled, should prescribe the qualification of electors, and the -eligibility of persons to hold office under the constitution and laws -of the "State," which Mr. Lincoln did not do in his proclamation. But -there is no doubt that Mr. Lincoln would have indorsed this -proposition. He could not have avoided it, while holding the theory -that North Carolina was a "State" simply engaged in amending its -constitution, the theory which his own proclamation apparently set up. -In a word Johnson's policy and acts in reconstructing the "States" in -which secession ordinances had been passed, and rebellion committed, -were <span class="pagenum"><a name="page37"><small><small>[p. 37]</small></small></a></span> -but a continuation of those of Mr. Lincoln. If Lincoln was -right so was Johnson, and <i>vice versa</i>.</div> -<br> -<a name="side41"></a> -<div>On the 13th of June, the President issued a proclamation of like tenor -and containing similar orders for putting the laws of the United States - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction<br> -in Mississippi,<br> -Georgia, Alabama,<br> -South Carolina<br> -and Florida.</b></small> -</div> - -into operation, and for putting similar machinery in motion for -reconstruction, in Mississippi. He appointed William L. Sharkey -Provisional Governor therein. On the 17th of June, similar steps were -taken for the reconstruction of Georgia, with James Johnson as the -Provisional Governor; on the 21st of June for the reconstruction of -Alabama, with Lewis E. Parsons as Provisional Governor; on the 30th of -June for the reconstruction of South Carolina, with Benjamin F. Perry -as Provisional Governor; and on the 13th of July for the reconstruction -of Florida, with William Marvin as Provisional Governor.</div> -<br> -<a name="side42"></a> -<div>Already on May 9th, twenty days before the issue of his proclamation of -amnesty, the President had issued an executive order putting the laws - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction<br> -in Virginia.</b></small> -</div> - -of the United States in operation in Virginia, and guaranteeing the -support of the United States Government to Governor Francis H. Pierpont -in all lawful measures for the extension and administration of the -"State" government throughout the geographical limits of Virginia. This -meant, of course, that the United States Government recognized the -shadowy loyal "State" government, which had kept up at least a show of -existence throughout the rebellion, as the true "State" government of -Virginia, and that Virginia did not need reconstruction, but only the -extension of the authority of this government throughout her -territorial limits. This was, also, a simple continuation of Mr. -Lincoln's policy, as we well know.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page38"><small><small>[p. 38]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side43"></a> -<div>Of course Mr. Johnson recognized the reconstruction of Louisiana, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconstruction<br> -in Louisiana,<br> -Arkansas and<br> -Tennessee.</b></small> -</div> - -Arkansas and Tennessee as effected by Mr. Lincoln; so that by -mid-summer of 1865 the reconstruction of all the "States" which had -passed secession ordinances, except only Texas, had been completed, or -had been put in course of completion.</div> -<br> -<a name="side44"></a> -<div>During the summer, autumn and early winter of 1865, the Provisional -Governors of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The constitutional<br> -conventions of 1865.</b></small> -</div> - -Georgia, and Florida ordered elections for the choosing of delegates to -constitutional conventions, upon the basis of the old suffrage laws of -the respective "States" once answering to these names, modified by the -requirements of the Presidential pardon, received after taking the oath -of allegiance; and these elections were held and these conventions assembled.</div> -<br> -<a name="side45"></a> -<div>These bodies chose to do their work in the form of amendments to the -old constitutions of the "States," whose constituent powers they - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The form of the<br> -work done in these<br> -conventions, and<br> -its substance.</b></small> -</div> - -assumed to hold, rather than in the form of new constitutions. Before -the meeting of Congress on the first Monday of December, they had all -passed ordinances, either repealing the secession ordinances of their -respective "States," or pronouncing them null and void; had all voted -amendments to the constitutions of their respective "States" abolishing -slavery; and all, except Mississippi and South Carolina, had passed -ordinances repudiating the debt incurred by their respective "States" -in aid of rebellion against the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side46"></a> -<div>Before the meeting of Congress also, elections of the members of the -respective "State" legislatures and of "State" officers, and of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The erection of<br> -"State" governments<br> -and the election of<br> -Members of Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -members of the House of Representatives in Congress, had been held by -the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page39"><small><small>[p. 39]</small></small></a></span> -Provisional Governors, under the direction of the respective -conventions. And, finally, before the assembly of Congress, these -Legislatures had, with the exception of that of Florida, met, -organized, and elected United States Senators, and, with the exception -of those of Florida and Mississippi, had adopted the Thirteenth -Amendment to the Constitution. The legislature of Florida, not having -met and organized, had not at that date been able to consider the -Amendment. It met on December 18th and elected United States Senators, -and adopted the Thirteenth Amendment on the 28th. The legislature of -Mississippi, on the other hand, rejected the Thirteenth Amendment on -the 27th of November.</div> -<br> -<a name="side47"></a> -<div>During the same period, the President had by his several proclamations -and orders declared the cessation of armed resistance, the restoration - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The orders of the<br> -President putting the<br> -civil Government<br> -of the United States<br> -into operation<br> -everywhere.</b></small> -</div> - -of intercourse throughout the country, and the raising of the blockade -and the opening of the ports, and had put the different branches of the -civil Government of the United States into operation in all the -"States" which had been the scene of the recent rebellion. He had not, -however, restored the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus in these -regions or in the District of Columbia, and he reserved the right to -have recourse to military control therein in case of necessity. The -Governors of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Florida under the -Confederacy had, in the spring of 1865, assumed to summon the -legislatures, chosen by these "States" while members, or pretended -members, of the Confederacy, to meet together for reconstruction -purposes. The President had, through his military officials, ignored -and prevented all such movements. No farther resistance to his plan of -Reconstruction had been attempted, but he saw -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page40"><small><small>[p. 40]</small></small></a></span>plainly that, -without the United States military power to sustain the new "State" -governments, there might be.</div> -<br> -<a name="side48"></a> -<div>This was the situation when Congress met on the first Monday of -December, and received President Johnson's first annual Message. This - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -first annual<br> -Message.</b></small> -</div> - -document contained a disquisition upon the political system of the -United States, as "an indissoluble union of indestructible States," -with the natural conclusion that by attempting secession, the "States" -impaired, but did not extinguish, their vitality, suspended, but did -not destroy, their functions. It then proceeded with a narration of the -facts above stated, in which the President sought to establish, upon -the basis of his power to pardon and withdraw military rule, and to -guarantee a republican form of government to every "State," his -authority to reconstruct "State" government, or at any rate to permit -the pardoned citizens to do so under his direction.</div> -<br> -<div>Finally, this paper contained the official notice to Congress that the -President had admitted the reconstructed "States"—and that would mean -all that had passed the secession ordinance, except perhaps Texas, -whose convention did not assemble until March of 1866—to participate -in amending the Constitution of the United States. The President -concluded his narration and argumentation upon this all-important -subject in these words: "The amendment to the Constitution being -adopted, it will remain for the States whose powers have been so long -in abeyance to resume their places in the two branches of the National -Legislature, and thereby complete the work of restoration. Here it is -for you, fellow citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow citizens of -the House of Representatives, to judge, each of you for yourselves, of -the elections, returns and qualifications of your own members."</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page41"><small><small>[p. 41]</small></small></a></span> -<div>It is entirely evident from all this that the President denied the -power of the Houses of Congress, either separately or jointly, to -prevent the Senators and Representatives from the reconstructed -"States" from taking their seats upon any other grounds than defects in -the election and return, or in the personal qualifications, of the -particular persons under consideration.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap4"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page42"><small><small>[p. 42]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER IV</h3> -<center>THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side49">The Stevens Resolution</a>—<a href="#side50">Legislation -of the Reconstructed "States" Concerning the Status of the Freedmen, and the Freedmen's -Bureau</a>—<a href="#side51">Vagrancy, Apprenticeship, and Civil Rights in the Reconstructed -"States"</a>—<a href="#side52">The View Taken of this Legislation by the -Republicans</a>—<a href="#side53">The -Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution</a>—<a href="#side54">The -Demand of the Senators- and Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed -"States" to be Admitted to Seats in Congress</a>—<a href="#side55">The Joint Committee of -the Two Houses of Congress on Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side56">Thaddeus Stevens's Ideas -on Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side57">Mr. Shellabarger's Theory of -Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side58">Mr. Sumner's Theory of Reconstruction</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side49"></a> -<div>So soon as the House of Representatives had elected its Speaker, Mr. -Colfax, and other officers, and before the reception of the President's - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Stevens<br> -resolution.</b></small> -</div> - -Message, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens presented a resolution which proposed the -selection of a joint committee of the House and Senate to inquire into -the condition of the "States," which formed the so-called Confederate -States, and to report by bill or otherwise, whether, in the judgment of -the Committee, these "States," or any of them, were entitled to be -represented in either House of Congress, and which provided that "until -such report shall have been made and finally acted upon by Congress, no -member shall be received into either House from any of the so-called -Confederate <span class="pagenum"><a name="page43"><small><small>[p. 43]</small></small></a></span> -States." The House passed this resolution by an -overwhelming majority; and then adjourned without allowing a motion by -Mr. Niblack of Indiana, to the effect that "pending the question as to -the admission of persons claiming to have been elected representatives -to the present Congress from the States lately in rebellion, such -persons be entitled to the privileges of the floor of the House," the -usual privilege accorded contestants, to come to a vote.</div> -<br> -<div>The view of the House was thus manifest from the start. It was that -Reconstruction could not be effected by the Executive Department of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The view of the House<br> -that Reconstruction<br> -could not be effected<br> -by the Executive.</b></small> -</div> - -Government, but was a problem for Congress, and that this was a matter -entirely separate from the power of each House to judge of the -elections, returns and qualifications of its members, a matter to be -decided by the whole Congress prior to the consideration of the -question of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members -of each House. In a word, it was the question of the admission, or the -readmission, of "States" into the Union, or more correctly the question -of the establishment or re-establishment of the "State" system of local -government upon territory of the United States under the exclusive -power of the central Government.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no question that in sound political science the House was -entirely correct in its theory, and that the objection of the Senate to -that part of the Stevens resolution which provided that no member -should be received into either House from any of the so-called -Confederate States until the report of the Committee on Reconstruction -should have been finally acted on by Congress, as trenching upon the -exclusive power of the Senate to judge of the elections, returns and -qualifications of its members, rested upon a confounding of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page44"><small><small>[p. 44]</small></small></a></span> -function of Congress to admit "States" into the Union with the power of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Passage of the Stevens<br> -resolution as a<br> -concurrent resolution.</b></small> -</div> - -each House to judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of -those claiming to represent "States" or constituencies in "States" -about whose position in the Union there was no question. The Senate -finally swung into line, however, by passing this part of the House -resolution as a concurrent resolution instead of as a joint resolution.</div> -<br> -<a name="side50"></a> -<div>There were two other considerations which moved the Republicans in -Congress to assume this attitude in regard to Reconstruction. One was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Legislation of the<br> -reconstructed "States"<br> -concerning the status<br> -of the freedmen, and<br> -the Freedmen's Bureau.</b></small> -</div> - -the legislation of the "States" reconstructed by the President -concerning the status and the rights of the freedmen. On the 3d of -March preceding, Congress had passed an act organizing a bureau in the -War Department for the care of refugees and freedmen in the districts -in rebellion or in the territory embraced in the operations of the -army. This bureau was officered by a chief commissioner and assistant -commissioners for each of the "States" declared to be in insurrection. -These officers were authorized to take possession of the abandoned -lands within these "States," and other lands belonging to the United -States, and parcel them out to the loyal male refugees and freedmen, -not more than forty acres to each, and protect them in the use and -enjoyment of the same for the term of three years. They were also -authorized to issue under the direction of the Secretary of War -provisions, clothing and fuel to such loyal refugees and freedmen as -were destitute.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no question that this was a most humane measure. It would have -been a moral outrage for the Government of the United States to have -taken the slaves away from the support and protection accorded -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page45"><small><small>[p. 45]</small></small></a></span> -them by their masters, and to have thrown them upon their own resources - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The administration<br> -of the Freedmen's<br> -Bureau.</b></small> -</div> - -without any means of sustenance during the transition into the new -status. But there is also no question that this measure was so -administered as to do the race for whose benefit it was intended almost -as much harm as good. When the Government began to furnish them with -food, clothes, fuel and shelter gratis, they, like the children that -they were, conceived of this, to them, very agreeable state of things -as something that was to last forever, as the New Jerusalem. They -gathered about the depots of the Freedmen's Bureau and could not be -induced to go away in search of work or livelihood. The belief became -quite general that the Government intended to give every man forty -acres of land and a mule, and otherwise to support him permanently. The -danger was that the newly emancipated would quit work altogether and -throw themselves entirely upon the charity of the United States -Government. Many did do so, and formed thus a sort of privileged class -throughout the whole South under the special protection of the -Government of the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side51"></a> -<div>When, now, the newly reorganized "States" came to assume jurisdiction -over matters concerning the freedmen, they found themselves driven to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Vagrancy, apprenticeship<br> -and civil rights in the<br> -reconstructed "States."</b></small> -</div> - -some legislation to prevent the whole negro race from becoming paupers -and criminals. It was in the face of such a situation that the -legislatures of these "States" passed laws concerning apprenticeship, -vagrancy and civil rights, which were looked upon at the North as -attempts to re-enslave the newly emancipated, and served to bring the -new "State" governments at the South into deep reproach.</div> -<br> -<div>It must be remembered, however, that at the time of the passage of the -Stevens resolution by the House of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page46"><small><small>[p. 46]</small></small></a></span> -Representatives, only two of -Mr. Johnson's reconstructed "States" had passed any laws upon these - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Examination of these<br> -vagrancy acts, etc.</b></small> -</div> - -subjects. These two were Mississippi and South Carolina; and a close -examination of the text of these enactments will hardly justify the -interpretations placed upon them by the radical Republicans. The South -Carolina Preliminary Act came first in the order of time. It provided -that "all free negroes, mulattoes, and mestizos, all freedwomen, and -all descendants through either sex of any of these persons, shall be -known as <i>persons of color</i>, except that every such descendant, who may -have of Caucasian blood seven-eighths, or more, shall be deemed a white -person; that the statutes and regulations concerning slaves are now -inapplicable to persons of color; and although such persons are not -entitled to social or political equality with white persons, they shall -have the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property, to make -contracts, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to sue and be sued, and -to receive protection under the law in their persons and property"; and -"that all rights and remedies respecting persons or property, and all -duties and liabilities under laws civil and criminal, which apply to -white persons, are extended to persons of color, subject to the -modifications made by this act and the other acts hereinbefore mentioned."</div> -<br> -<div>The acts to which this one was preliminary were not passed until the -latter half of December, and could not have served, except by -prevision, as grounds for the Stevens resolution. Moreover there was -little in this Act which was really calculated to arouse any pronounced -hostility at the North. It evidently recognized the emancipation of the -former slaves, and the prohibition of future slavery, as fixed facts, -and provided for substantial equality in civil rights between persons -of color <span class="pagenum"><a name="page47"><small><small>[p. 47]</small></small></a></span> -and white persons. The discriminations which it referred -to, rather than made, were those of a social and political nature, -matters which to that time had been controlled, if controlled at all, -wholly by the "States," except of course in those parts of the country -in which "States" had not been erected.</div> -<br> -<div>The Mississippi acts were all passed in November. They were the acts -which were before the view of Congress and the country in the beginning - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Mississippi Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -of December, 1865, and, with the exception of the South Carolina -Preliminary Act just commented on, the only ones. They require, -therefore, a somewhat fuller treatment. They consist of "An Act to -regulate the relation of master and apprentice relative to Freedmen, -Free Negroes, and Mulattoes, passed November 22, 1865"; the "Vagrant -Act of November 24, 1865"; an "Act to Confer Civil Rights on Freedmen -and for other purposes," passed November 25, 1865; a supplementary Act -to this, passed November 29, 1865; and another supplementary Act, -passed December 2, 1865.</div> -<br> -<div>The first Act provided that freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes under -the age of eighteen years, being orphans, or the children of parents -who could not, or would not, support them, should be apprenticed by the -clerk of the Probate court in the county where found to competent and -suitable persons, and on such terms as the court should direct; under -the restrictions, that the former owner of the minor should be selected -by the court as the master or mistress if, in the judgment of the -court, he or she were competent and suitable; that the terms fixed by -the court should have the interest of the minor particularly in view; -and that the apprentice should be bound by indenture, to run, in the -case of males, until the completion of the twenty-first year, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page48"><small><small>[p. 48]</small></small></a></span>and, -in the case of females, until the completion of the eighteenth year.</div> -<br> -<div>This Act further provided that in the management and control of -apprentices, the master or mistress should "have power to inflict such -moderate corporal chastisement as a father or guardian is allowed to -inflict on his or her child or ward at common law," but that in no case -should "cruel or inhuman punishment be inflicted."</div> -<br> -<div>It furthermore provided, that in case of desertion by the apprentice, -he might be apprehended and brought before a justice of the peace, who -might remand him to his master or mistress, and might, on the refusal -of the apprentice to return, commit him to jail, on failure to give -bond, until the next term of the County court, which court should -inquire into the matter, and determine whether the apprentice had left -the service to which he was bound without good cause or not, and -should, in the one case, compel the return to service by ordering the -infliction of the necessary penalties, and in the other, should order -the discharge of the apprentice, and enter "judgment against the master -or mistress for not more than one hundred dollars, for the use and -benefit of the apprentice."</div> -<br> -<div>The second Act provided, that "all free negroes and freedmen in the -State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in -January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or -found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or -night time, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen, free -negroes, or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free -negroes, or mulattoes on terms of equality, or living in adultery or -fornication with a freedwoman, free negro or mulatto, shall be deemed -vagrants, and on conviction thereof, shall be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page49"><small><small>[p. 49]</small></small></a></span>fined in the sum of -not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro or mulatto, fifty -dollars, and in the case of a white man, two hundred dollars, and -imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, the free negro not -exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months."</div> -<br> -<div>It further provided, that in case the freedman, free negro or mulatto -should not pay the fine within five days from the time of its -infliction, the sheriff of the proper county should hire him or her out -to any person who would for the shortest period of service pay the fine -and all costs, giving the preference, however, to the employer of the -freedman, negro or mulatto, if there should be any, and, if no person -would hire the same, should hold him or her to be dealt with as a -pauper. It also provided that the freedman, free negro, or mulatto -refusing or failing to pay a tax should be dealt with by the sheriff in -the same manner.</div> -<br> -<div>And it provided, finally, that the same duties and liabilities existing -among white persons in the "State" to support indigent whites should -attach to freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in regard to the support -of colored paupers, and that in order to carry out the same a poll tax, -not exceeding one dollar a head, should be levied on every freedman, -free negro, and mulatto, between the ages of eighteen and sixty years, -and should be collected and paid into the hands of the treasurers of -the counties to be used in the support of colored paupers.</div> -<br> -<div>The third Act provided, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes might -acquire, hold, and dispose of, personal property in the same manner and -to the same extent as white persons, and might sue and be sued in all -the courts of the "State" as white persons, but that they should not -rent or lease lands or tenements except in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page50"><small><small>[p. 50]</small></small></a></span>incorporated towns or -cities, and under the control of the corporate authorities.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, for the intermarriage of freedmen, free negroes -and mulattoes, and for the legalization of all previous and existing -cohabitations between them, and the legitimation of the issue -therefrom; but it forbade intermarriage between them and white persons, -under penalty of life imprisonment, and it defined freedmen, free -negroes and mulattoes as comprehending all of pure negro blood, and all -descended from negroes to the third generation inclusive, although one -parent in each generation should have been white.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes should -be competent as witnesses in all civil cases, in which they themselves -or other freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes were parties or a party -to the suit, and in criminal cases where the crime charged was alleged -to have been committed by a white person or persons upon or against the -person or property of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, that every freedman, free negro and mulatto -should have a lawful home and employment, and should have written -evidence thereof in the form of a license from the police authorities -to do irregular or job work, or in the form of a written contract for -labor. It required that all contracts made with freedmen, free negroes -and mulattoes for labor for a longer period than one month should be in -writing, a copy of which should be furnished to each party, and that if -the laborer should quit the service of the employer before the -expiration of the term fixed in the contract, he should forfeit his -wages for that year up to the time of quitting.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, for the arrest of any freedman, free negro, or -mulatto quitting the service of an employer, and for the determination -of the question whether <span class="pagenum"><a name="page51"><small><small>[p. 51]</small></small></a></span> -the quitting was for good cause or not, -and for the disposition to be made of the deserter.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, that enticing or persuading freedmen, free -negroes or mulattoes to desert from their legal employment, or -employing deserters from contract labor knowingly, or giving or selling -them food, raiment or other thing knowingly, should be a misdemeanor -punishable by fine, or by imprisonment in case the fine should not be paid.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, that no freedman, free negro or mulatto, unless -in the military service of the United States, or licensed thereto by -the police authorities, should keep or carry arms, ammunition or -murderous weapons, and that every civil and military officer should -arrest any such person found in possession of such articles, and commit -him for trial.</div> -<br> -<div>It provided, further, that "any freedman, free negro, or mulatto -committing riots, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief and cruel -treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures, language -or acts, or assaults on any person, disturbance of the peace, or -exercising the functions of a minister of the gospel without a license -from some regularly organized church, or selling spirituous or -intoxicating liquors, or committing any other misdemeanor," should be -fined or imprisoned, and, upon failure to pay the fine in five days' -time after conviction, should be publicly hired out to the person who -would pay the fine and costs for the shortest term of labor from the convict.</div> -<br> -<div>And it provided, finally, that "all the penal and criminal laws now in -force in this State, defining offences, and prescribing the mode of -punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free -negroes or mulattoes, be and the same are hereby re-enacted, and -declared to be in full force and effect, against -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page52"><small><small>[p. 52]</small></small></a></span>freedmen, free -negroes and mulattoes, except so far as the mode and manner of trial -and punishment have been changed or altered by law."</div> -<br> -<div>This is a fair sample of the legislation subsequently passed by all the -"States" reconstructed under President Johnson's plan. In fact, in the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Mississippi legislation<br> -a fair sample of the<br> -subsequent legislation in<br> -other "States."</b></small> -</div> - -legislatures of several of them, bills containing substantially these -provisions were under consideration when Congress met, and it was fair -to suppose that they would be enacted. Congress had thus in the first -week of December, 1865, substantially before it what the reconstructed -"States" proposed to do in reference to the status and rights of the -former slaves, and in reference to the relations between the negro and -the white man in the future.</div> -<br> -<div>As yet, we must remember, the Thirteenth Amendment had not been -proclaimed as adopted, in fact had not been adopted, on the basis of -the calculations of Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, the officer who -alone could proclaim adoption; and the abolition of slavery rested upon -the military power of the President, and on the acts of the "States" -themselves, the first of which is temporary as to its effects, and the -second of which might be reversed by the "States" at pleasure.</div> -<br> -<a name="side52"></a> -<div>The Northern Republicans professed to see in this new legislation at -the South the virtual re-enslavement of the negroes. This was an - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The view taken of this<br> -legislation by the<br> -Republicans.</b></small> -</div> - -extreme view of it, although it certainly did not give the negro equal -civil right with the white man, or anything approaching that, to say -nothing of failing to offer him any prospects of ever participating in -political functions. Of course it would be an abstract assumption to -say that the negro ought, at the moment of his emancipation, to have -had equal civil right with the white man. Civilized man can be safely -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page53"><small><small>[p. 53]</small></small></a></span> -intrusted with a much larger civil liberty than the barbarian or - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>This legislation from<br> -the point of view of<br> -natural justice.</b></small> -</div> - -the semi-barbarian. There is no question also that much severer -penalties for the commission of the same crime are necessary among a -barbarous race or class than among a civilized race or class. From -these points of view this Mississippi legislation does not appear as -far from what was natural and even necessary as Mr. Stevens and his -followers made it out. The law of apprenticeship was not severe, and, -if justly and sincerely executed, it would probably have been -beneficial to the young negroes, deprived of the care given them up to -that time by master or mistress, and now thrown upon themselves without -a cent of money or a particle of property, most of them knowing no -parent except a mother as poor as themselves, and entirely unacquainted -with the new conditions of life now confronting them.</div> -<br> -<div>The law of vagrancy was severer. But it is easy to see that a -reasonable execution of that law had as much help as harm in it for the -former slave. It would have preserved him against idleness, -drunkenness, and thievery, although it did curtail largely his liberty -of action. It was, undeniably, the third act, which came so near to the -re-enactment of the old slave code in regard to crimes and misdemeanors -committed by negroes, that gave the greatest offence. Almost every act, -word, or gesture of the negro, not consonant with good taste and good -manners, as well as good morals, was made a crime or misdemeanor, for -which he could first be fined by the magistrates, and then consigned to -a condition almost of slavery for an indefinite time, if he could not -pay the fine. There is no question that the "States" of the Union had -at that moment the power under the Constitution of the United States to -do these things. At that time the determination of the criminal law, -both <span class="pagenum"><a name="page54"><small><small>[p. 54]</small></small></a></span> -as to the definition of crime, the fixing of penalties, and -the fashioning of procedure, was almost entirely a function of the -"States," and there was no provision in the Constitution of the United -States which required the "States" to treat their own inhabitants with -equality in regard to their civil rights and obligations.</div> -<br> -<div>Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising that the -Republicans of the North strongly felt that the freedom of the negro -had not yet been sufficiently guaranteed to render the acknowledgment -of the resumption of "State"-powers by the communities so lately in -rebellion against the United States for the upholding of negro slavery -safe and wise.</div> -<br> -<div>It was certainly natural, and it was just and right, that the party in -power in Congress should have considered it their duty to so amend the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Correctness of<br> -the Republican<br> -position.</b></small> -</div> - -Constitution of the United States, before according "State"-powers to -the communities lately in rebellion, as to reap the just fruits of -their triumph over secession and slavery. It was certainly their duty -to the country to secure the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, and -any further amendment, necessary to accomplish this result, before -putting the recently rebellious communities in a position to defeat the -same. And it is certainly not strange that the Republicans should have -feared that the Democrats of the North in Congress would soon be found -fraternizing with the Senators and Representatives from the -reconstructed "States," and that it was their duty to secure "perpetual -ascendancy to the party of the Union," before admitting the Senators -and Representatives from these "States" to participation in public -power. Properly interpreted this only meant that loyal men must govern -the country. But it did not follow that only Republicans were loyal -men, and that the loyal Democrats of the North would follow -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page55"><small><small>[p. 55]</small></small></a></span>the -recently disloyal Democrats of the South in legislating upon the issues -of the war. Republicans were likely to commit this fallacy in their -reasoning. Many of them did commit it. And the result of it was to -intensify partisanship at the expense of statesmanship.</div> -<br> -<a name="side53"></a> -<div>Just two weeks after the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House -of Representatives, Mr. Seward announced the adoption of the Thirteenth - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The ratification of the<br> -Thirteenth Amendment<br> -to the Constitution.</b></small> -</div> - -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In making this -announcement, he declared that there were thirty-six "States" in the -Union, and that the legislatures of twenty-seven "States," just -three-fourths, the necessary number, had voted its adoption; and among -those voting to adopt, he counted the legislatures of Virginia, -Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia -and Alabama.</div> -<br> -<div>It is to be remarked, however, that had he counted none of the "States" -that had passed secession ordinances, either in the whole number, or in -the three-quarters necessary to adopt, the Amendment would in that case -also have been adopted. There would have been, in that case, -twenty-five "States" in the Union, and of these nineteen had adopted -the Amendment. And if any controversy had arisen over the use of -fractions in making nineteen three-fourths of twenty-five, this would -have been quickly overcome by the fact that the legislatures of four -more of the loyal "States" adopted the Amendment soon after Mr. -Seward's declaration, making twenty-three out of twenty-five. It will -not, of course, be disputed that, if the "States" that passed secession -ordinances should have been counted in arriving at the whole number of -"States" in the Union, those of them adopting the Amendment should also -have been counted in making out the three-fourths majority -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page56"><small><small>[p. 56]</small></small></a></span> -necessary to adoption, and that if, on the other hand, they should have -been excluded in arriving at the whole number, they should also have -been excluded in making up the three-fourths majority. In other words, -it does not matter from which point of view we regard the subject, the -Amendment was regularly and lawfully adopted. It must be admitted, -however, that Mr. Seward followed in this most solemn procedure, the -amending of the Constitution, the Presidential plan of Reconstruction, -and gave great encouragement to the Senators- and Representatives-elect -from these reconstructed "States" to expect that they would have the -aid and influence both of the Democrats in Congress, and of the -Administration, in securing their seats.</div> -<br> -<a name="side54"></a> -<div>They had gone to Washington and, bearing themselves confidently from -the first, they now became defiant in demanding their rights. Many of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The demand of the<br> -Senators- and<br> -Representatives-elect<br> -from the reconstructed<br> -"States" to be admitted<br> -to seats in Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -them were men who, less than twelve months before, had been in arms -against the United States, and one of them was the person who was the -Vice-President of the Confederacy at the moment of its downfall, Mr. -Alexander H. Stephens. Such an attitude on his part and their part -roused again great bitterness of feeling among the Republicans, many of -whom conscientiously thought that the real deserts of such persons were -the penalties of treason. Moreover, the legislatures of some of the -other "States" reconstructed under the President's plan enacted, during -December, January and February, measures concerning the status and -rights of the emancipated slaves similar to those passed by the -legislature of Mississippi, and in some respects even more illiberal -than those passed by that body; and it was evident that all of them -would finally stand upon the same general ground in regard to this subject.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page57"><small><small>[p. 57]</small></small></a></span> -<div>This was the situation in the last week of February, 1866, when -the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent with the Stevens resolution -in the House, denying seats to any of the claimants from the "States" -lately in insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on -Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon. Four of the -Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Dixon and Norton went -against their party associates in this question, but there was still a -two-thirds majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to combat the -Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to construct and enforce a -Congressional plan.</div> -<br> -<a name="side55"></a> -<div>As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred with the House in -regard to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided for the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Joint Committee<br> -of the two houses<br> -of Congress on<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -appointment of a Joint Committee on Reconstruction, at the time it was -passed by the House. The members of the Committee were chosen soon -after the passage of this part of the Stevens resolution by the Senate. -They were, from the Senate, Messrs. Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Howard, -Johnson and Williams, all Republicans except Mr. Reverdy Johnson of -Maryland, and from the House, Messrs. Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, -Conkling, Grider, Morrill, Rogers, Stevens and Washburne, all -Republicans except Grider of Kentucky and Rogers of New Jersey. The -Republicans had given themselves a larger representation on the -Committee than their numerical relation to the Democrats warranted, but -there is no reason to think that the report of the majority would have -been in any respect different, if that relation had been more strictly observed.</div> -<br> -<div>This Committee sat for about six months before making its final report. -During this period, however, several propositions issued from it, and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The activity of Congress<br> -in the interim between the<br> -appointment of the Committee<br> -on Reconstruction and the<br> -Report of the Committee.</b></small> -</div> - -two great <span class="pagenum"><a name="page58"><small><small>[p. 58]</small></small></a></span> -measures of statute law were passed by Congress, all of which -must be more nearly considered in order to keep the thread of the -narrative of Reconstruction. Moreover the debate upon the subject of -Reconstruction was at the same time in progress and the view of the -subject held by the leading Republicans was becoming more clear and fixed.</div> -<br> -<a name="side56"></a> -<div>Mr. Stevens opened this debate in the House on the 18th of December -(1865). In a powerful speech, he developed anew his doctrine that the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Thaddeus Stevens's<br> -ideas on<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -territory once covered by the "States," which had seceded from the -Union, was nothing now but a conquered district, whose future condition -depended upon the will of the conqueror. If "States" should ever be -erected there again, it must be accomplished, he contended, by virtue -of that provision in the Constitution which declares that "new States -may be admitted by Congress into this Union." This theory involved the -admission that secession had been temporarily successful. This Mr. -Stevens frankly acknowledged. He said: "Unless the law of nations is a -dead letter, the late war between the two acknowledged belligerents -severed their original contracts, and broke all the ties that bound -them together."</div> -<br> -<div>This was the extreme doctrine on the one side. It was in blunt -contradiction to the doctrine upon which the Administration was acting, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Contradiction between<br> -Stevens's view and<br> -the view of the<br> -Administration.</b></small> -</div> - -the doctrine that the attempt at secession was entirely abortive, and -that the "States" where it was attempted were still in the Union <i>as -"States,"</i> and had never been anywhere else or anything else, in fact -could not be; that the rebellion was the work of private individuals -combined as truly against the real "States" in which it existed as -against the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page59"><small><small>[p. 59]</small></small></a></span> -United States; and that, therefore, the overthrow of -these combinations and the cessation of the military rule of the -President must be followed by the resumption on the part of the -"States" concerned of all their rights and powers of local -self-government and of participation in the United States Government, -as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, unimpaired, and -without any action whatever on the part of Congress. Mr. Raymond -represented this view on the floor of the House of Representatives. He -was a Republican of the Seward school, and sympathized entirely with -his patron upon this subject. It was a great embarrassment to him that -the Democrats immediately gave in their adherence to this view. It -helped to prevent him from gaining any following at all for it among -the Republicans.</div> -<br> -<div>But while the Republicans of the House repudiated entirely Mr. -Raymond's principles, the great mass of them were not able to accept -Mr. Stevens's view of the temporary validity of secession, and the -temporary existence of the Southern Confederacy as a foreign power. -Their feelings and instincts required a principle of reconstruction -which, at the same time that it did not recognize secession as having -any validity for the shortest moment, yet regarded the "States" in -which it was attempted, as having thereby become something other than -"States" of the Union, and as requiring the assent of Congress to the -rightful resumption of that status.</div> -<br> -<a name="side57"></a> -<div>It was Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, who did more than anybody else to -give the proper logical interpretation to these feelings and invent the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Shellabarger's<br> -theory of<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -theory of Reconstruction on which the Republicans could plant -themselves. Briefly stated that theory was that, while secession was a -nullity legally from the beginning, and could not take the territory -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page60"><small><small>[p. 60]</small></small></a></span> -occupied by the "States" attempting it, or the people inhabiting -that territory, out of the Union, or from under the rightful -jurisdiction of the United States Government and Constitution for one -instant, yet it worked the loss of the "State" status in the Union, and -from a legal point of view left this territory and the inhabitants of -it subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States -Government, a status from which they could be relieved only by the -erection of "States" anew upon such territory, an operation which could -be effected, under the Constitution of the United States, only by the -co-operation of Congress with the loyal inhabitants of such territory.</div> -<br> -<a name="side58"></a> -<div>This was sound political science and correct constitutional law. It -could not fail to command the assent of the great majority of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Sumner's theory<br> -of Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -Republicans in the House and in the country. This same doctrine was, at -the same time, developed in the Senate by Mr. Sumner, Mr. Fessenden and -Mr. Wilson, and it was easy to see that it had become the theory of the -Republican party in Congress long before the final report of the -Committee on Reconstruction promulgated it. Even Stevens and his -radical followers were in line with it in so far as practical results -were concerned. That is, the Republicans all stood together on the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republicans in<br> -Congress almost<br> -unanimously in favor<br> -of the Shellabarger-<br> -Sumner plan.</b></small> -</div> - -principle that Reconstruction could only be effected by Congressional -acts, since it was tantamount to a conferring, or reconferring, of the -"State" status upon a population at the moment subject to the exclusive -jurisdiction of the Government of the United States. This meant that -the entire Republican party in Congress, with the exception of the four -members of the Senate already named, and of Mr. Raymond and one other -in the House (and this constituted a majority of two-thirds in each -House) would antagonize the plan of Executive Reconstruction -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page61"><small><small>[p. 61]</small></small></a></span> -devised by Lincoln and Seward and persisted in by Johnson and, to that -moment, by his cabinet. How far the Republicans in Congress would go in -the attempt to set aside Executive Reconstruction depended chiefly upon -the moderation of the President, and the sincerity of the people in the -South. It depended also in some degree, to say the least, upon what -would be necessary to keep the Republican party, which conceived itself -to be the only really loyal party to the Union, in power.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no doubt that the Sumner-Shellabarger theory of Reconstruction -was correct. The only question was how exacting Congress would be in -realizing it. Under such a situation it behooved the President to act -with great caution and moderation, and to do nothing to provoke a -conflict in which he was certain to be worsted. And it also behooved -the people of the South to make no opposition to the bestowal of a -large measure of civil liberty upon the freedmen, nor to such an -adjustment of the basis of political representation as would not -necessitate negro suffrage, and not to insist upon sending to Congress, -at the outset, the men who had made themselves particularly obnoxious -to loyal feeling. How both the President and the persons in authority -at the South disregarded these considerations of prudence, and how the -position assumed by them upon these subjects drove Congress into more -and more radical lines, is the further subject of the next three -chapters.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap5"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page62"><small><small>[p. 62]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER V</h3> -<center>THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (<i>Continued</i>)</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side59">The Freedmen Codes in the -South</a>—<a href="#side60">The Reports of Grant and Schurz in -Regard to the Status in the South</a>—<a href="#side61">The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of -1866</a>—<a href="#side62">The President's 22d of February -Speech</a>—<a href="#side63">The Civil Rights -Bill</a>—<a href="#side64">The Veto of the -Bill</a>—<a href="#side65">The Veto Overridden</a>—<a href="#side66">The Fourteenth -Amendment</a>—<a href="#side67">The Discussion of the Propositions in -Congress</a>—<a href="#side68">The -President's Attitude toward the Proposed Amendment</a>—<a href="#side69">Mr. Seward's Acts -in Regard to Ratification</a>—<a href="#side70">The Requirement that the Ratification of the -Proposed Amendment should be the Condition of the Admission of the -Senators- and Representatives-elect to Seats in Congress</a>—<a href="#side71">The Tennessee -Precedent</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side59"></a> -<div>We have reviewed the acts of the new legislature of Mississippi -concerning the civil status of the freedmen. It is sufficient to say - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Freedmen codes<br> -in the South.</b></small> -</div> - -that during the winter of 1865-66, the other reconstructed legislatures -followed the example of the legislature of Mississippi. These movements -forced upon the Republican party in Congress the conviction that the -civil rights of the freedmen must be secured by national law. As yet -there existed only the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution upon -which to base Congressional statutes, and this, as we know, simply -abolished and prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude, and -empowered Congress to pass appropriate laws for the execution of the -Amendment. By virtue of the war powers still exercised by the -Administration several of the Union Generals, as we shall see, had set -aside this legislation in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page63"><small><small>[p. 63]</small></small></a></span> -some of these reconstructed "States." -But, of course, it was well understood that this was only a temporary -remedy. During the month of January, 1866, the Republicans in Congress -became convinced that the newly organized "States," with the exception -of Tennessee, were consciously developing freedmen's codes which would -not differ greatly from their old slave codes.</div> -<br> -<a name="side60"></a> -<div>The President had sent General Grant and General Carl Schurz on tours -of inspection and inquiry through the South, during the late summer and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The reports of Grant<br> -and Schurz in regard to<br> -the status in the South.</b></small> -</div> - -autumn of 1865; and Congress now asked the President to impart to it -the information thus gathered. The two reports were quite -contradictory. General Grant said that he drew the conclusion from his -observations that "the mass of thinking men of the South accept the -present situation of affairs in good faith." He also indicated that the -officers of the Freedmen's Bureau were a useless set of men, dangerous -to the peace and prosperity of the South, and recommended that the -military officers in the different districts should be put in charge of -the bureau.</div> -<br> -<div>Mr. Schurz, on the other hand, reported that his conclusions from his -observations were that there was no loyalty among the leaders and the -mass of the people in the South, except such as consisted in submission -to necessity; that they were consciously attempting in their new -legislation to establish a new form of slavery, distinct only from the -old chattel slavery; and that this could be prevented only by national -law and national control, at least for many years to come.</div> -<br> -<div>General Grant's visit had been a flying one, and his inquiries upon the -subject were secondary only to his other business. On the other hand, -General Schurz had journeyed deliberately, and his inquiries were the -chief, if not the sole, purpose of his visit. Moreover, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page64"><small><small>[p. 64]</small></small></a></span>General -Schurz was a keener observer in regard to such matters than General -Grant, and a much better reasoner.</div> -<br> -<div>Despite, therefore, the great popularity and influence of General -Grant, Congress was inclined to place more credence in the report of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The attitude of<br> -Congress toward<br> -the reports.</b></small> -</div> - -General Schurz. While its Committee on Reconstruction was deliberating, -it, therefore, most naturally set itself about doing what it could, -under the Thirteenth Amendment, and also under its still existing war -powers, in behalf of the civil rights of the freedmen.</div> -<br> -<a name="side61"></a> -<div>The first measure it attempted was one to enlarge the powers of the -Freedmen's Bureau. This supplementary project originated with the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Freedmen's<br> -Bureau bill of 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and was presented in the Senate on -the 12th of January, 1866. The new bill proposed to increase the -personnel of the bureau and expand the powers vested in it as provided -in the law of March 3d, 1865, in the following most important respects:</div> - -<blockquote>First, While the law of March 3d, 1865, provided for the appointment of -a commissioner and ten assistants as the entire personnel of the -Bureau, the new bill authorized the appointment of a commissioner, -twelve assistant commissioners, and the appointment or detail of an -agent for each county or parish throughout the section where the Bureau -might operate.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Second, While in the law of March 3d, 1865, the Bureau rather appeared -to be under the civil administration of the President, the new bill -placed it distinctly under the military administration of the -President, and authorized the President to extend "military -jurisdiction and protection over all of the officers, agents, and -employees of the Bureau."</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Third, While the law of March 3d, 1865, confined the powers of the -Bureau to the giving of aid to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page65"><small><small>[p. 65]</small></small></a></span> -refugees and freedmen and the -distribution of abandoned and confiscated lands among them, the new -bill proposed, in addition to this, to vest in the Bureau the power to -build school houses and asylums for the freedmen, and the most -wide-reaching jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases where -equality in civil rights and status, and in the application of -penalties, was denied, or the denial thereof attempted, on account of -race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and it authorized -military protection in all such cases to be extended to the suffering -party. In a single sentence, this bill provided a sort of palatine -jurisdiction over the freedmen in the section lately the scene of rebellion.</blockquote> - -<div>It was a stiff measure even for the transition period from war to -peace. It cannot be justified constitutionally as anything but a war -measure. It is true that the Thirteenth Amendment, just adopted, could -be interpreted as giving Congress the power to prohibit inequalities in -civil rights and in criminal punishments, as the incidents of slavery -or involuntary servitude, and to extend the ordinary jurisdiction of -the constitutional courts of the United States over all cases where the -attempt to apply such inequalities should be made. But it certainly did -not give Congress the power, under any ordinary circumstances, to -create a new system of courts, subject to the Executive, officered by -military men, and armed directly with military power to enforce -decisions. It was, as has been said, a war measure, and nothing else. -The question was reduced simply to this: Ought the Congress of the -United States to enact a new war measure, after armed resistance had -ceased everywhere, except perhaps in some parts of Texas? Was it sound -policy, was it good morals, to do so, when the people in the sections -lately in rebellion were settling down into the pursuits of peace, even - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The passage<br> -of the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -though Congress might <span class="pagenum"><a name="page66"><small><small>[p. 66]</small></small></a></span> -legally have the right to do so? The bill -was debated long and carefully in the Senate by all of the leading -members, and the opinion finally prevailed among them that it was a -measure necessary to preserve and protect the freedom of the newly -enfranchised. It passed the Senate by a vote of 37 to 10, and the House -by a vote of 136 to 33.</div> -<br> -<div>On the 10th of February (1866) it was sent to the President for his -signature. In a Message, dated the 19th of February, the President put - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto<br> -upon it.</b></small> -</div> - -his veto upon this bill. The document was a strong and sound -presentation of reasons for his dissent. He said he could not approve -of a war measure, with an indefinite term, when the authority of the -United States was not disputed in any part of the country, when the -rebellion was at an end, and when the country had returned, or was -returning, to the pursuits of peace. He referred to the fact that the -law of March 3d, 1865, was still in operation, and claimed that it -furnished him with all the extraordinary powers necessary to protect -the freedmen. He called attention to the army of officials which this -proposed law would create, and to the enormous expense which it would -entail. And he denied the constitutional power of the Government of the -United States to assume functions for negroes which it had never been -authorized to assume for white men. There is little question now that -the President was correct about this matter, and that the Congress was -both reckless and aggressive, not to say vindictive. But it is -questionable whether the President did not himself lessen unnecessarily -his influence with his party in Congress, by his unqualified opposition -to any strengthening of the measure of 1865. He might have returned the -bill with the suggestion that it should have a definite limit as to the -time it should run, and have <span class="pagenum"><a name="page67"><small><small>[p. 67]</small></small></a></span> -expressed his willingness to sign a -bill which should be so limited. Johnson was blunt in his honesty. But -Seward was his adviser, and Seward was, above everything, politic. It -would seem that he either failed to advise with his usual sagacity in -this case, or that his advice was unheeded.</div> -<br> -<div>For this once the President's arguments convinced enough of the -Senators to deprive the bill of the support of the necessary majority - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto<br> -effective.</b></small> -</div> - -to carry it over his veto, even so stanch a Republican as ex-Governor -Morgan of New York voting against the bill after its return. The -Republican majority was deeply chagrined, not to say discouraged, and -the President was injuriously encouraged to enter upon the struggle -with Congress over the question of Reconstruction.</div> -<br> -<a name="side62"></a> -<div>On the evening of the 22d of February, three days after his successful -veto, the President made a most important speech from the steps of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's 22d<br> -of February speech.</b></small> -</div> - -White House to a large popular meeting assembled to congratulate him -upon his victory. He was betrayed by his elation and warmth into an -abusive denunciation of his enemies, once, and only a few months -before, his best friends. He went so far as to declare that Stevens and -Sumner and Phillips and others like them were, in his opinion, laboring -as assiduously to destroy the fundamental principles of the government -as were the leaders of the rebellion. After such an open challenge, the -contest was nearly unavoidable. It was not avoided, whatever might have -been the possibilities of re-establishing harmony. And it cannot be -denied that, from this moment, personal rancor against the President -filled the heart of Stevens, at least, if not of the others. The -President's utterances were, indeed, highly exasperating, and it would -have required a very large measure of public virtue to have ignored them.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page68"><small><small>[p. 68]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side63"></a> -<div>As a part of the same plan for securing the civil rights of the -freedmen against the hostile legislation of the President's - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Civil<br> -Rights Bill.</b></small> -</div> - -reconstructed "States," the Judiciary Committee of the Senate reported -a Civil Rights bill to the Senate one day before it reported the -Freedmen's Bureau bill, that is, on the 11th of January. The right of -way, so to speak, was, however, given to the latter bill, and Congress -was nearly two months longer in perfecting the former than the latter. -This Civil Rights bill certainly avoided many of the most serious -objections which could be truthfully made against the Freedmen's Bureau -bill. It was not a war measure in a time of peace. It did not provide a -privileged jurisdiction for any class, and it did not create an army of -new officials to drain the Treasury and increase the patronage of the President.</div> -<br> -<div>The purpose of it was simply to establish equality in the enjoyment of -civil rights for all citizens of the country and to make all persons -born in the country and not subject to any foreign power citizens. The -substantial part of the bill, as perfected, read: "All persons born in -the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding -Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United -States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to -any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a -punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, -shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United -States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give -evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and -personal property, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and -proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by -white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and -penalties, and to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page69"><small><small>[p. 69]</small></small></a></span> -none other, any law, statute, ordinance, -regulation or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."</div> -<br> -<div>This is simply equality for all before the law. It conferred no -political privilege and no social equality. It was fairly within the -power of Congress to pass such a measure, by interpreting broadly the -Thirteenth Amendment, without having any recourse to the idea of war -powers. Slavery was nothing but extreme inequality in civil rights -between master and servant. The prohibition of slavery and involuntary -servitude could, therefore, most certainly be held to be the -prohibition of all of these incidents.</div> -<br> -<div>The remaining provisions of the bill did nothing more than fix -penalties for violating, or attempting to violate, civil equality as -thus defined, designate the officers charged with the duty of -prosecuting the offenders, and establish the jurisdiction for the trial -of such cases.</div> -<br> -<div>The penalties were somewhat grave. They might be as severe as a fine of -one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for a year, or both, in the -discretion of the courts. But they were not cruel or unusual, and were, -therefore, within the power of Congress to prescribe. The officers -authorized and required to institute proceedings against violators of -the law were the district attorneys, marshals and deputy marshals of -the United States courts, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit -and Territorial courts of the United States, the officers and agents of -the Freedmen's Bureau, and every other officer whom the President might -see fit to empower thereto. And the jurisdiction established for the -trial of such cases was that of the United States courts, upon which -was conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction in any case under the -law, and to which any case touching these subjects commenced in a -"State" court could <span class="pagenum"><a name="page70"><small><small>[p. 70]</small></small></a></span> -be removed on motion of the defendant. But all -these things were authorized by a liberal construction of the -Thirteenth Amendment, which expressly vests in Congress the power to -make all laws necessary and proper to enforce the prohibition of -slavery throughout the whole country.</div> -<br> -<div>It was, indeed, a great change in the system of the jurisprudence of -the United States that the central Government should define and protect - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The measure sound<br> -from the points of<br> -view of modern<br> -jurisprudence and<br> -modern political<br> -science.</b></small> -</div> - -civil equality within the States. But it was a change which history had -forced upon the country, and the sovereign power of the nation had -deliberately legalized it. There is no question now that it was sound -political science, too, and that it was required by public morality. -Real civil liberty is always national. Its concepts and principles -spring out of the national consciousness of rights and wrongs. And -civil equality is the first principle of modern justice, the most -pressing behest of the public morality of the age. Moreover, this -measure did not militate against the President's plan of -Reconstruction. He could have accepted it without compromising that -plan in the slightest, and it was a monumental blunder on his part that -he did not do so.</div> -<br> -<a name="side64"></a> -<div>On the 27th of March, he sent his veto of the bill into the Senate. It -was a weak argument throughout. He objected to making the freedmen - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto<br> -of the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -citizens by an act of Congress, while eleven of the thirty-six "States" -were unrepresented in Congress, and made out that it was a -discrimination in favor of the ignorant negro against the intelligent -foreigner not yet naturalized. He objected to the extension of the -powers of the central Government in behalf of civil equality within the -"States" as destructive of the federal system of government, and as -degrading to the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page71"><small><small>[p. 71]</small></small></a></span> -legislators and officials of the "States." He did -not deny that the proposed measure might be sustained as constitutional -under the Thirteenth Amendment, but maintained that it was unnecessary -for the execution of the provisions of the Amendment. He objected, -further, to the number of officers and agents authorized to institute -proceedings under the measure, to the fee which they should receive, -and to the power of the President to order the courts of the United -States to migrate from one place to another when necessary for the -prompt administration of justice. And he objected, finally, to the -power vested in the President to use the land and naval forces and the -militia to prevent the violation, and enforce the due execution, of the measure.</div> -<br> -<div>Now all this was easily answered from the point of view which Congress -and the North had now firmly taken, viz.: that the eleven former -"States" in which rebellion had for so long prevailed were not -"States," although the territory formerly occupied by them, and the -population formerly inhabiting them, were within the United States and -were subject to the jurisdiction of the central Government; that the -rebellion had demonstrated that the central Government must be -intrusted with a large increase of powers in protecting civil equality -and civil liberty; and that the sovereign Nation had willed this in the -enactment and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.</div> -<br> -<div>Really there was but one thing in the bill susceptible of successful -criticism, and that could be explained so as to avoid it. It was the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism<br> -of the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -ninth section, which authorized the President to use military power in -execution of the law. The language would permit the President to use -the military before bringing the matter before the courts and securing -a decision. It would permit the President to use the military as the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page72"><small><small>[p. 72]</small></small></a></span> -primal, instead of the final, agency for executing the law. It -appeared to be in this respect a real force bill, that is a bill in -which the Executive is empowered to use the military, not for the -enforcement of judicial decision in aid of the marshals, deputies, -constables, and their posses, which is the customary order in time of -peace, but for the execution of the law in the first instance, before -decision rendered or trial had. But it was entirely clear that what was -meant in this section of the bill was that, when combinations too -powerful to be dealt with by the courts and their officers should -undertake to prevent the execution of the law, the President might use -the military to overcome them. Under such an interpretation, this -provision was justifiable and proper, certainly so in a transition -period from a condition of general rebellion against the laws of the -United States to that of gradual, and only gradual, acquiescence in -their enforcement.</div> -<br> -<a name="side65"></a> -<div>The President most decidedly lost his chance of rehabilitating himself -with his party, and leading it in the work of Reconstruction, by not - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The<br> -President's<br> -blunder.</b></small> -</div> - -signing this bill. He sinned against the Southerners themselves in not -doing so. His veto of it made them believe that they could count upon -the Administration, the Administration Republicans, and the whole -Democratic party of the North, in denying equal civil rights to the -freedmen, and that such a combination must eventually triumph. They, -therefore, persisted in their course of exceptional legislation against -the freedmen in the South, and in their arrogant demands for the -immediate admission to seats in Congress of the very men who had led -the rebellion for four years against the sovereignty and Government of -the United States. It is amazing that they did not see that the large -Republican majority in Congress would -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page73"><small><small>[p. 73]</small></small></a></span>be driven to the alternative -of seeing the work of four years of terrible sacrifice undone or of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto<br> -overridden.</b></small> -</div> - -securing its permanence by making such changes in the organic law as -would effect it, while yet they had the power. On the 6th of April, the -Senate overrode the President's veto of the Civil Rights bill, and on -the 9th the House did likewise.</div> -<br> -<a name="side66"></a> -<div>While, as we have seen, the President did not exactly deny the -constitutionality of the bill, the Democrats in Congress, and the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Fourteenth<br> -Amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -Southerners seeking seats in Congress, did. There was, therefore, but -one course left open to the Republican majority, and that was to make -what they considered to be the incidents of the Thirteenth Amendment -express provisions of the Constitution. There were also several other -things which had become clear in the course of the debates in the Civil -Rights bill and the Freedmen's Bureau bill.</div> -<br> -<div>In the first place, it was seen that the emancipation of the slaves -would increase the representation in Congress and in the Presidential -electoral college from the old slave "States" by two-fifths whenever -the Southern communities should be recognized as "States" again, and -that too without the admission of the emancipated persons to the -exercise of political suffrage. It was certainly to be apprehended -that, with such increased representation, the Southern members and the -Northern Democrats would constitute a majority in Congress and in the -electoral college, and might proceed not only to repeal the Civil -Rights Act, and all acts in behalf of the freedmen, but also to throw -the Confederate debt or a part of it upon the United States, or -establish pensions for Confederate soldiers, or even repudiate the debt -of the Union made in defence of its own life. While the danger of these -things was, probably, somewhat <span class="pagenum"><a name="page74"><small><small>[p. 74]</small></small></a></span> -exaggerated, still it would not -have been becoming for men of prudence and patriotism to have failed to -provide against them. Really there was but one thing to do, and that -was to enact, and secure the adoption of, another amendment to the -Constitution covering these points, while the power to do so still existed.</div> -<br> -<div>It would be an agreeable thing to the writer of this period of American -history, were he able to record that the principal matter which - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The political<br> -provision in<br> -the proposed<br> -Fourteenth<br> -Amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -occupied the thought and attention of the Committee on Reconstruction -was how to secure the necessary civil rights of the freedmen. But in -the interest of exact truth he is compelled to forego this pleasure. -The first thing which that Committee considered and recommended to the -Houses of Congress was the political matter of a redistribution of the -representation in the House of Representatives and in the Presidential -electoral college. On the 22d of January (1866) the Committee reported -to the two Houses the following proposition as an amendment to the -Constitution of the United States: "Representatives and direct taxes -shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included -within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the -whole number of persons in each State—excluding Indians not -taxed—provided, that whenever the elective franchise shall be denied -or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons of -such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation." -For nearly six weeks both the Committee and Congress were occupied in -the discussion of this proposition. In a slightly modified form it was -adopted in the House, but, at last, on the 9th of March, it came to -vote in the Senate, and not having received the necessary two-thirds -majority, it was abandoned as a separate measure, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page75"><small><small>[p. 75]</small></small></a></span>merged into -the general article containing the regulations of all the points to -which reference was made above.</div> -<br> -<div>It was Monday, April 30th, before the Committee was ready to report the -entire article, which took the name of the Fourteenth Amendment to the -Constitution. The article as presented to the Houses of Congress by the -Joint Committee on that day read as follows:</div> - -<blockquote>"Sect. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge -the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor -shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without -due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the -equal protection of the laws.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>"Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States -which may be included within this Union according to their respective -numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding -Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise -shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than -twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for -participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation -in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of -such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not -less than twenty-one years of age.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>"Sect. 3. Until the 4th day of July in the year 1870, all persons who -voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and -comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives -in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-President of the -United States.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>"Sect. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay -any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be -incurred, in aid of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page76"><small><small>[p. 76]</small></small></a></span> -insurrection or war against the United States, -or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>"Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate -legislation, the provisions of this Article."</blockquote> - -<div>The chief difficulties with these provisions were, first, that they did -not define who were the citizens of the United States; second, that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Defects in the<br> -first draft of the<br> -Amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -while they disfranchised for two or three years all who had voluntarily -taken part in the rebellion, they did not disqualify anybody from -holding office or legislative mandate on account of such conduct; and -third, that while they forbade the payment of any debt or obligation -incurred in aid of rebellion, they did not guarantee those incurred in -the suppression of such rebellion.</div> -<br> -<a name="side67"></a> -<div>The discussion in Congress upon these provisions lasted through the -month of May and well into June. At last in the second week of June, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The discussion of the<br> -propositions in Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -the two Houses arrived at an agreement upon the modifications which -seemed proper and necessary, and the Article as thus perfected was -adopted by the necessary two-thirds vote in each branch.</div> -<br> -<div>The first section had been modified by the incorporation into it of a -sentence which defined citizenship of the United States. It reads: "All - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The final draft<br> -agreed upon.</b></small> -</div> - -persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the -jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the -State wherein they reside." This cleared up all difficulties in -determining who the persons were, whose privileges and immunities were -to be protected against "State" action. It also settled the question, -forever, as to whether citizenship of the United States or citizenship -of the "State" is primary. There is no doubt that in that clause of the -original <span class="pagenum"><a name="page77"><small><small>[p. 77]</small></small></a></span> -Constitution which declares that the Constitution of the -United States, and the laws of Congress made in accordance therewith, -and the treaties made under the authority thereof, are the supreme law -of the land, no matter what may be found in "State" constitutions or -laws to the contrary, primary allegiance of all citizens and persons to -the United States was established and required, but the advocates of -"State" sovereignty always contended that, because there was no express -clause in the Constitution defining citizenship, and declaring the -citizenship of the United States primary, citizenship was primarily of -the "State," and, hence, allegiance was due primarily to the "State" by -all its inhabitants. It was very proper and very desirable that this -contention should be set at rest.</div> -<br> -<div>The language of the second section had been revised so as to make its -meaning more clear, but it had not been changed at all as to its -meaning. It reads in its perfected form: "Representatives shall be -apportioned among the several States according to their respective -numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding -Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the -choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United -States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial -officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is -denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one -years of age, <i>and citizens of the United States</i>, or in any way -abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the -basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion -which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number -of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."</div> -<br> -<div>For section third, denying suffrage until 1870 to all -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page78"><small><small>[p. 78]</small></small></a></span>persons who -had given aid voluntarily to the rebellion, Congress had substituted an -entirely new resolution, which rendered the Confederate chieftains -ineligible to office instead of disqualifying the rank and file for -suffrage. It reads as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or -Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, -or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or -under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of -Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any -State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, -to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in -insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to -the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each -House, remove such disability."</div> -<br> -<div>This was certainly a wise change. It certainly could not be contended -that disqualifications for holding office and legislative mandate -violated any so-called natural right. It was better that whatever -punishments of a political nature might fall upon the Confederates -should strike the leaders, rather than the followers. And it was not a -severe punishment which required that, for a time at least, the people -inhabiting the communities lately in rebellion should choose as their -representatives to the National legislature and to the Presidential -electoral college, and as their "State" officers, men not identified -with the rebellion so closely as to have been among its leaders. It is -difficult to see how the Confederate leaders could have been required -to suffer less, and have been rebuked at all for their acts.</div> -<br> -<div>Finally, section four was supplemented by a sentence which declared -that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized -by law, including debts <span class="pagenum"><a name="page79"><small><small>[p. 79]</small></small></a></span> -incurred for payment of pensions and -bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall -not be questioned." The last words of the section were also somewhat -modified in the direction of greater emphasis, but the meaning remained -the same. As thus perfected, the section declared the validity of all -the existing obligations of the United States, and repudiated all -obligations whatsoever assumed in aid of rebellion, and all claims for -the loss or emancipation of any slave. This covered the ground -completely in regard to the security of the public obligations of the -United States both from the positive and negative side, and it -prevented both Congress and the "States" from ever recognizing, in the -future, the claim for any relief from the natural consequences of -unsuccessful rebellion, and the right to any compensation for -deprivation of property in man.</div> -<br> -<div>As Congress passed these propositions by the necessary two-thirds -majority they were not submitted to the President at all, it being -considered that his disapproval, if given, would avail nothing against -such a majority. This has been the custom from the first in -Congressional propositions of amendment, and it is now too late to -dispute its regularity. But it is easy to see that the President might -support a veto of such propositions by such reasoning as to make it at -least possible that sufficient votes might be changed from affirmative -to negative upon them, to finally defeat them; and it is certainly true -that the Constitution requires that every bill, order, resolution, or -vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of -Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) -shall be presented to the President and is subject to his approval or -veto, no matter by what majority it may have been passed.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page80"><small><small>[p. 80]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side68"></a> -<div>However, President Johnson had no opportunity to express himself -officially or make himself officially felt in regard to this Amendment. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's attitude<br> -toward the proposed<br> -amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -It was pretty well understood that he did not view it with favor while -it was pending, and it soon became manifest that he was advising its -rejection by the "States."</div> -<br> -<a name="side69"></a> -<div>Mr. Seward issued his notification of the passage of the amendment by -Congress to the "State" legislatures for their ratificatory action on - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Seward's<br> -acts in regard to<br> -ratification.</b></small> -</div> - -the 16th of June. He sent the same to the legislatures of all the -"States," that is, to the legislatures of those bodies claiming to be -"States" under the President's plan of Reconstruction, as well as to -the legislatures of those "States" which had never pretended to secede -from the Union. This was, again, certainly a recognition of all these -bodies as "States" of the Union by the executive branch of the -Government, at least.</div> -<br> -<a name="side70"></a> -<div>On the other hand, the Reconstruction Committee of Congress had -reported a bill along with the Article of Amendment, which virtually - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The requirement that<br> -the ratification of the<br> -proposed Amendment<br> -should be the condition<br> -of the admission of<br> -the Senators- and<br> -Representatives-elect<br> -to seats in Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -proposed to make the ratification of the proposed Amendment by the -respective legislatures of the reconstructed Southern communities the -condition of the admission of the Senators- and Representatives-elect -from them to seats in Congress. That is, it was proposed that Congress -should make its recognition of the reconstructed bodies as "States" -conditional upon their ratification of the Article of Amendment. Or -perhaps some of those supporting this proposition would have preferred -the statement that it was proposed that Congress should make its -recognition of the reconstructed governments of the "States" in which -secession had <span class="pagenum"><a name="page81"><small><small>[p. 81]</small></small></a></span> -been attempted conditional upon the ratification of -the Amendment by the legislative departments of these reconstructed -governments respectively.</div> -<br> -<div>No matter how it might have been stated, it was an absurdity. The true -theory on this point was that held by Mr. Stevens, viz., to consider - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The absurdity of<br> -the condition.</b></small> -</div> - -only those "States" which had never attempted secession, those "States" -which had never been members of the Southern Confederacy, as -constituting the "States" of the Union at that moment, and all other -territory and people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -as being under the exclusive government of the central Government; to -amend the Constitution by a three-fourths majority of these loyal -"States"; and then to admit these reconstructed communities as new -"States" into the Union with its amended Constitution.</div> -<br> -<div>The amended Constitution would then have the same power over them as if -the Amendment had been ratified by them. In fact, their petition for -admission or recognition as "States" of the Union with the amended -Constitution would imply their assent to the Amendment as well as to -every other part of the Constitution. The more moderate Republicans -feared that the Southern communities would not feel obligated by a -Constitution amended in this way. It is difficult to see why they -should not. The Southern statesmen knew that Congress had no power -under the Constitution to require of new "States" obedience to anything -as a condition of their admission to the Union, but the Constitution as -it was at the moment of their admission. Looked at from the point of -view of the present, it would certainly appear that the exaction of -such an unlawful promise, imposing such a degrading discrimination, -would have been far more exasperating than anything else which could -have been invented or imagined.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page82"><small><small>[p. 82]</small></small></a></span> -<div>Enough of them saw this to prevent Congress from enacting the bill -proposed by the Reconstruction Committee into a law, and when the -proposed Amendment went to the legislatures of the "States," there was -no requirement attending it which appeared to deprive any legislature, -or body claiming to be a legislature, of its discretion in dealing with -the subject.</div> -<br> -<div>As a matter of fact, however, the legislature of Tennessee ratified the -proposed Amendment within about a month after receiving the Article - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The precedent set<br> -by Tennessee.</b></small> -</div> - -from Secretary Seward, and Congress thereupon passed the following -joint resolution and sent it to the President for his signature: -"Whereas in the year 1861 the government of the State of Tennessee was -seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the -United States, and the inhabitants of said State, in pursuance of an -act of Congress, were declared to be in a state of insurrection against -the United States; and whereas said State government can only be -restored to its former political relations in the Union by consent of -the lawmaking power of the United States; and whereas the people of -said State did, on the 22d of February, 1865, by a large popular vote, -adopt and ratify a constitution of government whereby slavery was -abolished and all ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted -under the same were declared void; and whereas a State government has -been organized under said constitution which has ratified the amendment -to the constitution abolishing slavery, also the amendment proposed by -the thirty-ninth Congress" (the Fourteenth Amendment) "and has done -other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty: Therefore, <i>Be it resolved -by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled</i>, That -the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former practical -relations to the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page83"><small><small>[p. 83]</small></small></a></span> -Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress."</div> -<br> -<a name="side71"></a> -<div>These proceedings made it certain that, while Congress had failed to -pass any formal act making the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Tennessee<br> -precedent.</b></small> -</div> - -Amendment a condition precedent to the readmission of the other -"States" which had been in rebellion, Congress would not readmit any of -them which did not do this. Tennessee, it was thought, had sinned the -least of all, and, therefore, should be readmitted on lightest terms. -More might be righteously required of the others, but not less.</div> -<br> -<div>The President signed the resolution, but accompanied the same with a -short message in which he made a rather telling criticism upon the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's message in<br> -regard to the rehabilitation<br> -of Tennessee.</b></small> -</div> - -procedure of submitting proposed constitutional amendments to bodies -not already "States" in the Union, and warned Congress against -construing his approval as committing him to all of the statements of -fact contained in the preamble to the resolution, or to the doctrine -that Congress had any right "to pass laws preliminary to the admission -of duly qualified Representatives from any of the States." These latter -words manifest the fact that the President was still holding on to the -idea that the whole function of Congress in Reconstruction consisted in -the power of each House to judge of the election and qualifications of -its members.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap6"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page84"><small><small>[p. 84]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER VI</h3> -<center>THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (<i>Continued</i>)</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side72">The Reports of the Committee on -Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side73">The Idea of a New -Electorate as the Basis and Condition of Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side74">The Freedmen's -Bureau Act of July 16th, 1866</a>—<a href="#side75">The Disaffection in the -Cabinet</a>—<a href="#side76">The New -Orleans Riot</a>—<a href="#side77">The Issue of Reconstruction in the Campaign -of 1866</a>—<a href="#side78">The -Congressional Election of 1866</a>—<a href="#side79">The President's Final Proclamation -Declaring the Civil War Ended—The October Elections</a>—<a href="#side80">The President's -Message of December 3d, 1866</a>—<a href="#side81">Rejection of the Proposed Fourteenth -Amendment by the Legislatures of the Reconstructed "States."</a></blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side72"></a> -<div>Two days after the transmission of the Fourteenth Amendment to the -"State" legislatures, the Joint Committee of Congress on - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The reports of the Committee<br> -on Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -Reconstruction made its final report, or rather reports, since there were two of them, -one being signed by all the Republican members of the Committee, and -the other by all the Democratic members.</div> -<br> -<div>The majority report was an able defence of the view, that by rebellion -and attempted secession the eleven "States" in which these things - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The majority<br> -report.</b></small> -</div> - -happened had lost their "Statehood" and had become disorganized -communities, but that while they could and had destroyed "State" -government, and placed themselves outside of the Union so far as -exercising the powers and privileges of "State" local government was -concerned, they could not, and had not, escaped the obligations of the -Constitution and the authority of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page85"><small><small>[p. 85]</small></small></a></span>central Government. The -exact language of the report on this point was: "The Constitution, it -will be observed, does not act upon States, as such, but upon the -people; while, therefore, the people cannot escape its authority, the -States may, through the act of their people, cease to exist in an -organized form, and thus dissolve their political relations with the -United States." The doctrine is here more clearly expressed than in -other places, but even here there is a confusing modification contained -in the words "in an organized form." It would have been much clearer if -they had been entirely omitted. The framers of the report were -evidently haunted by that spectre of an abstract, unorganized "State," -which has played such havoc with good sense in some of the subsequent -decisions of the Supreme Court, and which is nothing more than a -Platonic idea.</div> -<br> -<div>Based upon this doctrine, the majority report naturally vindicated the -exclusive right of Congress in the work of Reconstruction, which work -was virtually the admission of new "States" into the Union. It, -furthermore, demonstrated that the situation in these disorganized -sections was one largely of exhausted disloyalty only, and that all -that the inhabitants of them had done under the President's -Reconstruction policy was directed toward putting the same men in power -who had led in the rebellion and toward denying civil, to say nothing -of political, rights to the freedmen.</div> -<br> -<div>And its final conclusion was, "that Congress would not be justified in -admitting such communities to a participation in the government of the -country without first providing such constitutional or other guarantees -as would tend to secure the civil rights of all citizens of the -Republic; a just equality of representation; protection against claims -founded in rebellion and crime; a temporary restoration of the right of -suffrage to those <span class="pagenum"><a name="page86"><small><small>[p. 86]</small></small></a></span> -who have not actively participated in the -efforts to destroy the Union and overthrow the Government; and the -exclusion from positions of public trust of at least a portion of those -whose crimes have proved them to be the enemies of the Union, and -unworthy of public confidence."</div> -<br> -<div>As we have seen, the proposed Fourteenth Article of Amendment had -provided for all of these things, except the direct conferring of -suffrage on anybody. With this exception, it had gone even further, in -its provision declaratory of citizenship, and in its protection of the -public debt of the Union.</div> -<br> -<div>The report of the minority, that is of the three Democrats, was written -by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. It was, as a lawyer's brief, an - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The minority<br> -report.</b></small> -</div> - -able presentation of the view that a "State" of the Union can never -become anything else than a "State," no matter what may be the -character, deeds, attempts or disposition of the people who inhabit it, -and is at all times entitled to the same powers, rights and privileges, -under the Constitution of the United States. It was, however, the -veriest dry bones of legal reasoning, the veriest sophistry of juristic -abstraction. There was no political science in it, no common sense in -it, and it ended with an unfortunate and irritating defence of -President Johnson's personal loyalty, which had not been in the -slightest degree impugned by the majority.</div> -<br> -<a name="side73"></a> -<div>The majority report indicated, at least, that Congress might require -something more than adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by the -communities lately in rebellion before they would be recognized as -having been restored to their proper relations in the Union as -"States," and entitled to representation in Congress. At the moment, -however, it is probable that a prompt adoption of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page87"><small><small>[p. 87]</small></small></a></span>the proposed -Amendment by any of the reconstructed legislatures would have been -followed by a joint resolution on the part of Congress similar to that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The idea of a new<br> -electorate as the<br> -basis and condition<br> -of Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -enacted in the case of Tennessee. There is no doubt that many of the -more radical members of Congress had been long considering the question -of creating an entirely new electorate in the South as the only proper -basis for reconstruction, and that some of the conservatives, from -being opponents of this idea at the beginning of the year, had, by the -middle of it, begun, at least, to waver. To those who could read the -signs of the times correctly, it was manifest that a rejection of the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment by these communities would lead Congress -forward upon that line. The President ought to have understood this, -when Mr. Raymond voted for the proposed Amendment in the House. He -ought to have done all in his power to influence the reconstructed -communities to adopt the proposed Amendment, no matter whether the -submission of it to them by the Secretary of State of the United States -logically involved their recognition as "States" of the Union by the -Administration at Washington, or not. They were not in a position to -exact the precise conclusion of a logical process in their favor, -especially as it was based on a fallacious premise, and the President -did both himself and them a great wrong in not discouraging them from -so doing.</div> -<br> -<a name="side74"></a> -<div>A few weeks later Congress scored another victory over the President, -one which did much toward wiping out the defeats of February 19th and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Freedmen's<br> -Bureau Act of<br> -July 16th, 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -21st. It passed another Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and then repassed it -July 16th, over the President's veto. This bill was framed with the -purpose in view of avoiding those features of the bill, successfully -vetoed by the President on February 19th preceding, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page88"><small><small>[p. 88]</small></small></a></span>which had -influenced certain Republicans to sustain the President's veto. The -differences between the two measures consisted in the following points. -The first bill had no definite time limit; the second would expire in -two years from the date of its passage. The first bill vested -jurisdiction in the Freedmen's Bureau over the civil rights of freedmen -and refugees in all parts of the United States. The second vested the -bureau with jurisdiction over loyal refugees and freedmen without -mention of place. The first vested a most sweeping power in the Bureau -to give all kinds of aid and support to the destitute refugees and -freedmen. The second contained only the more moderate provision of the -original law of March 3d, 1865, on that subject. Finally the first gave -the Bureau jurisdiction over the civil rights of freedmen and refugees, -not only when the deprivation of them was the consequence of rebellion, -but when it was effected by <i>any local law</i>, ordinance, police -regulation or other regulation. The second, on the contrary, limited -the jurisdiction of the Bureau to those cases where the deprivation was -the consequence of rebellion.</div> -<br> -<div>The President could not, however, see much difference between them. He -claimed that his objections to the first bill were valid against the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto of<br> -the measure.</b></small> -</div> - -second. The second measure, he contended, was only a war measure for a -definite period, in a time of peace. It was the prolongation for a -definite time of military jurisdiction over civil matters, when the -civil courts both "State" and Union were open and in the unhindered -discharge of their business. And he held the ground that Congress had -no more constitutional power to create, or perpetuate, military -jurisdiction over civil matters for a definite period in time of peace -than for an indefinite period. He referred to the fact that the Civil -Rights measure, just passed over his veto, met all -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page89"><small><small>[p. 89]</small></small></a></span>the points -provided for in the Freedmen's Bureau bill, and affirmed that all of -the provisions of that law would be executed by him through ordinary -civil means, in so far as they should not be repealed by Congress or -declared unconstitutional by the courts.</div> -<br> -<div>From the point of view of to-day it is difficult to see why the -President was not right. There is no doubt that the Freedmen's Bureau - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Correctness of the<br> -President's views.</b></small> -</div> - -with its powers, jurisdiction and charities, was a far greater source -of irritation in the South than was the presence of the United States -army. While its superior officers were generally men of ability and -character, a large number of the subalterns were canting hypocrites and -outright thieves. They kept the negroes in a state of idleness, beggary -and unrest, and made them a constant danger to the life and property of -the whites; and their veritable tyranny over the white population did -more to destroy Union sentiment among the whites and make them regard -the United States Government in a hostile light than anything which had -happened during the whole course of the rebellion. It was an -institution which ought to have been dispensed with the instant that -the necessity which called it into existence passed away. The law of -March 3d, 1865, had still about eight months to run, and Congress would -be in session again four months before it would expire. There was ample -opportunity for prolonging the law, and that law, it was to be -presumed, was less needed in 1866 than in 1865. It took all of the -party discipline of the Republicans to prevent sufficient disaffection -in their ranks to sustain the President's veto. On the merits of the -question alone they could not have done it. They were in error, and -many of them knew it, but they were now in to fight the President and -they must stand together.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page90"><small><small>[p. 90]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The veto of the bill was dated July 16th, and the two Houses repassed -it over the veto on the same day. The new law was to be executed - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto<br> -overridden.</b></small> -</div> - -through the War Department, as the original measure had been, and the -Secretary of War had begun to manifest that indecent hostility to the -President which disgraced the last years of the Administration. The -President was largely cut off from even the knowledge of what was -taking place in the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau, and Mr. -Stanton now managed it in such a manner, whether intentional or not, as -to cause the greatest possible friction between the Government and the -whites of the South, and thus to retard the process of Reconstruction -and to destroy what had been already accomplished in that direction.</div> -<br> -<a name="side75"></a> -<div>Besides Stanton, three other members of the Cabinet had showed their -disaffection toward the President's policy. They were Mr. Speed, the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Disaffection<br> -in the Cabinet.</b></small> -</div> - -Attorney-General, Mr. Dennison, the Postmaster-General, and Mr. Harlan, -the Secretary of the Interior. During the course of the month (July) -these three gentlemen resigned their offices, and were replaced by Mr. -Stanbery, Mr. A. W. Randall, and Mr. O. H. Browning. Their sense of -propriety would not permit them to retain high office under the -President while differing with him so widely in regard to the -fundamental question of Reconstruction. Mr. Stanton, however, took a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Stanton's<br> -attitude<br> -toward the<br> -President.</b></small> -</div> - -different view of his duty. He seemed to feel that he was under -obligations to his country to remain in the President's Cabinet, at the -head of the most important branch of the Administration at that moment, -and protect the country against the purposes of the President. He was -sustained in this view by the Republican majority in Congress, which -soon entered upon its course of depriving -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page91"><small><small>[p. 91]</small></small></a></span>the President of his -military control even, by transferring his functions to the Secretary -of War and the General of the army. To the men of the present day, Mr. -Stanton's conduct appears, at least, lacking in a proper sense of -delicacy. It may be regarded in an even more serious light. It may be -looked upon as a conspiracy with the Republican majority in Congress to -rob the President of his constitutional prerogatives, to change the -form of government from the presidential system to the parliamentary -system of administration. It is difficult to find any sufficient -defence for Mr. Stanton's course. It is impossible to clear him of the -appearance of great egotism or of great greed of office, in not -resigning along with his dissatisfied colleagues.</div> -<br> -<div>The President knew of this difference of feeling between himself and -his War Secretary at the time of his reorganization of the Cabinet in -July, and would undoubtedly have been glad to receive his resignation, -but he did not ask for it. The newspapers which sustained the -Administration did, however, and predicted that it would be -forthcoming. The Republican leaders, on the other hand, encouraged -Stanton to hold on to the office, and represented to him that the -welfare of his country demanded the sacrifice of his personal feelings -in the matter.</div> -<br> -<div>It was now generally proclaimed throughout the North that the rebel -chieftains had repossessed themselves of the reconstructed "State" - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The opinion and feeling<br> -in the North concerning<br> -the condition of things<br> -in the South.</b></small> -</div> - -governments and were making use of "State" powers to re-enslave the -freedmen. It was also proclaimed that the life and property of Union -men, of whatever race, at the South were utterly insecure, and that at -least a thousand men had been murdered in that section within a year's -time, without any considerable number of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page92"><small><small>[p. 92]</small></small></a></span>murderers having been -brought to justice. And it was asserted that the President of the -United States had deserted the party of the Union, the party which had -elevated him to the chief magistracy of the land, and was now -conspiring with his old party friends, the Democrats, in both the North -and the South, to drive the Republican party from power and restore the -régime of the Democracy of 1860.</div> -<br> -<a name="side76"></a> -<div>At this moment a horrible tragedy was enacted in New Orleans which -seemed to give verification to some, if not all, of these statements. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The New<br> -Orleans riot.</b></small> -</div> - -It seems that the late Confederate leaders resident in Louisiana, -having received pardon from the President of the United States upon -fulfilling the conditions of the President's amnesty proclamation, had -got possession in 1864 of the reconstructed "State" government of -Louisiana, with the exception of the governorship and some of the -judicial offices. The constitution of 1864, made by sincere Union men, -did not exactly suit them, and the legislature in the spring of 1866 -took into consideration a bill for calling another convention together -for the purpose of framing a new constitution, but the Administration -at Washington frowned upon the movement and the legislature abandoned -it. In like manner, the men who formed and established the constitution -of 1864 were displeased with the fact that the "State" government under -it had been captured at the polls by the old electorate of Louisiana, -reinstated through the President's amnesty. They also wanted to change -the constitution, to so change it as to create an electorate which -would bring them back into power again. This meant negro suffrage. Just -before the convention of 1864 adjourned, it passed a resolution vesting -in the presiding officer of the convention the power, and imposing on -him the duty, of reconvoking the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page93"><small><small>[p. 93]</small></small></a></span> -convention in case the -constitution framed by it should not be ratified at the polls, or for -any other necessary reason, for the purpose of taking such measures as -might be needful for forming civil government in Louisiana.</div> -<br> -<div>Of course, when the constitution framed by the convention was adopted -by popular vote and a "State" government was set up under it, common -sense and common honesty would hold that the convention had been -finally dissolved, no matter how the wording of the resolution might be -forced in the opposite direction. The men of "'64" saw in this wording -their only chance, however, to rescue the "State" government from the -hands of the amnestied electorate, and in their desperation they were -determined to attempt to make use of it. A number of the members of the -old convention got together informally on the 26th of June. The -president of the old convention did not call them together, and he -would not preside at the informal meeting. He made some trivial excuse; -but there cannot be much doubt in regard to his real reason. This -informal meeting then proceeded to elect a <i>pro tempore</i> president, -Judge Howell, an office-holder under the constitution of 1864. It was -this man who issued the proclamation of July 7th, reconvoking the old -convention of 1864. The time appointed by him was the 30th of July at -noon, and the place designated by him was the Mechanics' Institute -Building at New Orleans. The men called together were the members of -the old convention, but to provide for any vacancies that might have -happened or might happen in the former membership of this old body, -Judge Howell called on the Governor, Mr. Wells, to issue writs of -election. The governor did so, and ordered an election of such -delegates to be held September 3d. He thus manifested his approval of -the movement.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page94"><small><small>[p. 94]</small></small></a></span> -<div>Naturally the party of the amnestied viewed this scheme for -depriving them of the "State" government by means of a new -constitution, framed by a defunct convention, and certain to contain a -provision for negro suffrage, with the most intense hostility. They -were not placated either by being referred to the consideration that -the constitution framed by this convention must be submitted to the -suffrages of the existing electorate, and must be ratified by a -majority of the same, before it could be put into operation. They had a -suspicion that the whole thing was instigated by the wicked Republicans -at the North, and that the voting upon such a proposed constitution -would be controlled by them through the military of the United States Government.</div> -<br> -<div>They, therefore, resolved to nip the plan in the bud by preventing the -assembly of the convention, or forcing it to disperse if it did -assemble. The mayor of the city, Mr. Monroe, the same who was mayor -when the Union army entered the city in 1862, applied to the General in -command of the United States troops in Louisiana, General Absalom -Baird, to know what attitude the military authorities would take toward -the convention, and informed General Baird that he intended to disperse -the convention if it should attempt to assemble without having the -approval of these authorities. General Baird was acting for General -Sheridan, who was absent from his post, and he replied with much more -caution than he would probably have done had he been alone responsible. -He told Mayor Monroe that he thought the Governor of the "State," -rather than the mayor of the city, was the man to interfere with the -assembly of a body professing to be a "State" convention, if there was -to be any interference at all, and he gave the mayor to understand that -his proposed course might be perilous. This was the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page95"><small><small>[p. 95]</small></small></a></span>25th of July. -Two days later the mayor went again to the General, this time -accompanied by the Lieutenant-Governor, who was of the party of the -amnestied. He now told General Baird that the police would not -undertake to prevent the assembly of the convention, or disperse its -members when assembled, but that its members would be indicted by the -grand jury and arrested by the sheriff. The General seemed to think -that the convention could lawfully assemble, but agreed with the mayor -and Lieutenant-Governor that both he and they would request -instructions from Washington.</div> -<br> -<div>The General applied to the Secretary of War, and the mayor applied to -the President. The General informed the Secretary of the movement to -assemble a convention; that it had the approval of the Governor; that -the Lieutenant-Governor and the municipal authorities considered it -unlawful and proposed to prevent it by arresting the delegates; that he -had declared to them that he would not permit them to do this, unless -the President should so instruct him; and he asked for orders, in the -premises, by telegraph. The Lieutenant-Governor and the -Attorney-General of the "State" informed the President of the movement -to assemble the old convention; informed him that negroes were -assembling, incendiary speeches were being made calling them to arm -themselves, and the President was being denounced; that the Governor -was in sympathy with the movement; that the matter was before the grand -jury; and that it was contemplated to have the members of the -convention arrested by criminal process; and they asked the President -to inform them whether the military authorities would interfere to -prevent the execution of the processes of the criminal court.</div> -<br> -<div>Secretary Stanton did not reply to General Baird's application at all. -He did not even communicate the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page96"><small><small>[p. 96]</small></small></a></span> -General's application to the -President. He afterward explained that he did not consider that Baird's -telegram required any reply. Baird had said in his despatch that he had -informed the Lieutenant-Governor and the city authorities that he would -not allow them to arrest the delegates and break up the convention -unless instructed to do so by the President. The Secretary did not -propose to send the General any such orders, or to allow any such to be -transmitted to him from the President through the War Department, and -so the Secretary thought it best to let the matter rest where the -General had placed it. He did not know that the President had been -applied to by the other side, and the President did not inform the -Secretary of the despatch which he had received. The confidence between -the two men had been already so largely destroyed as to prevent even -consultation upon these grave subjects.</div> -<br> -<div>The President, on the other hand, answered the application made to him. -He telegraphed to the Lieutenant-Governor that the military would be -expected to sustain, and not to obstruct, or interfere with, the -proceedings of the criminal court. He did not send any orders to -General Baird, however. Whether the Lieutenant-Governor showed his -telegram from the President to General Baird or not is not positively -known, so far as the writer of these pages has been able to discover, -but it is probable that he did.</div> -<br> -<div>It was certainly then the understanding on all sides, at least, that -the "State" and municipal authorities would deal with the delegates to -the convention, if they interfered with them at all, through the grand -jury and the officers of the criminal court, and not through the -police. This did not mean, of course, that the police should not be -present in the neighborhood of the convention for the purpose of -keeping the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page97"><small><small>[p. 97]</small></small></a></span> -public peace. They were ordered to assemble at the -stations on the morning of the 30th (July) and to bring their arms. -According to General Sheridan's report to the President, the riot was -occasioned by the marching of a procession of negroes, about one -hundred strong and partly armed, through several of the streets to the -locality of the convention. It occurred about an hour after the members -of the convention had assembled. Naturally a number of people, mostly -of the lower orders, gathered on the sidewalks of the streets through -which the procession passed. Hooting and jeering followed. Then a shot -was fired, probably by a negro in the procession. Then other shots -followed and the crowd rushed after the procession, which soon arrived -in front of the building in which the convention sat. Brickbats now -flew from each side and the riot was in full progress when the police -appeared on the scene. The procession rushed into the building, leaving -a few of its members outside. One of these and a policeman came to -blows, when another shot was fired, upon which the policemen began -firing through the windows of the building. After a few moments a white -flag was displayed from one of the windows, whereupon the firing ceased -and the policemen rushed into the building. Once in the building they -fired their revolvers upon the persons present indiscriminately and -with terrible effect. The persons who succeeded in escaping from the -building were also fired on by the police and by citizens, and many -were killed or wounded. Nearly two hundred persons were killed or -injured, mostly negroes, but some whites, and among them some members -of the proposed convention. There were no United States troops in the -city at the hour of the riot, their barracks being outside. General -Baird had ordered four companies to take position near the place of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page98"><small><small>[p. 98]</small></small></a></span> -convention, but owing to the fact that he had got the impression -that the convention would assemble at 6 <small>P.M.</small>, he had ordered them to -repair to the assigned position at 5 <small>P.M.</small> They, consequently, did not -arrive until the riot was over and the convention was dispersed.</div> -<br> -<div>Each party considered the other the aggressor. The Republicans of the -North viewed the massacre as a new rebellion, while the amnestied -Southerners considered the riot the result of a justified resistance to -an attempt to force negro suffrage and then negro rule upon them. It is -very nearly certain that the first shot was fired by a negro, but this -would not justify the wholesale massacre executed by the police. It -could, therefore, be held by the Republicans with a great show of truth -that the public authorities of the reconstructed "State" government of -Louisiana not only would not extend the equal protection of the laws to -all persons, but would themselves deprive persons even of life without -due process of law.</div> -<br> -<a name="side77"></a> -<div>The issue of the campaign of 1866 was thus made up. It was simply -whether Congress should reconstruct the President's reconstructed - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The issue of<br> -Reconstruction<br> -in the campaign<br> -of 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -"States," or rather should pronounce the President's Reconstruction, -and the Reconstruction effected by the amnestied Southerners, null and -void, and proceed to do the work <i>de novo</i>, with the purpose of -creating adequate guarantee for life and property and for the equal -protection of the laws to all.</div> -<br> -<div>Although it was not a Presidential year, the election of the members of -the House of Representatives with such a problem to deal with, and the -election of "State" legislatures which would consider the question of -adopting the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, made -the canvass of 1866 a truly national -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page99"><small><small>[p. 99]</small></small></a></span>one. Four National -Conventions were held during the summer and early autumn, two of each party.</div> -<br> -<div>The Administration party led off with their great meeting in -Philadelphia on the 14th of August. There were a few prominent - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The National<br> -Conventions<br> -of the summer<br> -of 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -Republicans among the delegates, such as Montgomery Blair, Raymond, -Dix, Cowan, Doolittle and Browning, but the vast majority of them were -Democrats. All of the Southern delegates were such. The larger number -of the Northern Democrats were conservative men of the stamp and style -of R. C. Winthrop, W. B. Lawrence, S. J. Tilden, J. P. Stockton, J. E. -English and Reverdy Johnson, but there were also present men of more -radical anti-national creed, like Fernando Wood, J. G. Sinclair, and -James Campbell. Even Clement L. Vallandigham, presented himself as a -delegate. There were many, however, who objected to his presence and he -withdrew. The doctrines put forward at this meeting were simply those -of the President's Reconstruction policy, the doctrines that the -"States" in our Federal system are indestructible and immaculate, and -under submission to national authority always possessed of the rights -of local self-government and of representation in the National -Government. These doctrines were developed into such extreme forms of -statement, and such extreme results were boldly accepted as their -logical consequences, that the cause of the Administration was damaged -rather than helped at the North by the work and experiences of the convention.</div> -<br> -<div>Inasmuch as there had been a great display of harmony between the -leading men of the South and the Northern delegates in the convention -of the 14th of August, making it appear that the Democrats were the -party of peace and reunion, while the Republicans were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page100"><small><small>[p. 100]</small></small></a></span>in favor -of a continuation of the hostile status, the Southern Republicans, or -as they called themselves the loyal Union men of the South, assembled -in considerable numbers in Philadelphia on the 3d of September, for the -purpose of conferring with the leading Republicans of the North in -regard to the condition of things in the South. Such men as John Minor -Botts, William G. Brownlow, George W. Paschal, Thomas J. Durant, M. J. -Safford, Thomas H. Benton, Lewis M. Kenzie, G. W. Ashburn, and many -more of almost equal reputation came to counsel with the leaders of the -Republican party. Many of the most important of these were there, -Trumbull, Greeley, Morton, Chandler, Schenck, Schurz, Matthews, Curtin, -Cameron, Gerry, Speed, the ex-Attorney-General, and Creswell. These are -only a few names of the eminent men who were present.</div> -<br> -<div>The delegates separated into two bodies, one body comprehending the -representatives from the South, and the other those from the North. -This was done in order to leave the Southerners free from undue -Northern influence. Mr. Speed presided over the Southern assembly, and -in his opening words declared the purpose of the convention to be to -determine and proclaim whether the assertion of the late Confederates -that their constitutional rights were being denied them in not -admitting their Representatives- and Senators-elect to seats in -Congress was true, or whether, on the other hand, the claim of the -emancipated that their civil and natural rights were being denied them -was true. He soon left no doubt upon the minds of his hearers as to his -own view and belief, and he denounced the President's reconstruction -work, both in principle and results, most roundly. On account of the -intimate relation in which he had stood to the President as his legal -adviser, and on <span class="pagenum"><a name="page101"><small><small>[p. 101]</small></small></a></span> -account of the fact that he was a citizen of one -of the old slave-holding "States," his words had tremendous effect in -steeling the purpose of the Republicans of the North.</div> -<br> -<div>Under the inspiration of Mr. Speed's speech, the Southern convention -framed and fulminated an address which arraigned the President as -almost a traitor to his party and the Union, and as a friend of rebels -and of sympathizers with rebels, described the results of his -Reconstruction policy and acts as most deplorable, and urged the speedy -adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as -the only possible cure for the evils which were afflicting the country. -This address made up the issues of the campaign. The dividing line of -the parties now separated those who favored the adoption of the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment from those who did not. The issue was -simple, and the vote upon it was decisive, as we shall see.</div> -<br> -<div>The Administration party now attempted to divide the late soldiers, as -it had attempted to divide the Republicans, with but little better -effect. They got together a convention of the veterans at Cleveland, -Ohio, on the 17th of September, and had the venerable General Wool -preside over it. There were many good men and true present, among them -Gordon Granger, Rousseau, Custer, McClernand, and Thomas Ewing; and -they accused the Republicans of attempting to stir up another civil war -over the question of negro suffrage, and urged their old comrades to -insist that the status of peace, and all the consequences thereof, -existed and must be preserved.</div> -<br> -<div>This movement was met on the other side by the assembly of a Republican -soldier convention at Pittsburg on the 25th and 26th of September, for -the purpose of upholding Congress in its fight with the Administration -over the question of Reconstruction. The convention -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page102"><small><small>[p. 102]</small></small></a></span>was presided -over by General J. D. Cox, and a host of the most capable officers of -the armies of the Union, lately disbanded, participated in its -deliberations and resolves. They denounced the President's -Reconstruction policy, pronounced their adherence to Congress, and -declared for the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as the -indispensable measure for the re-establishment of peace, justice and union.</div> -<br> -<a name="side78"></a> -<div>During the summer and autumn the orators and politicians of both -parties pursued the canvass upon the basis of the doctrines put forth - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The canvass of 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -by the conventions. A very large number, an unusually large number, of -the leading men of the country, took part in the great debate. Even the -President of the United States took part in it.</div> -<br> -<div>On the 28th of August he started from Washington to go to Chicago to be -present at the laying of the corner-stone of the Douglas monument. He - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The "swing<br> -around the<br> -circle."</b></small> -</div> - -took with him General Grant, Admiral Farragut, three of his Cabinet -officers, Seward, Randall and Welles, and a large number of lesser -lights. Crowds gathered at all the principal stopping-places, and the -President spoke to them in defence of his policy of Reconstruction and -of his acts in the execution of it. He denounced his enemies and -opponents bitterly, and descended to undignified and even vulgar -altercation with individuals in the crowds. In his speech at St. Louis, -on September 28th, his hot temper betrayed him into an attempt to throw -upon Congress, the radical Congress, as he called it, the blame for the -New Orleans riot, and he went to the imprudent extreme of almost making -an excuse or a quasi-excuse for the riot. The whole performance of the -President upon the journey was termed "swinging around the circle," and -it both degraded the great office and its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page103"><small><small>[p. 103]</small></small></a></span>incumbent, and injured -the prospects of the Administration party in the campaign.</div> -<br> -<a name="side79"></a> -<div>The President had on the 20th day of August, a week before setting out -upon his tour, finally proclaimed the insurrection and Civil War at an - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's final<br> -proclamation declaring<br> -the Civil War ended.</b></small> -</div> - -end in every part of the country. He had, on the 2d day of April -preceding, declared the insurrection at an end everywhere except in -Texas, and the proclamation of August 20th gave official witness to its -cessation in Texas. It is certainly a prerogative of the President to -proclaim the cessation of opposition to his execution of the laws of -the Union, and then to execute the same thereafter through civil, -instead of military, officers. If the President had meant no more than -this by his proclamations of the termination of the insurrection, the -position would have been unassailable. But he evidently intended his -proclamations as furnishing a basis for his Reconstruction work, or at -any rate as furnishing a great reason for the general recognition of -the validity of that work. This we can easily gather from the speeches -he made as he "swung around the circle" in the campaign of 1866. He -felt that he had solid ground under his feet, and did not appreciate -the fact that he was resting one of his doctrines upon another, the -latter being no more self-evident than the former. He felt quite sure -of victory, until what were called the "October States," at that time, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The October elections.</b></small> -</div> - -Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa, held their elections. The two -"September States," Vermont and Maine, had largely increased their -Republican majorities, which the President had probably expected and -allowed for, but when the four "October States" gave only twelve seats -in the House of Representatives to the Democrats and nearly fifty to -the Republicans, it was pretty clearly revealed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page104"><small><small>[p. 104]</small></small></a></span>that the -Administration was on the eve of a terrible defeat. It was as -overwhelming as these figures indicated. The final results showed that -the Republicans had elected one hundred and forty-three of their - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republican<br> -triumph in the<br> -elections of 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -candidates to seats in the House of Representatives, while the -Democrats had succeeded in securing only forty-nine seats. With the -exception of Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky, all the "States" -represented in Congress had given the Republican party strong -majorities. The strength of the Democratic party was again in the -South, where the Democratic candidates for any kind of office had -almost universally succeeded. In the Senate the Republicans constituted -more than a two-thirds majority of the members, and with their almost -three-fourths majority in the House, there could be no question that, -in a contest between the President and Congress, the former would be -obliged to yield.</div> -<br> -<a name="side80"></a> -<div>Notwithstanding all this, however, the President, in his Message to -Congress of December 3d, returned to the contest. He reargued his case - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -Message of<br> -December 3d, 1866.</b></small> -</div> - -from every point of view, and with both moderation and great force. He -restated what had been done toward Reconstruction, declaring that peace -had been restored everywhere, that all the laws of the United States -and all the machinery of the United States Government were in unimpeded -operation everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the land, and -that loyal "State" governments had been restored everywhere, and lacked -but one thing of completion, viz., the admission of Representatives and -Senators from ten of the eleven "States" in which secession ordinances -had been passed to seats in Congress. He contended that all the -departments of the United States Government had proceeded upon the view -that the "States" were indestructible—the Congress, in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page105"><small><small>[p. 105]</small></small></a></span> -declaration, at the outset, that the war was not to be waged in any -spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, -nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or -established institutions of the "States" which were the scene of -rebellion, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution -and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with -all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired, -and in many other acts and resolutions; the Judiciary, in all -proceedings affecting the reconstruction communities as "States"; and -the Executive, in the entire plan of Reconstruction created by Mr. -Lincoln and followed out by himself. He further contended that in -recognizing these "States" as restored to their former relations, -Congress was not running any risk of having disloyal men thrust into -the legislative chambers of the nation, because each House of Congress -could reject members-elect on account of disloyalty, and could continue -to reject until the constituencies should send up such persons as the -House could approve, and could expel any member whose conduct should -reveal disloyalty. He therefore urged Congress to acknowledge the -Reconstruction of the "States" lately in rebellion, in principle, and -to apply the powers of the two Houses in regard to the elections, -returns and qualifications of their respective members to the -individual persons elected to seats.</div> -<br> -<a name="side81"></a> -<div>The President's argument fell, however, upon deaf ears. This was, it is -true, the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and was not, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ineffectiveness of<br> -the President's argument.</b></small> -</div> - -therefore, composed of the persons just elected; but the influence of -the recent elections over its members had been to cow the -conservatives, strengthen the radicals, and cause the wavering to -incline to the side of the extremists. They took the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page106"><small><small>[p. 106]</small></small></a></span>verdict of -the people to be that Congress should ignore the President's work in -Reconstruction, develop a plan of its own, put it into operation, and -base it upon a newly constructed electorate in the South, in which the -lately emancipated should participate. The attitude of the legislatures - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Rejection of the<br> -proposed Fourteenth<br> -Amendment by the<br> -legislatures of the<br> -Reconstructed "States."</b></small> -</div> - -of the President's reconstructed "States" in regard to the proposed -Fourteenth Amendment also strengthened them greatly in this view and -purpose. Before the first day of January, 1867, all of these except -three had rejected it by overwhelming votes, and these three followed -the same course a little later. It was said and believed in Washington -that they had rejected the proposed Amendment contemptuously, and under - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The effect of this<br> -on the temper of<br> -the North.</b></small> -</div> - -the advice of the President of the United States. It was the angry -rejection of the proposed Amendment which did more than anything and -everything else to convince the people of the North that Reconstruction -must be now undertaken by Congress, and must proceed upon the basis of -a new electorate at the South which Congress should create.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap7"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page107"><small><small>[p. 107]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER VII</h3> -<center>THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (<i>Completed</i>)</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side82">Negro Suffrage in the District of -Columbia</a>—<a href="#side83">The First Attempts at -Impeachment</a>—<a href="#side84">Stories of Outrages at the -South</a>—<a href="#side85">The Reconstruction -Bill</a>—<a href="#side86">Passage of the Bill by the -House</a>—<a href="#side87">The Bill as Finally Agreed -upon</a>—<a href="#side88">The Condition that the Fourteenth Amendment must be Ratified by a -Sufficient Number of "States" to make it a Part of the Constitution</a>—<a href="#side89">The -Tenure-of-Office Bill</a>—<a href="#side90">The Supplementary Reconstruction -Bill</a>—<a href="#side91">The -Assignment of the Commanding Generals to the Military Districts Created -by the Reconstruction Acts</a>—<a href="#side92">The Re-establishment of Martial Law in the -South</a>—<a href="#side93">The President's Instructions to the Generals in Interpretation -of the Reconstruction Acts</a>—<a href="#side94">The Congressional Interpretation of the -Reconstruction Acts</a>—<a href="#side95">The President's Veto of the Bill Interpreting the -Reconstruction Acts</a>—<a href="#side96">The Veto -Overridden</a>—<a href="#side97">The Suspension of Stanton -from Office</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side82"></a> -<div>The Congress had but just put itself in working order, when a bill was -introduced and passed extending the suffrage to negroes in the District - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Negro suffrage in the<br> -District of Columbia.</b></small> -</div> - -of Columbia. The Republicans reasoned that they could not with good -grace force negro suffrage on the South before establishing it in the -District, and that the District was the best place in the country to -try the experiment first. The bill went to the President on the 26th of -December, six days after the adjournment of Congress for the Christmas -vacation, although it had passed the Houses on the 13th and 14th. The -President held it until January 5th, 1867, and then returned it to the -Senate with his veto.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page108"><small><small>[p. 108]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The Message was a strong paper, and to an impartial mind at this day it -is a convincing paper. There is no question that Congress had the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's veto of<br> -the bill establishing<br> -negro suffrage in the<br> -District of Columbia.</b></small> -</div> - -constitutional power to establish negro suffrage in the District. The -President did not dispute that. He simply argued that in legislating -for the District, Congress stood in a relation to the inhabitants of -the District analogous to that which the legislature of a "State" bore -to the inhabitants of the "State," and that as the legislature of a -"State" would not act in opposition to the expressed will of a large -majority of the voters in the "State," so Congress in legislating for -the District of Columbia ought not to disregard the expressed will of a -large majority of the voters in the District. He then referred to the -vote of the District upon this very subject, taken in December of 1865, -only one year before, when out of a poll of 6,556, one of the largest -votes ever cast in the Capital city, only thirty-five ballots were cast -for negro suffrage, and in Georgetown out of a poll of 813 only one -ballot was cast for negro suffrage. He further argued that Congress -ought not to make the District a place for trying political experiments -of so grave a character as conferring suffrage, the highest privilege -of American citizenship, upon a race of men just emerging from the -ignorance and vice attendant on a condition of slavery. And he finally -asked the Congress to reconsider an act which appeared to him to be the -degradation and possibly the destruction of American suffrage.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no gainsaying that this was good reasoning, but Congress was -in no frame of mind to give ear to the counsel of the President. It -took the ground that in legislating for the District it was acting for -the whole United States and not simply for the inhabitants of the -District, and that there was no place in the entire -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page109"><small><small>[p. 109]</small></small></a></span>country where -political experiments could be more safely tried than in the District, -since Congress had plenary legislative power in the District and could -discover and correct mistakes and defects in its legislation more -easily and promptly there than anywhere else.</div> -<br> -<a name="side83"></a> -<div>Both Houses repassed the bill over the President's veto by the -necessary two-thirds majority, the Senate on the 7th of January and the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The first attempts<br> -at impeachment.</b></small> -</div> - -House on the 8th, and negro suffrage was established in the District of -Columbia. The President's veto so angered some of the extremists that -resolutions of impeachment were introduced into the House, and a -resolution for the appointment of a committee to inquire whether there -were reasons for impeachment was actually carried, and a committee was -appointed. The committee sought everywhere and in every way for grounds -upon which to arraign the President at the bar of the Senate, but for -the moment it failed.</div> -<br> -<a name="side84"></a> -<div>At the same time the halls of Congress were ringing with the most -extravagant tales of outrages against the negroes and loyal men of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Stories of outrages<br> -at the South.</b></small> -</div> - -South at the hands of the late rebels, and of the collusion of the -newly established "State" governments with the same. In addition to -this, the other three of the ten newly constructed "State" legislatures -rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, two of them by unanimous -vote, and the other by every vote but one.</div> -<br> -<div>While, as we have seen, the Congress did not pass the proposition to -make the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the newly - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Fourteenth<br> -Amendment as the<br> -condition of<br> -recognizing the<br> -revival of statehood.</b></small> -</div> - -reconstructed "States" the condition of recognizing them as "States" of -the Union, and admitting the Senators- and Representatives-elect from -them to seats in Congress, yet the popular mind had so conceived the -matter, and the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page110"><small><small>[p. 110]</small></small></a></span> -order of events in the case of Tennessee had -given this conception the force of precedent. The Republicans in -Congress and the North could now fairly claim that they had offered to -recognize the President's reconstructed "States," although these bodies -were without constitutional warrant, upon the most moderate terms which -consideration for the necessary consequences of the Civil War and the -victory of the Union would allow, and that their offer had been -rejected in every case, except, of course, that of Tennessee—rejected -by such majorities and in such a manner as to make the rejection amount -to defiance. It was true that logically and constitutionally Congress -had no power to make the acceptance of something not at the time a part -of the Constitution a condition for the admission of the new "States," -or the readmission of old "States," into the Union; and Congress had -not done this formally. It is also true, both in good logic and in -sound constitutional law, that the proposed Fourteenth Amendment should -not have been submitted at all to bodies that were not conventions of -the people in, or legislatures of, "States" in the Union. Logically and -constitutionally the whole thing was irregular. But it was as it was, -and all understood that the way to cut the knot was for the -legislatures of the reconstructed "States" to adopt the proposed -Fourteenth Amendment, as Tennessee had done. When they refused to do -so, it was natural and it was necessary that Congress should at last -overturn all of the President's proceedings in Reconstruction, and all -of the proceedings made under his guidance, and begin <i>de novo</i>, and -upon the true constitutional principle of the exclusive power of -Congress to admit new "States" into the Union, or, more scientifically -expressed, to create new States or control their creation on territory -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page111"><small><small>[p. 111]</small></small></a></span> -of the Union in which loyal civil government did not exist.</div> -<br> -<div>There can be no question in the mind of any sound political scientist -and constitutional lawyer that Congress was in the right, logically, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The correctness of<br> -the Republican view.</b></small> -</div> - -morally, and legally, in insisting upon brushing aside the results of -executive Reconstruction in the winter of 1867, and beginning the work -itself from the bottom up. It ought to have done so in 1865. It ought -to have created, so soon as armed resistance to the execution of the -laws of the United States ceased, regular Territorial civil governments -throughout the country which had been in insurrection, and then have -admitted these Territories as "States" whenever the conditions -warranting the same should have been attained. The phantom of the -"indestructible State" had too strong an influence over the minds of -all at that moment to admit of such a solution of the question. But -after the experiences of 1865 and 1866, and the discussions in the last -session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, the minds of the Republicans at -least, both in and out of Congress, were prepared to break away from -the influence of this idea and to view the process of Reconstruction as -nothing but the admission of new "States" into the Union, new "States" -founded on territory and including inhabitants that had indeed once -formed "States," but had renounced Statehood in the Union through -disloyalty to the Union, and had been brought back to the position of -territories, civilly unorganized in local instance, but subject to the -exclusive jurisdiction of the central Government. From such a point of -view, the method of procedure was plain. While it is strange that the -Congress did not follow this course in 1865, it is simply astounding -that it made such a mess of it in 1867.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page112"><small><small>[p. 112]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side85"></a> -<div>The Reconstruction bill was presented from the Committee of fifteen on -Reconstruction to the House of Representatives on the 6th of February - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Reconstruction bill.</b></small> -</div> - -by Mr. Stevens. It was a thoroughly drastic measure. Instead of -creating Territorial civil government in the usual manner, with an -electorate designated by Congress, and with powers under the control of -Congress, and sustained, if necessary, by the military of the United -States, which would have been amply sufficient to meet all the real or -proper exigencies of the case, the bill began by declaring that the -pretended "State" governments of the so-called Confederate States did -not protect adequately life or property, but countenanced and -encouraged lawlessness and crime; and that it was necessary that peace -and good order should be enforced in the so-called Confederate States -until loyal "State" governments could be legally established therein; -and then went on to enact that the said so-called Confederate States -should be divided into five military divisions and made subject to the -military authority of the United States, Virginia to constitute the -first division, North Carolina and South Carolina the second, Georgia, -Alabama, and Florida the third, Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth, -and Louisiana and Texas the fifth; that the General of the army should -assign an army officer of not less rank than a brigadier-general to the -command of each of these divisions, and detail sufficient military -forces, and place them under the command of each of said generals, to -enable him to enforce his authority in the district over which he -should be placed; that these commanders might use civil tribunals in -the enforcement of the laws if they should see fit, but that, if these -were not effective they might institute and govern through military -commissions; that no sentence of these commissions should be executed -until approved <span class="pagenum"><a name="page113"><small><small>[p. 113]</small></small></a></span> -by the commanding officer of the district; and -finally, that the United States courts and judges should issue no writs -of Habeas Corpus against the proceedings and judgments of these commissions.</div> -<br> -<div>There was hardly a line in the entire bill which would stand the test -of the Constitution. In the first place, the Congress of the United - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The bill indefensible<br> -from the constitutional<br> -point of view.</b></small> -</div> - -States, or any other part of the Government of the United States, can -establish martial law in any part of the territory of the United States -only when and where there is armed resistance to the execution of the -laws of the United States, or of some "State" or Territory whose -jurisdiction is being defended by the Government of the United States. -Such was not the condition anywhere in the South. The Executive had -proclaimed that such resistance had ceased everywhere several months -before; that he had appointed civil officers throughout the South for -the execution of the laws of the United States, in many cases with the -advice and consent of the Senate; that these laws were in operation -everywhere; and that the United States courts were open everywhere and -in the unhindered discharge of their functions and duties. It was not -pretended, of course, that there was armed resistance to the execution -of the laws of the reconstructed "States," and that the military of the -United States was to act simply in support of "State" authority. There -were here and there, it is true, some of the remains of the military -authority of the United States, exercised during the period of the -insurrection, but they were a very poor basis upon which to found a -resumption of the reign of martial law throughout the length and -breadth of the South. No sane and just mind can consider for a moment -such a ground as sufficient in policy, morals or constitutional law. -While the people of these districts <span class="pagenum"><a name="page114"><small><small>[p. 114]</small></small></a></span> -which had attempted to secede -from the Union had forfeited their rights to the "State" form of local -government, they still had, after they had ceased from armed resistance -to the Government of the United States, the rights guaranteed to the -criminal by the Constitution of the United States—the right to be -presented by a grand jury and tried by a petit jury in the civil -tribunals of the United States, under the ordinary forms and guarantees -of the common law, even though the crime charged should be treason itself.</div> -<br> -<div>In the second place, the bill undertook to rob the President of his -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief over the army, and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The bill in its attempt<br> -to rob the President<br> -of his office of<br> -Commander-in-chief.</b></small> -</div> - -vest the same in the General of the army. This was so evident that no -one could fail to see that it was a bill directed as much against the -powers of the President of the United States as against the late -Confederates of the South.</div> -<br> -<div>And in the third place, the bill assumed to suspend the writ of Habeas -Corpus, substantially, while the Constitution forbids this to be done -by any part of the Government of the United States, except in time of -war or public danger. There was no war, and to say that there was -public danger of the character meant by the constitutional exception -was to exaggerate the condition of things entirely beyond all fact or reason.</div> -<br> -<div>The bill was the most brutal proposition ever introduced into the -Congress of the United States by a responsible committee, and it would - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The brutality of<br> -the measure.</b></small> -</div> - -never have been tolerated except at such a time of partisan excitement -and exaggerated suspicions. Even under such conditions Congress would -not pass it as introduced, but incorporated into it many modifying -provisions, most of which, however, while reflecting the honest -sentiments of the lawmakers, give little -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page115"><small><small>[p. 115]</small></small></a></span>evidence of good -political science or sound constitutional law.</div> -<br> -<div>The two points in the bill which the conservative Republicans were -unable to accept were, first, the establishment of martial law for an - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The opposition<br> -of conservative<br> -Republicans to<br> -the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -indefinite period and without any provision tor a way of future escape -from its rigors; and, second, the usurpation of the President's -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief of the army. It -soon became manifest that the bill could not pass without the -introduction of a clause covering the first point and without a change -of the provision in regard to the second. A number of the conservative -Republicans had indicated these things, when Mr. Blaine squarely asked - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Blaine's<br> -proposed<br> -changes in<br> -the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -Mr. Stevens to incorporate an amendment in the bill which should -provide a way of escape from the martial rule which the bill proposed -to establish. Mr. Blaine's amendment held out the promise of the -admission of each of the ten communities now to be thrown into military -divisions to its proper position as a "State" of the Union when it -should adopt the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and conform its -constitution and laws thereto, should provide by its constitution for -universal male suffrage without regard to race, color or previous -condition of servitude, and should adopt a constitution with such a -provision in it by popular vote, and when Congress should approve of -the said constitution.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no doubt that all this, while reflecting the good moral -feeling of Mr. Blaine, was bad political science and was the very - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism of<br> -Mr. Blaine's<br> -propositions.</b></small> -</div> - -contradictory of sound constitutional law. As has been pointed out -several times already, it would have been good constitutional law had -the United States Congress simply delayed the admission or readmission -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page116"><small><small>[p. 116]</small></small></a></span> -of these communities as "States" of the Union until after the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and any other desirable amendment, -should have been framed and adopted. Their admission then would have -been into the <i>same</i> Union with all the other States. But to demand of -them, as the condition of admission, their acceptance of things not yet -in the Constitution of the United States, things not obligatory on the -"States" already in the Union, was tantamount to the creation of a new -sort of union with another kind of constitution by an Act of Congress. -This question had been thoroughly talked out, fought out, and decided -in 1820, and for nearly fifty years it had been the settled principle -of constitutional law that Congress has no such power. It has been also -pointed out that a sound political science of the federal system of -government teaches the same principle.</div> -<br> -<a name="side86"></a> -<div>Mr. Stevens acted correctly, from the point of view of political -science and constitutional interpretation, when he declined to accept - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Stevens's<br> -refusal to accept<br> -Mr. Blaine's<br> -amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -Mr. Blaine's amendment, or to allow a vote to be taken on it, and the -House of Representatives also acted correctly from the same point of -view when it voted down a proposition from Mr. Blaine to send his -amendment along with the bill to the Judiciary Committee of the House -with instruction to report it back with the bill. But it is not to be -inferred from the debates that either Mr. Stevens or the House was -actuated in this course of conduct by the above mentioned -considerations. The expansion of the powers of government inevitably -consequent upon a long period of war seemed to have made them all very -nearly forget that there was anything but government in our political -system. The chief thought was that one Congress could not bind another -with any such promises as those held -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page117"><small><small>[p. 117]</small></small></a></span>out in the Blaine amendment, -and that each Congress must at all times be left to its own discretion - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Passage of the bill<br> -by the House.</b></small> -</div> - -in the determination of every question. The House passed the bill as it -came from the Committee on Reconstruction without change or amendment, -and on the 13th of February it appeared in the Senate.</div> -<br> -<div>This more conservative and deliberate body regarded the bill as too -radical, and after considerable debate upon a proposed amendment, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The bill in<br> -the Senate.</b></small> -</div> - -offered first by Senator Williams of Oregon, and then by Senator -Reverdy Johnson, which was in substance the Blaine proposition, laid it -aside by general consent and allowed Senator Sherman to offer a -substitute for it.</div> -<br> -<div>This substitute contained the gist of the Blaine amendment, and also -changed the provision which proposed to deprive the President of his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Sherman<br> -substitute.</b></small> -</div> - -constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief of the army. While -the bill was thus made a less brutal measure, and in one respect a less -unconstitutional measure, it still rested upon a very shaky foundation -so far as constitutional law was concerned, and it was opposed by all -the Democratic Senators. It was passed, however, by a large majority, -every Republican who voted voting in favor of it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side87"></a> -<div>When it was returned to the House of Representatives for concurrence, -the Radical Republicans developed a most hostile opposition to the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The substitute<br> -in the House.</b></small> -</div> - -changes which had been made by the Senate. They claimed that the Senate -bill proposed to bind future Congresses by pledges which the existing -Congress had no right to make and no power to execute, and that it also -proposed to use the rebel element of the population of the South in the -work of reconstructing loyal "State" -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page118"><small><small>[p. 118]</small></small></a></span>governments. After a long - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Senate<br> -substitute<br> -rejected by<br> -the House.<br><br> -The bill as<br> -finally<br> -agreed upon.</b></small> -</div> - -and acrid debate, the House rejected the Senate's substitute by a union -of Democratic votes with the votes of the Radical Republicans. This -result and the manner of its attainment so frightened the Republicans, -however, that they quickly came to an understanding among themselves in -the House, and with their party colleagues in the Senate, and passed -the Senate's substitute, so amended as to prevent disloyal men, as -designated in the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, from voting for -delegates to a reconstruction convention, or being delegates therein, -or being officers in any so-called "State" government before the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from that "State" into -Congress, and so amended further as to pronounce all professed civil -governments existing in any of the late so-called Confederate States, -except of course Tennessee, provisional only, until Senators and -Representatives from the same should be admitted to seats in Congress, -and subject, as provisional governments, to the paramount authority of -the United States which should control them, and might supersede or -abolish them at any time. The Senate also accepted these amendments, -and on the 20th of February the bill was placed in the hands of the President.</div> -<br> -<div>It contained the following declarations and provisions. First, the -preamble designated the ten communities reconstructed under the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The contents of<br> -the bill as passed.</b></small> -</div> - -President's direction as "the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, -South Carolina, Georgia," and so on. This was certainly an untruth. If -they were "States" at all, they certainly were not rebel "States." They -might with some appearance of correctness and sincerity have been -termed the late rebel "States," but to be called simply rebel "States" -was, to say the very least, one of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page119"><small><small>[p. 119]</small></small></a></span>grossest exaggerations to -be found in the wording of the statutes of Congress. It was simply a -play on words whereby to justify a dubious procedure. It was at the -very best, a confounding of the supposed sentiments of the population -of these regions with actual political status. Second, the preamble -declared that no legal "State" governments or adequate protection for -life or property existed in these "rebel States." As a legal -proposition the first part of this declaration was true, and as a -matter of fact the second part was substantially true. It would have -been an unprecedented thing if anything like an adequate protection of -life and property had been re-established, in the short period of two -years, in communities which had been disturbed, demoralized and -destroyed by four years of civil war, especially when the outcome of -the conflict was total defeat and the utter destruction of the basis of -the old social, political, and economic systems. It was, however, a -serious question whether such a situation required drastic measures -rather than mild and soothing measures.</div> -<br> -<div>The Republican Congress decided, after much deliberation, that the -former were necessary to the maintenance of peace and good order, and, -therefore, enacted that the "said rebel States" should be divided into -five military districts, as previously described in the original bill; -that the President should assign to the command of each of these an -army officer of not lower rank than brigadier-general, and place under -his command a sufficient force to enable him to perform his duties and -execute his authority in his district; that these commanders should -have the power to govern these districts by martial law in so far as, -in their judgment, the reign of order and the preservation of the -public peace might demand, under the limitations simply that "all -persons put under military arrest <span class="pagenum"><a name="page120"><small><small>[p. 120]</small></small></a></span> -by virtue of this act shall be -tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment -shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or -tribunal hereby authorized affecting the life or liberty of any person, -shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the -district—and no sentence of death under the provisions of this act -shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President."</div> -<br> -<div>Then came the provision which offered the terms of escape from this new -military régime. They were, first, the exercise of universal manhood -suffrage, that is the suffrage of all male citizens, twenty-one years -of age, without regard to race, color or previous condition of -servitude, who were not disfranchised for participation in rebellion or -for felony at common law, and who had resided for one year in the -so-called "rebel State," in the election of delegates to a -constitutional convention in the so-called "rebel State"; second, the -framing of a "State" constitution by a convention composed of delegates -so elected, and not disqualified by participation in rebellion or by -the commission of felony, which constitution should conform in all -respects to the Constitution of the United States and which should -contain, as a permanent principle, the same law of suffrage as that -prescribed by this Act for the election of the delegates to the -convention; third, the ratification of this constitution by a majority -of the voters, as designated by the law of suffrage for the choice of -delegates to the convention, voting upon the question of ratification; -fourth, the approval by Congress of this constitution; and fifth, and -last, the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the -Constitution of the United States by the legislature created by such -adopted and approved "State" constitution, and by a sufficient number -of the legislatures <span class="pagenum"><a name="page121"><small><small>[p. 121]</small></small></a></span> -of other "States" to make it a part of the -Constitution of the United States.</div> -<br> -<div>The measure contained, in the last place, a sort of saving clause in -regard to the existing civil governments which had been established in -all these communities under the direction of the President, and which -were now to be displaced. It had been already provided, in section -third, that the military commander of a district might use the existing -civil courts, if he saw fit to do so, so long as the reign of law and -order might be so preserved, and the final section provided that any -civil government which might exist in these districts should be -regarded as provisional, and should be in all respects subject to the -paramount authority of the United States, which should control, and -might abolish, modify, or supersede the same, and that the voters for -the election of the officers of such provisional governments should be -required to have only the qualifications prescribed in this Act for -voters for the delegates to the said "State" convention, and persons -elected to place and office in such provisional governments must not -have the disqualifications prescribed in the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It had evidently -occurred to the Republican leaders that they might have to make use of -some of the machinery of the existing civil governments established -under the direction of the President in these regions in executing -their own plan of Reconstruction.</div> -<br> -<a name="side88"></a> -<div>All of the points of the measure have been commented on, except the -provision in the fifth section, which makes the adoption of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The condition that the<br> -proposed Fourteenth<br> -Amendment be ratified<br> -by a sufficient number<br> -of "States" to make it a<br> -part of the Constitution.</b></small> -</div> - -proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -by a number of "States" sufficient to ratify it a condition precedent -to the admission of any one of these so-called "rebel States" to -representation in Congress. The <span class="pagenum"><a name="page122"><small><small>[p. 122]</small></small></a></span> -adoption of the proposed -amendment by the particular "rebel State" seeking representation was -not sufficient. It must be ratified by at least three-fourths of all -the "States." No matter how speedily and sincerely the legislature of -Virginia might ratify the proposed Amendment, and fulfil all the other -conditions required by the Act, Virginia must remain under military -despotism until a very large number of the Northern "State" -legislatures had pleased to ratify the proposed Amendment. This was -certainly a pretty hard condition, and it was not a very fair way of -forcing the legislatures of the Northern States to adopt the proposed -Amendment. It was, however, an efficient weapon, and Congress had the -legal power to use it. It was unconscionable, though it was one of the -things about this measure which was constitutional.</div> -<br> -<a name="side89"></a> -<div>Hand in hand with this bill went another measure, the purpose of which -was to limit the customary power of the President, if not his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Tenure-of-Office bill.</b></small> -</div> - -constitutional power, over the civil official system, the so-called -Tenure-of-Office bill. On the first day of the session, December 3d, -1866, Mr. Williams of Oregon introduced this bill in the Senate, while -at the same moment a bill was introduced and passed in the House -repealing that section of the Confiscation Act of July 17th, 1862, -which authorized the President to extend pardon and amnesty by -proclamation to persons participating in the rebellion. The Senate -passed the latter bill or resolution on the 8th of January, 1867, and -the President, not considering that the Congress could either give or -take away his power to pardon secured to him by the Constitution, -simply pocketed the resolution, and it became a law on and from the -21st of January, having been presented to the President on the 9th.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page123"><small><small>[p. 123]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The propositions contained in the Tenure-of-Office bill were, -however, of a very different significance. There was no clause in the -Constitution which by express literal grant vested the power to dismiss -from office in the President, but the clause which made the President -solely responsible for the execution of the laws was interpreted by the -first Congress as doing so. Madison took the ground that the President -must have this power in order to secure the necessary obedience in his -subordinates, and declared that the convention which framed the -Constitution so understood it and so intended it. This is certainly -sound political science and correct constitutional interpretation. It -had also been the practice of the Government from the beginning. The -Whigs had undertaken to reverse it in their contest with Jackson, and -Webster had given his opinion that good political science required that -dismissal from office should be treated as an incident of appointment, -and should be effected in the same manner as appointment, i.e., with -the concurrence of the Senate, and that the decision of 1789 on this -subject was, in his opinion, erroneous from the point of view of a -proper interpretation of the Constitution as well. But the Whigs did -not succeed, as we have seen, in their attempt to break down -Presidential prerogative and introduce parliamentary government, and -the practice of the Government on this subject remained, after, as -before, the fourth decade of the century, the same.</div> -<br> -<div>During the experiences of the years 1865 and 1866 the Republicans -feared that the President would use this great power of dismissal from - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The reasons for the<br> -Tenure-of-Office bill.</b></small> -</div> - -office in order to make the entire official system solid with himself -on the subject of Reconstruction, and toward the end of 1866 they -suspected and asserted that he was dismissing officers -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page124"><small><small>[p. 124]</small></small></a></span>from their -positions simply on the ground of a difference of opinion with himself -on this subject, and they professed to believe that he would make a -clean sweep of all such as soon as Congress should adjourn. There is -little doubt that excessive partisan feeling made them exaggerate -greatly what the President had done and what he intended to do. The -President was guided by Mr. Seward in all public matters except his -imprudent speeches, and Seward's conservative and diplomatic -disposition and methods were all against any such radical and reckless -procedure. Besides, it was the constitutional right of the President to -require obedience in their official acts from his subordinates, and to -dismiss them when in his opinion their views of policy interfered with -the discharge of their official duties as he required them to be -discharged. The Thirty-ninth Congress, however, resolved to disregard -the precedents set by all of its predecessors and to dispute the -President's prerogative of control over the tenure of his subordinates.</div> -<br> -<div>The bill drafted for this purpose made the removal of all officers, -appointed by and with the consent of the Senate, except only members of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The contents<br> -of the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -the President's Cabinet, subject to the consent of the Senate. This -consent might be given in the form of a ratification of the nomination -of a successor to any officer. It allowed the President, during a -recess of the Senate, the power of suspension for misconduct in office, -crime, legal disqualification or incapacity, and of making appointment -of a suitable person to discharge temporarily the duties of such -suspended officer, but it required of the President a report of all -such suspensions to the Senate within the first twenty days of the next -meeting of the Senate, with the reasons therefor, and reinstated the -suspended officer in case the Senate -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page125"><small><small>[p. 125]</small></small></a></span>should not concur in the -suspension. If the Senate should concur, the President must remove the -officer, and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, -another person in his place.</div> -<br> -<div>From the point of view of the present this would seem, in all -conscience, to have been a sufficient usurpation of the President's - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Discussion<br> -of the bill.</b></small> -</div> - -constitutional powers to have satisfied the most radical and reckless -interpretation of the organic law. But the bill had hardly come under -discussion when Senator Howe moved to strike out the clause excepting -the Cabinet officers from its operation, and although the Senate -refused to pass this amendment, the House of Representatives did so -when the bill came before it. The Senate, however, refused to concur on -the ground, of course, that the intimate and confidential relations -which should exist between the President and the members of his Cabinet -made it necessary that the President should have only the men of his -own choice in these positions. The strenuous insistence of the House, -however, forced the Senate to a compromise upon the subject, and the -bill was finally made to provide that the members of the Cabinet should -"hold their offices, respectively, for and during the term of the -President by whom they have been appointed, and for one month -thereafter, subject to removal by and with the consent of the Senate." -That is, that a Cabinet officer might hold his position against the -will of the President who appointed him during the entire term of the -President and for one month of the term of his successor unless the -Senate should agree to such officer's removal either directly or by -ratification of the nomination of a successor.</div> -<br> -<div>The bill as finally enacted contained, moreover, the most stringent -provisions for its enforcement. It made - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The provisions for<br> -enforcing the measure.</b></small> -</div> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page126"><small><small>[p. 126]</small></small></a></span>the acceptance or -exercise of any office or the attempt to exercise any office contrary -to the Act a high misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of ten -thousand dollars or a maximum imprisonment of five years, or both in -the discretion of the court; and it made the removal, appointment, or -employment of any officer contrary to the provisions of the Act, or the -preparation, signing, sealing, countersigning or issuing of any -commission of office or letter of authority in respect to any such -appointment or employment high misdemeanors, punishable with the same -extreme penalties. Lastly, it forbade the officers of the Treasury and -all officers of the United States to pay any money, salary or -compensation to any person claiming to hold any office or employment -contrary to the provisions of this Act, and made the violation of this -order a high misdemeanor, punishable with the same extreme penalties as -in the other cases.</div> -<br> -<div>This monstrous measure went to the President on the same day with the -Reconstruction bill, the 20th of February. It is not to be wondered at - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -vetoes of these bills.</b></small> -</div> - -that he felt that the Republican chiefs were offering him intentional -personal insult, as well as that the legislative department of the -Government was attempting an unwarranted encroachment upon the -constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. It is rather to be -wondered at that, in his message to Congress on these subjects, he -succeeded so well in ignoring the personal affronts intended by -Congress, and in confining himself so closely to a discussion of the -public questions and considerations involved in the measures.</div> -<br> -<div>The vetoes of these bills were sent to Congress on the same day, March -2d. To the publicist and historian of this day they are masterpieces of -political logic, constitutional interpretation, and official style. If -not <span class="pagenum"><a name="page127"><small><small>[p. 127]</small></small></a></span> -written by Mr. Seward, they must have been edited and revised -by him. These documents showed most convincingly, both from -constitutional provisions, opinions of contemporaries, statutes of -Congress, judicial decisions, and the uniform practices of the -Government, that Congress had no power to establish or re-establish -martial law anywhere in the country, except when and where war or armed -rebellion existed as a fact, a condition which did not then exist -anywhere in the length and breadth of the land; and that Congress had -no power to force the President to retain agents and subordinates in -office against his judgment and will. No good political scientist and -no sound constitutional lawyer will, at this day, disagree with the -contention of the President upon these two points, and it is very -difficult to understand how the great leaders of the Republican party -could, at that day, have differed with him.</div> -<br> -<div>Undoubtedly, in some of the baser minds among them, the determination -to create Republican party "States" in the South was a very weighty - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Republican motives<br> -in Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -consideration, but just as undoubtedly the consideration with the -majority of them was the conviction that the work of the four years of -war might have to be done all over again unless a new political people, -a new body of suffrage holders, should be created at the South, whose -members had never been disloyal. But even from this point of view -again, it is difficult to understand how they could have failed to see -that the Constitution required that this should be done through the -forms of Territorial civil government, instead of through the forms of -martial law. Put the best light upon their conduct that is possible, -there is still left the conviction that the fanaticism of extreme -partisanship had an undue influence over them all. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page128"><small><small>[p. 128]</small></small></a></span>The contest -with the President had blinded their perceptions as to the morality, -legality and propriety of the means they were willing to employ in -securing the victory over him.</div> -<br> -<div>As this contest developed it dwarfed, to say the least, all other -considerations. Even as late as when the Reconstruction bill was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Congressional<br> -encroachment<br> -on the President's<br> -military prerogatives.</b></small> -</div> - -passed, the majority of the Republicans refused to vote to take the -President's military prerogatives from him. In less than a fortnight -from this time, however, they voted, in a section of the Army -Appropriation bill, "that the head-quarters of the General of the army -of the United States shall be at the city of Washington, and all orders -and instructions relating to military operations issued by the -President or Secretary of War shall be issued through the General of -the army, and, in case of his inability, through the next in rank. The -General of the army shall not be removed, suspended, or relieved from -command, or assigned to duty elsewhere than at said head-quarters, -except at his own request, without the previous approval of the Senate; -and any orders or instructions relating to military operations issued -contrary to the requirements of this section shall be null and void; -and any officer who shall issue orders or instructions contrary to the -provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in -office; and any officer of the army who shall transmit, convey, or obey -any orders or instructions so issued contrary to the provisions of this -section, knowing that such orders were so issued, shall be liable to -imprisonment for not less than two nor more than twenty years, upon -conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction."</div> -<br> -<div>To the mind of any unprejudiced constitutional lawyer, at the present -day, this act must appear as a gross -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page129"><small><small>[p. 129]</small></small></a></span>usurpation by Congress of -the President's military powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. -The Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the army -and navy, and gives Congress no power whatsoever over the methods or -channels by, and through, which he may issue his military commands. -Neither does the Constitution give Congress any power to assign any of -the officers or troops of the army to any particular position. These -are all functions of the commandership-in-chief, and, unless expressly -granted by the Constitution to some other department of the Government, -belong to the President.</div> -<br> -<div>It was not only a usurpation by Congress to pass such an act, but it -was a mean thing to do it as a section of an appropriation bill; and -there is no escaping the suspicion that it had a sinister purpose, -namely, to entrap the President in the commission of what Congress had -made a high misdemeanor, and open the way for his impeachment and -expulsion from office. The President signed this bill, however, in -order to save the appropriations for the support of the army, although -he protested strongly against the seizure of his constitutional powers -by the Congress.</div> -<br> -<a name="side90"></a> -<div>On the same day that the vetoes of the Reconstruction bill and the -Tenure-of-Office bill were sent to Congress, this body passed a bill - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The supplementary<br> -Reconstruction bill.</b></small> -</div> - -supplementary to the first measure. It was in the nature of an -administrative measure for the purpose of carrying out the new plan of -Reconstruction. It ordered the commanding generals of the respective -districts to cause a registration to be made before September 1st next -following of all male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years -of age and over, resident in each county or parish in the "State" or -"States" included in their respective districts, who were qualified as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page130"><small><small>[p. 130]</small></small></a></span> -prescribed by the Reconstruction Act to vote for delegates to a -constitutional convention, and who had taken an oath asserting -citizenship and residence, and freedom from disfranchisement on account -of participation in rebellion or the commission of felony, and had -sworn that they had never engaged in insurrection or rebellion against -the United States, or given aid and comfort to the enemies of the -United States after having been members of Congress or of a "State" -legislature, or officers of the United States or of a "State" of the -Union, and that they would henceforth faithfully support the -Constitution and obey the laws of the United States and encourage -others to do so.</div> -<br> -<div>It next made it the duty of the commanding generals to order elections, -at such times after the completion of the registrations and at such -places as they might choose, for delegates to constitutional -conventions in the "States" comprised in their respective districts. It -required them to give thirty days' notice of the elections, and it -fixed the number of delegates to each convention at the number of -members in the lower House of the legislature of the "State" concerned -in the year 1860, except in the case of Virginia, where, on account of -the separation of West Virginia from the old Commonwealth, the number -of deputies to the Virginia convention was made to correspond with the -number of members in the lower House of the legislature of 1860, -representing the territory not included in West Virginia. The bill -further directed the commanding generals to distribute the -representation in the conventions among the districts, counties and -parishes of the "States" in accordance with the number of registered -voters in each.</div> -<br> -<div>The bill then provided that at the elections for delegates, the voters -should vote on the question as to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page131"><small><small>[p. 131]</small></small></a></span> -whether there should be a -constitutional convention or not, and that such convention should be -held only when a majority of the inscribed electors voted upon this -question, and a majority of those voting voted in the affirmative. It -then ordered the commanding generals, in case the voters did so decide -for conventions and elect delegates thereto, to call such within sixty -days from the date of the elections, and to notify the delegates to -assemble at a given time and place, and frame constitutions according -to the provisions of the bill and of the former Act to which it was -supplementary, and, when framed, to submit the same to the registered -voters for ratification with a notice of thirty days.</div> -<br> -<div>The bill then further provided, that if, at such elections, a majority -of the registered voters voted upon the question of ratification, and a -majority of those voting voted in favor of ratification, the presidents -of the respective conventions should transmit copies of the respective -constitutions to the President of the United States, who should -transmit them to Congress, and that Congress should declare the -respective "States," whose conventions had framed these constitutions -and whose voters had adopted them, entitled to representation in -Congress, provided Congress was satisfied that there had been perfectly -free elections, and that no force, fraud or intimidation had been -perpetrated at them, and that the constitutions presented met the -approval of a majority of the qualified electors and were in conformity -with the requirements of the Reconstruction Act.</div> -<br> -<div>Finally, the bill put into the hands of the commanding generals the -appointment of the officers of the elections, and the control of the -machinery of the elections, only requiring them to hold the elections -by <span class="pagenum"><a name="page132"><small><small>[p. 132]</small></small></a></span> -ballot, and to proclaim the results of the elections in -accordance with the returns made to them by their boards of registration.</div> -<br> -<div>Congress had passed a resolution ordering the assembly of the Fortieth -Congress so soon as the Thirty-ninth expired, and in accordance - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Congress in<br> -permanence.</b></small> -</div> - -therewith the newly elected Congress opened its session on the 4th of -March, 1867, instead of on the first Monday of the following December. -The Congress was, therefore, in position to deal at once with a veto of -the supplemental bill to the Reconstruction Act, in case one should be -sent in.</div> -<br> -<div>On the 23d of March the veto appeared. The President argued that the -oath required by the bill from every person before his name could be - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto of the<br> -supplemental<br> -Reconstruction<br> -bill.</b></small> -</div> - -admitted to registration, viz., "that he had not been disfranchised for -participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States," -was so entirely uncertain in its meaning that it would prove a most -terrible means of oppression in the hands of the military officers and -their appointed agents, and declared he could never approve of an -election law whose plain and manifest purpose was to disfranchise the -great body of respectable white people, and create a new electorate on -the basis of universal negro suffrage. He contended that the existing -constitutions of the ten "States" to be re-reconstructed conformed to -the long-established standards of loyalty and Republicanism, and that -the new test of these qualities now set up by Congress, viz., universal -negro suffrage, was a gross exaggeration, and would make many of the -Northern "States" themselves unrepublican. The President did not -expressly say that this bill was unconstitutional, but he quite -distinctly implied it. In this, however, he was wrong, unless his -doctrine that the rebellious <span class="pagenum"><a name="page133"><small><small>[p. 133]</small></small></a></span> -communities remained "States" of the -Union throughout the rebellion, or had been reconstructed by his plan, -was true, that is, unless these communities were "States" of the Union -at the time Congress passed this bill.</div> -<br> -<div>On the other hand, from the point of view of the correct legal -principle in regard to this subject, the principle which holds that the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism<br> -of the veto.</b></small> -</div> - -result of general rebellion within a "State" against the Constitution -and laws of the United States is the loss of the "State" form of local -government, and brings the territory and population of the former -"State" under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central Government, -Congress certainly had, and has, the power to create the electorate in -such territory at its own discretion, Congress was referred, and is -referred, in such a case, only to its own sense of right and policy.</div> -<br> -<div>But there is no question, now, that Congress did a monstrous thing, and -committed a great political error, if not a sin, in the creation of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism of the<br> -Reconstruction Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -this new electorate. It was a great wrong to civilization to put the -white race of the South under the domination of the negro race. The -claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of -view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means -membership in a race of men which has never of itself succeeded in -subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any -civilization of any kind. To put such a race of men in possession of a -"State" government in a system of federal government is to trust them -with the development of political and legal civilization upon the most -important subjects of human life, and to do this in communities with a -large white population is simply to establish barbarism in power over -civilization. The supposed disloyalty, or even the actual disloyalty, -of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page134"><small><small>[p. 134]</small></small></a></span> -the white population will not justify this. It will justify -the indefinite withholding of the "State" form of local government. It -will justify the throwing of a "State" of the Union back under the form -of a Territory of the Union. It will even justify the establishment of -martial law. But it is not to be cured, nor is the welfare of the whole -land, or any part of it, to be promoted, by the subjection of the white -race to the black race in politics and government. It was a great wrong -to the negroes themselves. It made the white men among whom they must -live their most bitter enemies, when they most needed them for friends, -and it made the negroes trifling and corrupt politicians, when they -should have been devoting themselves exclusively to the acquirement of -property and education. It was argued, as will be well remembered, that -they could not acquire property and education without the ballot. But -this is another sophism. The mainstay of property is the courts; and -under a Territorial form of local government Congress could have -established a system of free schools. It was not at all necessary to -have recourse to negro suffrage and negro "State" governments in order -to secure the negroes in their personal liberty, and the possession of -property, and to aid them in the acquirement of education.</div> -<br> -<div>There was another alternative, and a better one. In fact, there were -two other conceivable ways of doing these things, either of which would -have been better than the one chosen. The one was, as has been already -suggested, to establish Territorial civil governments in the late -rebellious region and maintain them there until the civil relations -between the two races became settled and fixed. The other was to so -amend the Constitution of the United States, before the readmission of -the "States" which had renounced the "State" form of local -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page135"><small><small>[p. 135]</small></small></a></span> -government under the Union, as to give Congress and the national -judiciary the power to define and defend the fundamental principles of -civil liberty. Neither of these methods would have demanded martial law -or universal negro suffrage. It is entirely surprising, from the point -of view of to-day, that one or the other of these methods or a -combination of both was not resorted to, instead of the monstrous plan -that was carried out. There is no way to explain this sufficiently, -except upon the reflection that the passions of the men of that day had -become so inflamed and so completely dominating that they obscured -reason, drowned the voice of prudence, and even dulled the sense of -decency. There were a few who favored universal negro suffrage from an -exalted and exaggerated humanitarianism, but the mass of the -Republicans sustained it as a punishment to the late rebellious whites, -and as a means of establishing Republican party "State" governments in -the South. Many claimed, indeed, that it was the only alternative to -long-continued martial law rule, but they were either very ignorant or -very insincere.</div> -<br> -<a name="side91"></a> -<div>In prompt obedience to the requirements of the two Reconstruction Acts, -the President issued his general order through the Adjutant-General's - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The assignment of the<br> -commanding generals<br> -to the military districts<br> -created by the<br> -Reconstruction Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -office, on March 11th, assigning General Schofield to the command of -the first military district, as created by these Acts, with his -head-quarters at Richmond, Virginia; General Sickles to that of the -second, with his head-quarters at Columbia, South Carolina; General -Thomas to that of the third, with his head-quarters at Montgomery, -Alabama; General Ord to that of the fourth, with his head-quarters at -Vicksburg, Mississippi; and General Sheridan to that of the fifth, with -his head-quarters at New <span class="pagenum"><a name="page136"><small><small>[p. 136]</small></small></a></span> -Orleans, Louisiana. On the 15th this -order was so modified as to change the assignment of General Thomas -from the command of the third district to that of the Department of the -Cumberland, and to substitute General Pope for him in the command of -the third district.</div> -<br> -<a name="side92"></a> -<div>These officers betook themselves at once, with the forces attached to -their several commands, to their respective stations, and assumed the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The re-establishment of<br> -martial law in the South.</b></small> -</div> - -government of their respective districts by martial law. No opposition -whatever was made to any of them by the populations thus made subject -to their despotic rule.</div> -<br> -<a name="side93"></a> -<div>Very soon, however, the generals found great difficulty in interpreting -the Reconstruction Acts, especially in respect to the oath required for - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -instructions to<br> -the generals in<br> -interpretation of<br> -the Reconstruction<br> -Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -enfranchisement, both as to the persons who might take it and as to its -consequences, and in respect to the powers of the boards appointed to -superintend the elections. They applied to the President for -information upon these points. The President submitted their -application to his Attorney-General and to his Cabinet, and with the -full concurrence of all the members thereof, except only Mr. Stanton, -issued through the Adjutant-General's office in the War Department, on -the 20th of June, the following instructions:</div> - -<blockquote>First: That the oath prescribed in the second Act defined all the -qualifications required for suffrage, and that any person who could -take that oath should have his name entered on the list of voters; that -the boards of registration provided in that Act could not require any -other, or any additional, oath from the person applying for -registration, nor "administer an oath to any other person touching the -qualification of the applicant or -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page137"><small><small>[p. 137]</small></small></a></span>the falsity of the oath taken -by him," but that the person taking the oath must be registered as a -voter, and if it could be afterward proved that he had sworn falsely, -he could be punished for perjury.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Second: That an unnaturalized alien could not take the oath, but a -naturalized alien could, and that no other proof of naturalization -could be required of him.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Third: That "actual participation in rebellion or the actual commission -of a felony" did not amount to disfranchisement, but there must be a -law made by competent authority declaring disfranchisement, or a -judicial sentence inflicting it, and that no law of the United States -had declared the penalty of disfranchisement for participating in -rebellion alone.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Fourth: That a person who had engaged in rebellion, but had not -theretofore held an office under a "State" or the United States, or not -been a member of a "State" legislature or of Congress, and not taken, -as such, an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, was -not disfranchised or disqualified from voting.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Fifth: That persons who were militia officers in any "State" prior to -the rebellion were not disfranchised by participating in the rebellion.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Sixth: That "an act to fix upon the person the offence of engaging in -rebellion under this law must be an overt and voluntary act, done with -the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose," and -that "a person forced into the rebel service by conscription or under a -paramount authority which he could not safely disobey, and who would -not have entered such service if left to the free exercise of his own -will," was not disfranchised or disqualified from voting.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>And lastly: That disloyal sentiments, opinions or sympathies, or -anything said or written which fell short -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page138"><small><small>[p. 138]</small></small></a></span>of an incitement to -others to engage in rebellion, did not disfranchise or disqualify from voting.</blockquote> - -<div>Some other instructions were given which were concurred in by the -entire Cabinet, Mr. Stanton included, but the recital of them is not -essential to this narrative. It must be added, however, that the -President's view of the relation of the military commanders to the -"State" governments created under his direction and with his aid was -one which gave these governments a more independent and permanent -character than the language of the Reconstruction Acts seemed to warrant.</div> -<br> -<a name="side94"></a> -<div>When, then, the instructions of June 20th to the generals became known, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Congressional interpretation<br> -of the Reconstruction Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -another bill was introduced into Congress and passed which put the -Congressional interpretation upon the Reconstruction Acts.</div> -<br> -<div>It declared that the true intent and meaning of these Acts was that the -civil governments then existing in the "rebel States" of Virginia, -North Carolina, etc., were not legal "State governments," and that, if -thereafter they should be allowed to continue to exist at all, they -must be subject in all respects to the will of the military commanders -of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority of -Congress; and it provided that the generals in command of the -respective districts might suspend or remove any person from any office -under these illegal and pretended governments, and detail or appoint -some other person to discharge the duties and exercise the powers said -to pertain to such office. The acts of the district commanders in -regard to these things were made subject to the disapproval of the -General of the army, but not to that of the President, and stood until -so disapproved. The same powers in regard to these matters were vested, -by this bill, in the General of the army as in the district commanders, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page139"><small><small>[p. 139]</small></small></a></span> -but were not accorded by it to the President; and it was made the -duty of the General of the army and the district commanders to remove -from such pretended offices "all persons who were disloyal to the -United States, or who used their official influence in any manner to -hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and proper administration -of the Reconstruction Acts."</div> -<br> -<div>The bill, furthermore, provided that the boards of registration should -have the power, and that it should be their duty, to ascertain the fact -as to whether a person applying for registration as a voter was -entitled to registration under the Reconstruction Acts, and to refuse -registration, if in their judgment he was not, and that the fact that -he was willing to take the oath prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts, -or had taken it, was not conclusive upon the registration boards in -making their inquiries and forming their decisions. And it, finally, -declared that the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in the -Reconstruction Acts for persons who had held office under a "State" -government or membership in a "State" legislature, before the -rebellion, was that whether such persons were holding such positions at -the time of the commencement of the rebellion or at some time prior to -the same, and whether they had taken an oath to support the -Constitution of the United States or not, they were disqualified from -registration and were disfranchised, if, after holding such positions, -they had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United -States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"; and it gave to -the commanders of the districts the power to extend, in their -discretion, the time for completing the original registration of the -voters, as provided for in the Reconstruction Acts, to October 1st -following, and to the boards of registration the power, and imposed -upon them the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page140"><small><small>[p. 140]</small></small></a></span> -duty, to revise, during the first five of the last -fourteen days before any election under the Reconstruction Acts, the -registration lists and to strike off any name from said lists which, in -their judgment, ought not to be there, and to add any name, which, in -their judgment, ought to be there, and required them to disregard any -Executive pardon or amnesty as relieving the disability of any person -for registration, if such person had committed any act which without -such pardon or amnesty would disqualify him.</div> -<br> -<div>This bill, it will be readily seen, was a wholesale repudiation of all -the instructions given by the President to the generals in command of -the districts from which, in the Cabinet council, Mr. Stanton had -dissented. The President immediately realized this, of course, and it -increased his distrust of Stanton immensely. From that moment forward -he regarded him as the spy of Congress upon all his official acts, and -he was resolved to remove him upon the first opportunity, that is, so -soon as Congress should adjourn.</div> -<br> -<a name="side95"></a> -<div>The bill passed the Houses on the 13th of July, was presented to the -President for his signature on the 14th, and on the 19th he returned it - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's veto of<br> -the bill interpreting the<br> -Reconstruction Acts.</b></small> -</div> - -with a veto message to the House of Representatives. The President -contended in his argument that this new measure was not simply an -interpretation of the existing Reconstruction Acts, but was in many -respects a large advance upon them. The existing Acts, he contended, -made the reconstructed "State" governments at the South subject to -absolute military authority in many important respects, but not in all -respects, while the new measure proposed to extend the despotism of the -military commanders over everything. Against such a measure, in time of -peace, he protested as being in violation of every guaranty of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page141"><small><small>[p. 141]</small></small></a></span> -individual liberty contained in the Constitution. He dwelt upon the -unfitness of military officers to discharge the duties and exercise the -powers pertaining naturally to civil office, and he pointed out the -inconsistency, as he thought, of the declaration of Congress that the -ten "State" governments at the South were illegal with the attempt of -Congress to carry on these <i>illegal</i> "State" governments by "Federal -agency," when Congress had no power to carry on a <i>legal</i> "State" -government through "Federal agency"; and he stopped, as he thought, the -way of escape from this argument by pointing out that the entire -legislation of Congress down to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts -distinctly involved the recognition of the ten communities now to be -put under absolute military rule in all respects as "States" of the Union.</div> -<br> -<div>But the most vigorous and unanswerable part of the message was the -protest against the robbery of the constitutional powers of the -Executive by the attempt of Congress, in this measure, to confer some -of those powers upon other persons. The President expressed himself so -warmly upon this point, that the Republicans began to whisper around -their suspicions of sinister purposes on his part, just as if such a -declaration to Congress itself was not proof to the contrary. He said: -"Whilst I hold the chief executive authority of the United States, -whilst the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws are -faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the -powers given for its execution. I can never give my assent to be made -responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the same time -surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any other -executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive officers. -If this executive trust, vested by the Constitution in the President, -is to be taken from him <span class="pagenum"><a name="page142"><small><small>[p. 142]</small></small></a></span> -and vested in a subordinate officer, the -responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with -unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its exercise."</div> -<br> -<div>The radical Republicans interpreted this language, at once, as meaning -that the President proposed to so interfere with the execution of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ideas and suspicions<br> -about the meaning<br> -of the message.</b></small> -</div> - -Reconstruction Acts as to avoid their intent and destroy their effect. -And the talk about impeachment was again revived. The President, -however, meant nothing of the kind, and but for exaggerated suspicion -and party hatred the language of the message would have been held to -mean only an appeal to Congress to desist from its unlawful attempt to -rob the Executive of his constitutional powers, and to the people to -elect men to Congress who would obey the principles of the Constitution -in their legislative acts.</div> -<br> -<a name="side96"></a> -<div>The Houses passed the bill over the President's veto immediately, by an - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto overridden.</b></small> -</div> - -overwhelming majority, and almost in a spirit of derision. The next -day, July 20th, Congress adjourned to the 21st of the following November.</div> -<br> -<a name="side97"></a> -<div>The unfortunate relations of Mr. Stanton with the President, and with -the other members of the Cabinet were the thing which was destined to -produce the catastrophe. He had become unbearable to the President, and -to the most of his colleagues. He ought in all decency to have resigned -his portfolio as Speed and Harlan and Dennison had done the year -before. The President asked him to resign in a note of the 5th of -August. Stanton, feeling sure of the support of the large majority in -Congress, contemptuously refused. The President could now in the recess -of Congress suspend him without violating the provisions of the -Tenure-of-Office Act, or raising the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page143"><small><small>[p. 143]</small></small></a></span>question of its -constitutionality. The President at last resolved to take the matter -into his own hands and rid himself of Stanton's presence in his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The suspension of<br> -Stanton from office.</b></small> -</div> - -confidential counsels. On the 12th of August he sent an executive order -to Stanton suspending him from the office of Secretary of War, and -another to General Grant authorizing and empowering him to act as -Secretary of War <i>ad interim</i>. Stanton yielded to this order under -protest. He wrote the President that he could not legally suspend him -from office and declared that he submitted only to superior physical -force. Grant accepted the appointment, although he had, four days -before, advised the President against disturbing Stanton. Grant entered -upon the duties of the office at once, and Stanton went off to New -England to recuperate health, spirits and courage for his battle with -the President which was bound to come unless the President should yield -and take him back again, so soon as Congress should assemble.</div> -<br> -<div>By a series of orders issued during the same month (August) General -Hancock was substituted for General Sheridan in the command of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Changes among the<br> -commanders of the<br> -military districts.</b></small> -</div> - -fifth military district and General Canby for General Sickles in the -command of the second district. Both of the generals thus relieved were -great favorites at the North, especially Sheridan. The President felt -that they were too much imbued with the military spirit to make good -administrators of civil affairs. But the people of the North saw in -these changes only the purpose of the President to place his political -friends among the army officers in command of the military districts, -and through them to modify the intent of the Reconstruction Acts in the -course of their execution.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap8"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page144"><small><small>[p. 144]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER VIII</h3> -<center>THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side98">The Attempt to Prevent the Execution of the Reconstruction Acts in -Mississippi and Georgia—The Case of Mississippi vs. Johnson</a>—<a href="#side99">The Case -of Georgia vs. Stanton</a>—<a href="#side100">The Operations of the Commanders—The -Registration</a>—<a href="#side101">The Numbers -Registered</a>—<a href="#side102">The Change in the Electorate in -the South</a>—<a href="#side103">The Elections—Efforts of the Commanders to Get the Vote -Out</a>—<a href="#side104">The Result of the -Elections</a>—<a href="#side105">The Character of the Convention -Delegates Chosen</a>—<a href="#side106">The Work of the -Conventions</a>—<a href="#side107">The Vote upon -Ratification—Fraudulent Voting and Unlawful Voting—The Recall of Pope -and the Appointment of Meade in His Stead</a>—<a href="#side108">Rejection of the -Constitution in Alabama</a>—<a href="#side109">The Statute of Congress Changing the -Proportion of Votes to Registration in the Ratification of a -Constitution</a>—<a href="#side110">Criticism of the -Statute</a>—<a href="#side111">Ratification in -Arkansas</a>—<a href="#side112">Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, -Florida and Louisiana</a>—<a href="#side113">Second Attempt in Georgia to Obstruct -Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side114">Rejection of the Constitution in Mississippi</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side98"></a> -<div>Although the Supreme Court of the United States had said, in the case -of Kendall vs. the United States, in 1838, that so far as the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The attempt to prevent<br> -the execution of the<br> -Reconstruction Acts in<br> -Mississippi and Georgia.</b></small> -</div> - -President's power is derived from the Constitution he is beyond the -reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the -Constitution, through the impeaching power, and had also indicated, in -the cases of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in 1831, and -Luther vs. Borden, in 1849, that it had no jurisdiction over political -questions, there still prevailed in many minds the idea that the Court -was the ultimate <span class="pagenum"><a name="page145"><small><small>[p. 145]</small></small></a></span> -interpreter of the Constitution in all cases of -whatever nature, and that no person was exempted from its jurisdiction -on account of official station. Under the influence of this idea, W. L. -Sharkey, the ex-provisional Governor of Mississippi, appointed by -President Johnson in 1865, undertook to obtain from the Supreme Court -of the United States an injunction restraining the President of the -United States from carrying the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, -into effect. He was aided in this attempt by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, -and their client in the case, as set up by them, was the "State of -Mississippi." In a powerful argument, noted for both clearness and -frankness, Mr. Johnson's Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, demonstrated -that the President of the United States cannot be made subject to the -jurisdiction of any court, while in office, except only the Senate of -the United States, as the constitutional court of impeachment. The plea -of Mr. Stanbery is also notable for another thing, viz.: the frank way -in which he notified the Southerners that the President's opposition to -these laws ceased with their successful passage over his vetoes, and -that the President intended to execute them in spirit and letter, as it - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The case of<br> -Mississippi<br> -vs. Johnson.</b></small> -</div> - -was his sworn duty to do. The Court decided, in 1866, in the case of -Mississippi vs. Johnson, that "a bill praying an injunction against the -execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential -office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as -a citizen of a State."</div> -<br> -<a name="side99"></a> -<div>Under the delusion that this decision was based entirely upon the -official exemption from jurisdiction of the person sought to be made - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The case of<br> -Georgia<br> -vs. Stanton.</b></small> -</div> - -defendant, Hon. Charles J. Jenkins, Governor of Georgia, under the -reconstructed constitution of 1865, undertook, as representing the -"State of Georgia," to obtain an injunction against -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page146"><small><small>[p. 146]</small></small></a></span>Stanton as -Secretary of War, Grant as General of the army and Pope as commander of -the third military district, restraining them from putting the -Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, into operation. Mr. Stanbery again -came forward, in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Stanton, with a -most able argument against the jurisdiction of the Court over the -question involved, it being, as he contended, a political question pure -and simple, and the Court again sustained him, deciding that it -possessed no jurisdiction over the subject-matter presented in the bill -for relief.</div> -<br> -<a name="side100"></a> -<div>The generals now had free hand to go ahead according, pretty much, to -their own discretion. The law gave them, first until September, and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The operations of<br> -the commanders.</b></small> -</div> - -then until October, to complete the registration, and they themselves -appointed and extended the times of registration at will. They -constituted the boards of registry chiefly of army officers, Freedmen's -Bureau officers, discharged Union soldiers, and negroes. Where white -residents could be found who could take the iron-clad oath, the oath -prescribed by Congress July 2d, 1862, they were also used in - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The registration.</b></small> -</div> - -constituting these boards. The registration was quite successful in -bringing out most of those qualified to register. The reason for this -was not ready acquiescence on the part of the whites in the -Reconstruction Acts, but it was the calculation that by registering and -not voting on the question of holding a convention, or on the question -of constitutional ratification, one or both of these propositions might -be defeated, since the act of March 23d provided, as we have seen, that -a majority of the registered voters must vote in order to carry them in -the affirmative.</div> -<br> -<a name="side101"></a> -<div>In Alabama the registration reached the number of 165,813, of whom -104,518 were negroes or colored. In - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The numbers<br> -registered.</b></small> -</div> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page147"><small><small>[p. 147]</small></small></a></span>Arkansas it reached the -number of 66,831, of whom less than half were known to be colored, -although no exact account of the proportion was reported. In Florida it -reached the number of 28,003, of whom 16,089 were colored. In Georgia -it reached the number of 191,501, of whom 95,168 were colored. In -Louisiana it reached the number of 129,654, of whom 84,436 were -colored. In Mississippi it reached the number of 139,690, of whom, it -was well known, a large majority were colored, although no exact -figures giving the proportions were reported. In North Carolina it -reached the number of 179,653, of whom 72,932 were colored. In South -Carolina it reached the number of 127,432, of whom 80,550 were colored. -In Texas it reached the number of 109,130, of whom 49,497 were colored. -In Virginia it reached the number of 225,933, of whom 105,832 were colored.</div> -<br> -<a name="side102"></a> -<div>It will thus be seen that of the ten "States" to be reconstructed five -were to be recreated through an electorate in which the majority would - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The change in<br> -the electorate<br> -in the South.</b></small> -</div> - -be negroes and mulattoes, about all of whom had been, three years -before, slaves; while in the other five the majority of the -constructing electorate would be whites by a comparatively small -number. This was a tremendous <i>bouleversement</i> of the political society -of these sections. A large majority of the old leaders were -disfranchised completely and a goodly number of the old Unionists were -deterred by social considerations from taking any part in the work, -while negroes, "poor white trash," "carpet-baggers" and a few -self-denying respectables formed the new electorate for recreating -"State" governments.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no doubt that Congress had the constitutional power to do this -thing, on the theory, of course, that these communities were not -"States" of the Union; <span class="pagenum"><a name="page148"><small><small>[p. 148]</small></small></a></span> -but it was a reckless thing, and a -monstrous thing. Anybody of common sense and common honesty could, at -the time, have foreseen some of the horrible results which were sure to follow.</div> -<br> -<a name="side103"></a> -<div>So soon as the registration was completed, the commanders ordered -elections to be held and the vote to be taken, first, upon the question - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The elections.<br><br> -Efforts of the<br> -commanders to<br> -get the vote out.</b></small> -</div> - -of convention or no convention, and, at the same time, for the choice -of delegates to the conventions. The commanders did their best to get -out the vote. They met every device for keeping the negroes away from -the polls and foiled it by means of their arbitrary powers, and they -kept the polls open for two and three days, and in the case of Georgia, -for five days. There is no doubt that there was repeating, although the -military authorities exerted themselves most sincerely to prevent it. -Their purpose was not, in any case, to permit fraud, but to give every -opportunity to the freedmen to vote. Their efforts were aided by the -fact that the elections in the Northern "States" during the autumn -showed, in most quarters, large Democratic gains, and by the fact that -in one of the great Northern "States," Ohio, the proposition to -enfranchise negroes by an amendment to the "State" constitution was -rejected by a large popular majority. The effect of these facts was to -encourage the whites in the South, who had registered with the -intention of defeating the proposed reconstruction by abstention from -voting, to vote with the hope of securing a majority of the delegates -to the proposed conventions.</div> -<br> -<a name="side104"></a> -<div>The result was that in all the communities to be reconstructed as -"States" a majority of the registered voters voted on the question of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The result of<br> -the elections.</b></small> -</div> - -convention or no convention, and a large majority of those voting voted -in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page149"><small><small>[p. 149]</small></small></a></span> -every case for the holding of the convention. The figures were -as follows: In Alabama, of the 165,813 registered voters, 96,866 voted -on the question of convention or no convention, and 90,283 voted for -holding the convention. In Arkansas, of the 66,831 registered voters, -41,134 voted on the question, and 27,576 of these voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Florida, of the 28,003 registered voters, -14,503 voted on the question, and of these 14,300 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Georgia, of the 191,501 registered voters, -106,410 voted on the question, and of these 102,283 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Louisiana, of the 129,654 registered voters, -79,089 voted on the question, and of these 75,083 voted in favor of -holding the convention. In Mississippi, of the 139,690 registered -voters, 76,016 voted on the question, and of these 69,739 voted in -favor of holding the convention. In North Carolina, of the 179,653 -registered voters, 125,967 voted on the question of convention or no -convention, and of these 93,006 voted for holding the convention. In -South Carolina, of the 127,432 registered voters, 71,046 voted on the -question, and of these 68,768 voted for holding the convention. In -Texas, of the 109,130 registered voters, 56,129 voted on the question, -and of these 44,689 voted for holding the convention. And in Virginia, -of the 225,933 registered voters, 169,229 voted on the question, and of -these 107,342 voted for holding the convention.</div> -<br> -<a name="side105"></a> -<div>The great mass of those who registered and refrained from voting were -the whites who were opposed to the Congressional Acts for - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The character of<br> -the Convention<br> -delegates chosen.</b></small> -</div> - -Reconstruction, and hence the persons voting were chiefly the newly -enfranchised. This was likewise true in the voting for the delegates to -the conventions, with the result that radical men were, for the most -part, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page150"><small><small>[p. 150]</small></small></a></span> -chosen. They were new men to the political society of the -South. There were a few of the old Whigs among them, who had remained -true to the Union in their sentiments during the rebellion, but the -most of them were "carpet-baggers," that is adventurers or new settlers -from the North, "poor white trash" and negroes. In the South Carolina -convention there were 63 negro delegates to 34 white. No such hideous -bodies of men had ever been assembled before upon the soil of the -United States for the purpose of participation in the creation of a -"State" of the Union, and but for the control exercised over them by -the military commanders, and the co-operation between the commanders -and the small conservative white element in these bodies, the result of -their work would have been the most ghastly travesty of justice, -common-sense, and common honesty which the republic had ever been -called upon to witness.</div> -<br> -<a name="side106"></a> -<div>During the winter and spring of 1867-68 the work of these conventions -went on under the greatest extravagance and incompetence of every kind. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The work of the<br> -conventions.</b></small> -</div> - -The constitutions which came from them provided for complete equality -in civil rights and, in some cases, in advantages of a social -character, such as equal privileges in public conveyances, etc. They -also not only established negro suffrage, as in fact was required by -the Reconstruction Acts, but they, in most cases, disfranchised those -whites whom the proposed Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify from -holding office. In Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana they went even -further than this and disfranchised also, in the case of the first two, -all who "had violated the rules of civilized warfare," and in the case -of the last, all who had voted for secession, or had advocated treason -against the United States in the press or the pulpit. It is true -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page151"><small><small>[p. 151]</small></small></a></span> -that in most cases ways were provided for removing these disabilities, -but they were generally connected with such self-stultifying -requirements as to make them worthless.</div> -<br> -<div>The restrictions upon eligibility to hold office or mandate were in -general the same as those imposed on the exercise of the suffrage, and -in some cases they went even further, as in the cases of the -Mississippi and Virginia instruments, by both of which anybody who had -voluntarily participated in the rebellion, or had voluntarily given aid -or comfort to those who had, was disqualified.</div> -<br> -<a name="side107"></a> -<div>The next step in the procedure was the submission of these -constitutions to the voters. The registration was effected in the same - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The vote upon<br> -ratification.</b></small> -</div> - -manner as for the vote on the question of holding the conventions, and -the election of the delegates; and the elections were held, as before, -under the direction and control of the military commanders. The voting -upon the question of ratification came off first in Alabama. General -Pope had issued orders that the votes of persons registered in one -precinct might be received in another, and that "State" officers and -legislative members should be elected at the same election with the -vote on ratification, and by the same voters. There is no doubt that -the General only desired to secure the freedmen, who were then moving -about restlessly, in their right of suffrage under the Reconstruction -Acts, and to expedite the process of reconstruction so far as possible. -But he undoubtedly opened the door to fraudulent voting by offering - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Fraudulent<br> -voting and<br> -unlawful<br> -voting.</b></small> -</div> - -unrivalled opportunities for repeating, and he also violated the law -and practice under the Constitution of the United States in regard to -the qualified electors of "State" officers and legislators. Such -officers and legislators could have been constitutionally elected only -by the electors <span class="pagenum"><a name="page152"><small><small>[p. 152]</small></small></a></span> -designated in the constitution submitted for -adoption. The qualifications of the electors who vote upon the question -of the adoption of the first "State" constitution are necessarily fixed -by Congress, but Congress has no constitutional power to fix the -qualifications of the electors of "State" officers and legislators. -Neither has the constitutional convention, which frames the first -"State" constitution any such power, for the constitution which it -frames is only a proposition, and ratification by the electors -designated by Congress is necessary to its validity. Furthermore, any -resolution which it might pass ordering the election of "State" -officers or legislators by the electors designated by the Congressional -statute is only a proposition to those electors, which must be accepted -by them by a preliminary vote before they can proceed to the election -of such officers and legislators. The General certainly did not -understand these niceties of constitutional law and practice, and his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The recall of<br> -Pope and the<br> -appointment<br> -of Meade in<br> -his stead.</b></small> -</div> - -desire to hurry up the re-establishment of civil government was rather -laudable than otherwise. The President, however, who had in his -Attorney-General one of the ablest lawyers of the country, understood -well the constitutional limitations upon the General's powers and -duties. He recalled the reckless commander and sent the more -conservative Meade to take his place, December 28th, 1867.</div> -<br> -<a name="side108"></a> -<div>Before the election came off, however, a bill was introduced into -Congress, and passed the House of Representatives, and was making its - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Rejection of the<br> -constitution in<br> -Alabama.</b></small> -</div> - -way, a little more slowly, but surely, through the Senate, which -authorized the election of "State" officers and legislators in the -communities suffering reconstruction at the same time that the vote -should be taken upon the ratification of the new constitutions and by -the same electors. Congress had not a whit more power to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page153"><small><small>[p. 153]</small></small></a></span>do this -than the commanders, and the President knew this well enough, but he -gave no instructions to Meade, and so the commander permitted the -voting for "State" officers and legislators at the same election that -the vote was taken upon the question of the ratification of the -constitution and by the same electors. But the registered voters -refrained from voting upon the question of ratification in sufficient -numbers to reduce the vote to several thousand less than half the -registration. The proposed constitution was thus rejected under the -provision of the Reconstruction Acts which required a vote exceeding -the half of the registration, as well as a majority of that vote, for -ratification. The "State" government chosen at this same election was -thus in the air.</div> -<br> -<a name="side109"></a> -<div>The Senate now passed the House bill providing that the approval of a -majority of those voting, no matter what the proportion of the vote to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The statute of Congress<br> -changing the proportion<br> -of votes to registration<br> -in the ratification of a<br> -constitution.</b></small> -</div> - -the registration might be, should be regarded as a sufficient -ratification of the proposed "State" constitutions for the communities -suffering reconstruction; and although this Act was passed more than a -month after the vote on the constitution was taken in Alabama, and -although, furthermore, General Meade reported that a majority of the -registered voters had not voted on the question of ratification, and -that he interpreted this to mean that a majority of the registered -voters did not want the constitution, yet Congress, as we shall see -later, applied this new law of March 11th to the Alabama election which -had taken place in the first days of the preceding February.</div> -<br> -<a name="side110"></a> -<div>In the original requirement that the vote to be effective must exceed -half of the registration, Congress was still upon the ground of correct - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism of<br> -the statute.</b></small> -</div> - -principle. When it left this ground it virtually accepted the principle -that republican "State" governments may be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page154"><small><small>[p. 154]</small></small></a></span>legitimately created -by a minority of the lawful voters against the will of a majority of -the lawful voters, and that, too, not by allowing that minority to -demonstrate its political superiority to the majority by greater -intelligence, or shrewder management, or even by brute force, <i>but by -the aid of power coming from without</i>. Now this is not, in correct -political science, "State" government in a federal system, autonomous -local government, at all. It is provincial government in local affairs, -more or less complete as the necessity for the outside aid is more or -less continuous. The Republicans had denounced the Johnson "State" -governments upon the ground, among other grounds, that they were -minority governments, minority governments in the vague and uncertain -sense that not a majority of the adult males had been enfranchised, and -not in the clear and distinct and unmistakable sense that a minority of -the enfranchised, supported by the military power of the United States, -might impose its will upon a majority of the enfranchised. There was -nothing disloyal in the registered voters of Alabama giving Congress to -understand that a majority of them preferred the continuance of the -military régime, or the creation of a Territorial government for them -by Congress, to the "State" constitution offered them. But it was utter -self-stultification for Congress to take the ground that the Johnson -"State" governments were unrepublican because they did not enfranchise -all adult males of whatever race, color, or condition of mind or estate -and overthrow them on that ground, and then proceed to create new -"State" governments in their places upon the basis of a minority of the -already duly qualified and registered voters. No impartial student, at -this day, can view this terrible inconsistency in any other light than -that of a high political crime.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page155"><small><small>[p. 155]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side111"></a> -<div>While the Senate was proceeding with the bill, another of the Southern -communities was rapidly approaching the date fixed for voting upon the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification<br> -in Arkansas.</b></small> -</div> - -proposed "State" constitution, viz., Arkansas. The bill was passed by -Congress the day before the voting began in Arkansas, but it was not -known in Arkansas that it had been passed until near the close of the -second day of the election. It could, however, be claimed that it was -applicable to the case, and it certainly made all figures unnecessary -except in regard to the actual voting. The "State" officers and -legislators under the constitution to be adopted were chosen at the -same time, by the Congressional electorate in Arkansas, and not by the -"State" electorate, created by the new constitution.</div> -<br> -<a name="side112"></a> -<div>In the course of the next two months, April and May, voting upon - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification in<br> -North Carolina,<br> -South Carolina,<br> -Georgia, Florida<br> -and Louisiana.</b></small> -</div> - -the question of ratifying the new "State" constitutions took place in North -and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana. As the -Congressional Act of March 11th was in full force at this time, the -result was affirmative in all cases.</div> -<br> -<a name="side113"></a> -<div>During the Reconstruction proceedings in Georgia Governor Jenkins had -refused to issue an order to the "State" Treasurer to pay a sum of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Second attempt in<br> -Georgia to obstruct<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -forty thousand dollars, on the ground that the "State" legislature -(Johnson government) had not made any such appropriation. For this -refusal Meade removed him and the "State" Treasurer and Controller -General, and appointed military men in their places. These new officers -seized the "State" buildings, but Jenkins succeeded in getting away -with the money in the treasury. He went to Washington and undertook to -institute a proceeding in the Supreme Court of the United States -against Generals Grant and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page156"><small><small>[p. 156]</small></small></a></span> -Meade to restrain the officers -appointed by Meade from levying taxes upon the people of Georgia, and -from collecting the same and the other income of the "State," as well -as from exercising other functions. The Court gave its permission to -the filing of the bill, but put off the hearing of the argument until -the next term, and before this arrived, the new constitution had been -ratified, and new "State" officers elected along with the ratification. -In the other communities mentioned no opposition to the reconstruction -process was offered.</div> -<br> -<a name="side114"></a> -<div>On the other hand, the opponents of the proposed "State" constitution -in Mississippi went into a most earnest and energetic campaign against - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Rejection of<br> -the Constitution<br> -in Mississippi.</b></small> -</div> - -its ratification and succeeded, at the election on June 22d, in -rejecting the same by between seven and eight thousand majority. Many -of the better class of negroes voted with their old masters, that is -with such of these as were allowed by the Congressional acts to -register and vote, against ratification. Those in favor of ratification -claimed that fraud was practised by their opponents, in the face of the -fact that they had the elections in their own hands, and they -petitioned the military authorities to put the proposed constitution, -notwithstanding its rejection at the polls, into operation. This these -authorities refused to do.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap9"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page157"><small><small>[p. 157]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER IX</h3> -<center>THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side115">Grant in the War -Office</a>—<a href="#side116">The President's Message of December 3d, -1867</a>—<a href="#side117">The President's Special Message Concerning the Suspension of -Stanton</a>—<a href="#side118">The Senate Resolution in Regard to the Suspension of -Stanton</a>—<a href="#side119">Grant's Disobedience toward the -President</a>—<a href="#side120">The Unbearable -Situation in which the President now Found Himself</a>—<a href="#side121">The Dismissal of -Stanton from Office</a>—<a href="#side122">General Thomas Appointed Secretary of War <i>ad -interim</i></a>—<a href="#side123">Stanton's -Resistance</a>—<a href="#side124">Thomas and the President</a>—<a href="#side125">The Attitude -of the Senate toward the Dismissal of Stanton</a>—<a href="#side126">The Movements in the -House of Representatives</a>—<a href="#side127">The Arrest of General -Thomas</a>—<a href="#side128">Thomas's Second -Attempt to Take Possession of the War Office</a>—<a href="#side129">The House Resolution to -Impeach the President</a>—<a href="#side130">The Withdrawal of Stanton's Complaint against -Thomas</a>—<a href="#side131">The Fear of the Republicans to Test the Tenure-of-Office Act -before the Courts</a>—<a href="#side132">The Managers -of Impeachment</a>—<a href="#side133">The Charges against the -President</a>—<a href="#side134">The President's Answer to -the Complaint</a>—<a href="#side135">The Withdrawal of -Mr. Black from the President's Counsel</a>—<a href="#side136">The Contents of the President's -Answer</a>—<a href="#side137">The Replication of the House to the President's -Answer</a>—<a href="#side138">The -Trial—Conduct of the Managers</a>—<a href="#side139">The Evidence -in the Case</a>—<a href="#side140">The Argument</a>—<a href="#side141">The Law in -the Case</a>—<a href="#side142">Mr. Stanton's Violation of Law</a>—<a href="#side143">The -Nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary of War</a>—<a href="#side144">The Vote upon -Impeachment</a>—<a href="#side145">The Truth of the Matter</a>—<a href="#side146">The Abdication of -Stanton</a>—<a href="#side147">Schofield's Confirmation as Secretary of War and His -Acceptance of the Office</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<div>During this same period, another act in the drama of Reconstruction was -being played, a fit companion piece to what was occurring in the -unhappy communities of the South. It was the attempt to dispose of the -President, and the presidency, by the impeachment of the President.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page158"><small><small>[p. 158]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side115"></a> -<div>The history of the President's relations to Mr. Stanton, his Secretary -of War, has already been given down to the suspension of Mr. Stanton in - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Grant in the<br> -War Office.</b></small> -</div> - -August of 1867, and the designation of General Grant to succeed him <i>ad -interim</i>. Grant immediately assumed the duties of the office, and Mr. -Stanton then regarded General Grant as a friend of the President in the -controversy between himself and the President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side116"></a> -<div>In his annual Message to Congress, the Fortieth Congress, of December -3d, 1867, the President said nothing directly in regard to his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's Message<br> -of December 3d, 1867.</b></small> -</div> - -suspension of Mr. Stanton from office. He put forward a strong -argument, couched in moderate and respectful language, against the -policy and constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, as measures -establishing martial law in times of peace, and as doing it for the -purpose of establishing negro rule over the Southern communities, and -he urged the repeal of these Acts, and the immediate admission of the -Representatives and Senators from these communities, or "States" as he -considered them, to their seats in Congress. What he said upon these -subjects is, for the most part, entirely convincing to the impartial -mind, at this day, and all of it was apparently animated with true -patriotism and earnest desire to promote the common weal. At the close -of the argument, however, the President introduced into his Message -some ambiguous expressions which were unfortunate, to say the least, -and which roused to a high degree the suspicions and the hatred already -entertained against him by the radical Republicans.</div> -<br> -<div>He wrote as follows: "How far the duty of the President 'to preserve, -protect, and defend the Constitution' requires him to go in opposing an -unconstitutional act of Congress is a very serious and important -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page159"><small><small>[p. 159]</small></small></a></span> -question, on which I have deliberated much and felt extremely anxious -to reach a proper conclusion. Where an act has been passed according to -the forms of the Constitution by the supreme legislative authority, and -is regularly enrolled among the public statutes of the country, -Executive resistance to it, especially in times of high party -excitement, would be likely to produce violent collision between the -respective adherents of the two branches of the Government. This would -be simply civil war, and civil war must be resorted to only as the last -remedy for the worst of evils. Whatever might tend to provoke it should -be most carefully avoided. A faithful and conscientious magistrate will -concede very much to honest error, and something even to perverse -malice, before he will endanger the public peace; and he will not adopt -forcible measures, or such as might lead to force, as long as those -which are peaceable remain open to him or to his constituents. It is -true that cases may occur in which the Executive would be compelled to -stand on its rights, and maintain them regardless of all consequences. -If Congress should pass an act which is not only in palpable conflict -with the Constitution, but will certainly, if carried out, produce -immediate and irreparable injury to the organic structure of the -Government, and if there be neither judicial remedy for the wrongs it -inflicts nor power in the people to protect themselves without the -official aid of their elected defender—if, for instance, the -legislative department should pass an act even through all the forms of -law to abolish a co-ordinate department of the Government—in such a -case the President must take the high responsibilities of his office -and save the life of the nation at all hazards. The so-called -Reconstruction Acts, though as plainly unconstitutional as any that can -be imagined, were not believed to be within the class last mentioned. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page160"><small><small>[p. 160]</small></small></a></span> -The people were not wholly disarmed of the power of self-defence. -In all the Northern 'States' they still held in their hands the sacred -right of the ballot, and it was safe to believe that in due time they -would come to the rescue of their own institutions. It gives me -pleasure to add that the appeal to our common constituents was not -taken in vain, and that my confidence in their wisdom and virtue seems -not to have been misplaced." These last words referred undoubtedly to -the recent rejection, by popular vote, in a number of the most -important Northern "States," of proposed amendments to "State" -constitutions conferring suffrage upon negroes.</div> -<br> -<div>Most of the Republicans in Congress interpreted this whole paragraph in -the Message as a threat to violate the Reconstruction Acts, although - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The interpretation placed<br> -by the Republicans on<br> -the President's Message.</b></small> -</div> - -this was disavowed, rather indistinctly it is true, and to violate also -the Tenure-of-Office Act. It is very difficult to say what the -President was aiming at in giving such a warning to a body already -excited against him to a high degree. It was certainly a <i>faux pas</i> of -the worst kind, to say the least about it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side117"></a> -<div>Just nine days later the President sent his special Message to the -Senate in regard to his suspension of Mr. Stanton. The gist of it was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's special<br> -Message concerning the<br> -suspension of Stanton.</b></small> -</div> - -that mutual confidence between himself and Mr. Stanton no longer -existed, and that when he asked Mr. Stanton to resign Mr. Stanton had -declined to do so and had strongly intimated that his reason for -declining was his own lack of confidence in the President's patriotism -and integrity. The President claimed that such an attitude, on the part -of a subordinate toward his superior, was unendurable, was in fact -official misconduct of a grave order, and he also referred to Stanton's -withholding Baird's telegram from <span class="pagenum"><a name="page161"><small><small>[p. 161]</small></small></a></span> -him just before the New Orleans -riot. The President furthermore discussed Mr. Stanton's letter in reply -to his order to him suspending him from office and commanding him to -turn over the records and property of the office to General Grant. This -letter contained a declaration by Mr. Stanton denying the right of the -President, under the Constitution and laws, to suspend him from office, -without the advice and consent of the Senate, and without legal cause, -and affirming that he yielded, under protest, to the superior force -wielded by the General of the Army who had been designated to succeed him.</div> -<br> -<div>This contention of Mr. Stanton that the President could not suspend him -under the Constitution and laws of the United States gave the President -the opportunity of saying that Mr. Stanton must be claiming the -protection of the Tenure-of-Office Act of March 2d, 1867, and of -revealing to the Senate Mr. Stanton's most decided condemnation of that -Act when it was a bill before the President. The President asserted -that Mr. Stanton, as every other member of his Cabinet, advised him -that the bill was unconstitutional, in that it was a dangerous -encroachment upon the President's constitutional prerogatives, and -urged him to veto it. He also said that all the members of his Cabinet -who had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln—and Stanton was one of -these—appeared to be of the opinion that their tenures were not fixed -or affected by the provisions of the bill. The conclusion arrived at by -the President evidently was that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not cover -Mr. Stanton's case, but left it under the law and practice existing -before the passage of that measure, and that if it did cover it, the -Act was unconstitutional, and was so considered by Mr. Stanton himself, -and every other member of the Cabinet.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page162"><small><small>[p. 162]</small></small></a></span> -<div>It is hardly credible that the President intended to recognize -the validity of the Act by sending this Message to the Senate. It is -true that the second section of the Act provided that the President -might suspend an officer during a recess of the Senate, and designate -an <i>ad interim</i> successor, and must, within the first twenty days of -the next meeting of the Senate, report the suspension to the Senate, -and it does appear, from a casual view, that the President was acting -under the authority of this provision, or rather under the duty imposed -by it, in suspending instead of removing Mr. Stanton and in making this -report of Mr. Stanton's suspension to the Senate. But the President -could claim that he was proceeding under his general constitutional -power and duty of suspending from office, as a power included in the -power of removal, and of sending such communications as he saw fit to -Congress or to either House thereof. And the fact that he disputed the -constitutionality of the Act in the Message itself is good internal -evidence that he did not consider that he was in any way acting under -the authority granted to him by it, or in any way estopping himself, so -to speak, from making future declarations against the constitutionality -of the Act, or even from disobeying its requirements.</div> -<br> -<a name="side118"></a> -<div>The Senate, however, conceived at once that the President was acting -under the Tenure-of-Office Act, and after considerable discussion, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Senate resolution<br> -in regard to the<br> -suspension of Stanton.</b></small> -</div> - -passed a resolution, on the 13th day of January, 1868, which provided -that, "having considered the evidence and reasons given by the -President in his report of December 12th, 1867, for the suspension of -Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, the Senate does -not concur in such suspension." The body then instructed its secretary -to send copies of this resolution to the President, General -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page163"><small><small>[p. 163]</small></small></a></span>Grant -and Mr. Stanton. It is also evident that General Grant supposed the -President was acting under the Tenure-of-Office Act both in suspending -Stanton, in appointing himself <i>ad interim</i>, and in making report of -these proceedings to the Senate; for upon receiving his copy of the -Senate's resolution from the secretary of the Senate, he immediately -left the room of the Secretary of War, locking the door after him and -giving the key to the Adjutant-General, and repaired to the official -head-quarters of the General of the army. Stanton manifestly regarded -the matter in the same way, for upon receiving his copy of the notice -of the Senate's action, he went to the room of the Secretary of War, -and resumed the duties of Secretary of War without further ceremony. He -did not even go to see Grant, but sent word over to the head-quarters -of the General of the army summoning Grant to wait upon him in the -Secretary's room.</div> -<br> -<div>There is no question now in any calm and impartial mind that the Senate -acted most inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in passing that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism of the<br> -Senate resolution.</b></small> -</div> - -resolution. The situation was a perfectly plain one. The President and -Stanton could not work together, since they had lost all confidence in -each other. Common-sense and common decency required in such a case the -retirement of the subordinate. The Senate itself had committed itself -to this view in the discussion and votes upon the Tenure-of-Office -bill, in its original form and in its final form. General Grant, the -man who stood first in the confidence of the whole people, was in -possession of the War Office. He had held it already nearly six months, -and had in that short time improved the administration of it very -greatly. At the end of the six months, at farthest, the President was -held by the law of 1795, a law whose constitutionality -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page164"><small><small>[p. 164]</small></small></a></span>he did not -dispute, to make a nomination to the Senate of a permanent incumbent. -The Senate would then be able to prevent the appointment of any person -to the office who did not have the confidence of the Senate and the -country. No possible harm could thus have come to the country from -acquiescing in Stanton's suspension, and it is hard to see that -anything but harm did come to it in not doing so. No perfectly fair and -unprejudiced mind could have failed to see that then; but the radical -Republicans—and most of the Republicans in Congress at that moment -were radical, or at least intensely partisan—were bent upon attacking -and destroying the President in any way they could. They were ready to -lay traps for him, and then to so excite him by encroachments upon the -prerogatives and the dignity of his office as to make him fall into -them. They were determined to sustain Stanton against the President, -the subordinate against his lawful superior, simply because they -despised the President. They claimed that the welfare of the country -demanded it, and most of them probably thought so, but everybody can -see the fallacy of that now, and anybody fit to be a Senator of the -United States ought to have been able to see it then.</div> -<br> -<div>It is also a question whether General Grant did not act hastily, and -inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in yielding the post without - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism<br> -of General<br> -Grant's act.</b></small> -</div> - -dispute to Mr. Stanton. The President certainly understood General -Grant to promise him to hold on to the office in case the Senate should -not approve of Stanton's suspension, and thereby compel Stanton to have -recourse to the courts to regain possession, and thus secure a judicial -determination of the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or -to give the office back to the President before the Senate reached its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page165"><small><small>[p. 165]</small></small></a></span> -determination, so that he might have opportunity to put it into -the hands of a man who would be willing to incur this responsibility; -and the President was able to back this understanding by the testimony -of five members of his Cabinet. On the other hand, General Grant was -just as sincere in his view that his remarks to the President on the -subject did not amount to a promise, and if they did, he had fulfilled -it when on the 11th of January, two days before the Senate acted, he -indicated to the President his unwillingness to involve himself in a -lawsuit to test the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act. It -is true that when he spoke with the President, on the 11th, he did not -offer to resign the office, and that it was understood that he would -see the President again on the subject, and that he did not see the -President, nor attempt to see him, before the Senate acted. But he -explained this apparent failure to keep faith by saying that he was -extremely busy during the two days between the 11th and the 13th, and -that the Senate had acted much more hastily than he expected it would.</div> -<br> -<div>There is little doubt that General Grant thought the Senate would -acquiesce in Stanton's suspension, and was taken by surprise when it -did not do so, and that until the action of the Senate on the 13th, he -had never seriously considered that any opportunity or necessity for a -judicial proceeding would arise. When, then, the alternative was -suddenly presented to him of obeying the Tenure-of-Office Act, or -disputing its constitutionality by forcibly holding possession of the -War Office, he decided that it would be wrong for the General of the -army to assume the attitude of defiance to Congress, whatever a -civilian might consider his duty to be. He thought that such an act on -his part would look like a contest between the civil and military -powers of the Government, and he was unwilling to provoke it.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page166"><small><small>[p. 166]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The President blundered very seriously when he did not accept the -explanation from General Grant and drop the matter. The General was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -blunder in his<br> -attitude toward<br> -Grant.</b></small> -</div> - -friendly in his feelings toward the President, and when Stanton -repossessed himself of the War Office in his cavalier way, without -seeking any understanding with Grant, and sent the General a rude -summons to wait upon him, the General was very naturally and properly -indignant with Stanton. The way was here open for the President to make -a close friend of General Grant, by simply appreciating Grant's point -of view in surrendering the War Office, and saying nothing more about -it. But the President was not a prudent man when crossed in his -purposes. He generally thought that the motives of all men who differed -with him were bad. He showed in this trait his common origin and his -vulgar breeding. He thought that Grant had deceived him and made a -scapegoat of him, and he resolved to have it out with him. He did not -seem to understand at all that in an issue of veracity between General -Grant and himself, the country would believe Grant, no matter who told -the truth, and who the lie. The utter impossibility of coming out -winner in a contest with a national hero, no matter what the merits of -the case might be, does not seem to have occurred to him at all. And so -he plunged into that unfortunate controversy with General Grant in the -public prints, which made Grant his enemy for life, at a time when he -needed most his friendship, and might have had it by the exercise of a -little common prudence.</div> -<br> -<div>The outcome of this whole course of crimination and recrimination was -that the country came to the belief that the President first tried to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The result of the<br> -controversy between<br> -the President and<br> -General Grant.</b></small> -</div> - -force the responsibility of a violation of the Tenure-of-Office Act -upon the popular General of the army, and then, when the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page167"><small><small>[p. 167]</small></small></a></span>General -foiled him in his purpose, undertook to impugn his honor and his -integrity, and destroy his character before the public. An impartial -study of the facts and the correspondence will not sustain any such -view now, but in the state of feeling then prevailing, no such -impartial study was possible. The President ought to have known this, -and to have controlled his indignation until a more propitious time.</div> -<br> -<a name="side119"></a> -<div>General Grant's letter closing the controversy is dated February 11th. -In the interval between his quitting the War Office and this latter - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Grant's disobedience<br> -toward the President.</b></small> -</div> - -date, the President instructed the General not to obey any orders from -Stanton until he knew they came from the President. This instruction -was given, first, verbally on January 19th. Grant demanded, on January -24th, a written order from the President on the subject, and repeated -this request on the 28th. The President replied on the 29th that -"General Grant is instructed, in writing, not to obey any order from -the War Department, assumed to be issued by the direction of the -President, unless such order is known by the General commanding the -armies of the United States to have been authorized by the Executive." -Grant responded, on January 30th, that he had been informed by the -Secretary of War that he (the Secretary) had not received from the -Executive any order or instructions limiting or impairing his authority -to issue orders to the army as had theretofore been his practice under -the law and the customs of the Department, and that while this -authority to the War Department was not countermanded it would be -satisfactory evidence to him (the General) that any orders issued from -the War Department by the formal direction of the President were -authorized by the Executive. This was coming very nearly up to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page168"><small><small>[p. 168]</small></small></a></span> -line between obedience and disobedience on the part of the -General of the army toward the constitutional Commander-in-chief of the -army and navy of the United States. The General must have himself felt -that he was on rather shaky ground, for in the closing paragraph of his -letter of February 11th he disclaimed any intention of disobeying "any -legal order of the President distinctly communicated." But this was -still an ambiguous situation. Who was to determine whether an order of -the President to the General was legal or not? If the President, then -there was no need of qualifying the word "order" by the word "legal." -The language used, therefore, indicates that the General considered it -within <i>his</i> power to decide this question. But if the subordinate can -determine upon the legality of the orders of his superior, and disobey -them in case he considers them illegal, then farewell to all discipline -in civil or military service. It is very clear from these expressions -of the General that Stanton's successful insubordination was already -exercising its demoralizing influence, and was confusing the minds of -those high in command in regard to the interpretation of their duties -and responsibilities.</div> -<br> -<a name="side120"></a> -<div>The situation was utterly unbearable for the President. Here was the -constitutional Executive of the United States, the Commander-in-chief - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The unbearable situation<br> -in which the President<br> -now found himself.</b></small> -</div> - -of the army and the navy, virtually excluded by one of his own -subordinates from any relation to the business of one of the most -important departments of the Government for which he alone was -responsible, and his subordinate sustained in this attitude by the -legislative branch of the Government.</div> -<br> -<a name="side121"></a> -<div>Matters were now rapidly approaching a crisis which could be avoided -only by the resignation of the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page169"><small><small>[p. 169]</small></small></a></span> -President or by the retreat of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The dismissal of<br> -Stanton from office.</b></small> -</div> - -Senate from its indefensible position. If both stood firm the clash -must follow, and that too very quickly. On the 21st (February) it came. -The President addressed an order of that date to Mr. Stanton dismissing -him from the office of Secretary of War, and another order of the same -date to General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant-General of the army, -commanding him to take possession of the War Office and administer its -affairs <i>ad interim</i>. He, on the same date, informed the Senate of his -action, and transmitted to that body a copy of the orders to Stanton -and Thomas.</div> -<br> -<a name="side122"></a> -<div>Upon receiving the order, General Thomas repaired immediately to the -Secretary's room in the War Office, and handed to Mr. Stanton both of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>General Thomas<br> -appointed Secretary<br> -of War <i>ad interim</i>.</b></small> -</div> - -the documents, they having been put into his hands by the President's -private secretary. Upon reading the one addressed to himself, Mr. -Stanton immediately asked General Thomas whether he wished him to -vacate at once or would give him time to remove his private property. -Thomas replied, "act as you please." Stanton then read the order -addressed to Thomas designating him Secretary <i>ad interim</i>, and asked -Thomas for a copy of it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side123"></a> -<div>Thomas then left the Secretary's room and went into his old room, the -Adjutant-General's room, to have a copy of the order made. He returned - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Stanton's resistance.</b></small> -</div> - -at once with it, and when he handed it to Mr. Stanton, the latter said: -"I do not know whether I will obey your instructions, or whether I will -resist them." General Thomas had certified the correctness of the copy, -and had signed himself Secretary of War <i>ad interim</i>. The two then went -into General Schriver's room just across the hallway, and there Stanton -declared outright that Thomas should not issue orders as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page170"><small><small>[p. 170]</small></small></a></span> -Secretary of War, and that if he did he (Stanton) would countermand -them, and he then and there directed General Schriver and General -Townsend, both of whom were present, to disobey any orders coming from -General Thomas as Secretary of War. Mr. Stanton then caused General -Townsend to prepare a written order to Thomas, signed by Mr. Stanton as -Secretary of War, which was as follows: "Sir: I am informed that you -presume to issue orders as Secretary of War <i>ad interim</i>. Such conduct -and orders are illegal, and you are hereby commanded to abstain from -issuing any orders other than in your capacity as Adjutant-General of -the army."</div> -<br> -<a name="side124"></a> -<div>General Thomas then went over to the White House to see the President -about the matter. He told the President of his conversation with Mr. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Thomas and<br> -the President.</b></small> -</div> - -Stanton, and repeated to him Stanton's replies verbatim. The President -simply said to him: "Very well; go and take charge of the office and -perform the duties." Thomas did not, however, return to the Secretary's -room in the War Office that day, and did not see Mr. Stanton again on -that day.</div> -<br> -<a name="side125"></a> -<div>While these things were occurring in the executive offices matters were -seething at the other end of the avenue. The Senate was deliberating, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The attitude of the<br> -Senate toward the<br> -dismissal of Stanton.</b></small> -</div> - -if we may call such a stormy procedure as took place a deliberation, -upon the President's communication. It very quickly passed the -following resolution: "Whereas, the Senate have received and considered -the communication of the President stating that he had removed Edwin M. -Stanton, Secretary of War, and had designated the Adjutant-General of -the army to act as Secretary of War <i>ad interim:</i> Therefore, Resolved -by the Senate of the United States, That under the Constitution and -laws of the United States the President has no power to remove -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page171"><small><small>[p. 171]</small></small></a></span> -the Secretary of War and designate any other officer to perform the -duties of that office <i>ad interim</i>." A copy of this resolution was sent -to the President, another copy to Mr. Stanton, and another to General Thomas.</div> -<br> -<a name="side126"></a> -<div>The excitement in the other House was still more intense and -irrational. The Senate resolution had hardly passed when the radical - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The movements in the<br> -House of Representatives.</b></small> -</div> - -Mr. Covode presented a motion to the effect that "Andrew Johnson, -President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and -misdemeanors." This resolution was referred to the Committee of the -House on Reconstruction, which was, as we have seen, composed of -members nearly all of whom were radical Republicans.</div> -<br> -<a name="side127"></a> -<div>Encouraged and strengthened by these movements in the legislature, and -hearing that Thomas had threatened to force his way into the office, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The arrest of<br> -General Thomas.</b></small> -</div> - -Mr. Stanton resolved to forestall all possible movements of General -Thomas for gaining possession of the office of Secretary of War. He -procured a warrant of arrest for the General, and on the next morning, -the morning of the 22d, the warrant was served on General Thomas just -after he had risen from his bed, and before he had taken his morning -meal. The officers who arrested him, the Marshal of the District, and -his assistant, and a constable, took the General at once before Judge -Cartter, the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia. On the way from -the General's residence to the court-room, the General asked the -officers to allow him to see the President, and inform the latter of -his arrest. The Marshal went with the General to the White House, and -was present at the interview between the General and the President. It -lasted but a moment. The General told the President that he was under -arrest. The President replied that he was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page172"><small><small>[p. 172]</small></small></a></span>satisfied to have the -case go into the courts, that he wanted it judicially determined. He -then directed the General to go to the Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery. -The Marshal permitted him to call at Mr. Stanbery's apartment in his -hotel, and inform the Attorney-General of his arrest. He then took him -before Judge Cartter. Nobody was with the General before the Judge, -except the officers who had arrested him. The Judge held him to bail in -the sum of five thousand dollars to appear on the following Wednesday -morning, the 26th. After about an hour friends of the General came in -and signed his bail bond, and the General was released, the Judge -informing him that he was not suspended from any of his official -functions. The General then went back to the White House and informed -the President of his release under bail, and the President again -replied that he wanted the case in the courts.</div> -<br> -<a name="side128"></a> -<div>Finally, the General went over to the rooms of the Secretary of War. -There he found some six or eight members of Congress with Mr. Stanton, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Thomas's second<br> -attempt to take<br> -possession of<br> -the War Office.</b></small> -</div> - -evidently awaiting the <i>dénouement</i>. He demanded the office. Stanton -ordered him to his room as Adjutant-General. He refused to obey. He -demanded the office of the Secretary of War a second and a third time, -and a second and a third time Stanton refused to yield it to him and -ordered him to his room as Adjutant-General. The General then left the -room of the Secretary of War, and went across the hall into General -Schriver's room. Stanton followed him and asked him if he insisted on -acting as Secretary of War. The General replied that he did, and would -demand the mails of the War Office. The two then fell into a friendly -chat, General Thomas saying that he had had nothing to eat or drink -that day and requesting Mr. Stanton the next time he might have him -arrested not to do it before <span class="pagenum"><a name="page173"><small><small>[p. 173]</small></small></a></span> -breakfast, and Stanton appealing to -Schriver to bring out his whiskey, which Schriver did, and the two men, -Thomas and Stanton, drank a little together on Stanton's invitation. -With this Thomas's attempt to get possession of the War Office seems to -have ended. On the same day the President sent to the Senate for -confirmation as Secretary of War the name of Thomas Ewing, Sr. Mr. -Ewing was a man of undoubted ability and of the purest loyalty. He had -been one of Lincoln's best friends and supporters and was the -father-in-law of General Sherman; but the Senate denied that the -President had any power to send in a nomination, that is, denied that -there was a vacancy.</div> -<br> -<a name="side129"></a> -<div>On the same day, also, the 22d, the Reconstruction Committee of the -House, to whom the resolution for impeaching the President had been - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The House resolution to<br> -impeach the President.</b></small> -</div> - -referred, reported it back with the recommendation that it be passed, -and the chairman, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, urged that it might pass -without debate. But the members began at once to debate it hotly, and -continued to do so through the day and deep into the night. The -following day was Sunday, the 23d. The House had, therefore, one day of -recess in which to cool down. But on Monday the angry determination of -the Republican leaders was even more manifest than on the preceding -Saturday. All day long the war of words went on. The reproach and the -odium heaped upon the President were simply immeasurable. Read from the -point of view of to-day, and at this distance from the event, most of -it appears highly extravagant, and some of it ridiculous and even -puerile. Late in the afternoon the vote was reached, by application of -the previous question rule. The House resolved to impeach the President -before the Senate by a vote of 126 to 47. All those voting in the -affirmative were <span class="pagenum"><a name="page174"><small><small>[p. 174]</small></small></a></span> -Republicans, and all those voting in the -negative were Democrats.</div> -<br> -<div>By another strict party vote the House authorized the Speaker to -appoint a committee to acquaint the Senate with its resolution to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The committee of the<br> -House on impeachment.</b></small> -</div> - -impeach the President before that body, and another committee to draw -up the articles of impeachment. The Speaker, Mr. Colfax, appointed Mr. -Stevens and Mr. Bingham to constitute the first committee, and Mr. -Boutwell, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bingham, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Logan, Mr. Julian -and Mr. Ward to constitute the second. This committee immediately set -about its work, and on the 29th was ready to report.</div> -<br> -<a name="side130"></a> -<div>Meanwhile the day for General Thomas to appear in court, February 26th, -arrived. By this time the General had taken legal advice, and the plan - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The withdrawal of Stanton's<br> -complaint against Thomas.</b></small> -</div> - -of his counsel was to refuse to give further bail, allow him thus to be -committed to jail, then sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus from a United -States judge, and bring in this way the question of the -constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act to judicial -determination. But Judge Cartter foiled this plan, according to the -word of Judge Luke P. Poland of Vermont, who drew the complaint against -Thomas, by declining to make any further order requiring bail, and on -the same day Mr. Stanton withdrew the complaint, and the case was thus -prevented from reaching the United States courts at all.</div> -<br> -<a name="side131"></a> -<div>There is little doubt that the Republicans were afraid to have the -Tenure-of-Office Act tested judicially. They preferred recourse to the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The fear of the Republicans<br> -to test the Tenure-of-Office<br> -Act before the courts.</b></small> -</div> - -Court of Impeachment to settle the matter so far as President Johnson -was concerned. It is true that Stanton alleged that he brought the case -against Thomas in order to test judicially the right of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page175"><small><small>[p. 175]</small></small></a></span>Thomas to -the office of Secretary of War, and that he withdrew the complaint as -superfluous after the House of Representatives had resolved to impeach -the President, but that may have been a mere legal form of excuse.</div> -<br> -<a name="side132"></a> -<div>Three days after this, as we have seen, the committee charged with -preparing the articles of impeachment reported to the House. They were - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The managers<br> -of impeachment.</b></small> -</div> - -debated until March 3d, when they were adopted by a strict party vote, -and the managers to conduct the prosecution were elected. They were -Messrs. Bingham, Boutwell, Wilson, Butler, Williams, Logan and Stevens.</div> -<br> -<a name="side133"></a> -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The charges against<br> -the President.</b></small> -</div> - -<div>Disregarding the legal order and form of the eleven articles of -impeachment, we may say briefly that the charges against the President were:</div> - -<blockquote>First, that he violated the Tenure-of-Office Act in issuing an order -deposing Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and another order -appointing Thomas to the office of Secretary of War <i>ad interim</i>.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Second, that he violated the Anti-conspiracy Act of July 31, 1861, in -conspiring with Thomas to expel Stanton by force from the War Office, -and to seize upon the property and papers of the United States in the -War Office, and to unlawfully disburse the money appropriated for the -military service and the Department of War.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>Third, that he violated the Act of March 2, 1867, which, among other -things, directed that the military orders and instructions of the -President and Secretary of War should be issued through the General of -the army, by attempting to induce General Emory, the commander of the -troops around Washington, to disregard this law and take his orders -immediately from the President.</blockquote> - -<blockquote>And fourthly, that he committed high misdemeanors -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page176"><small><small>[p. 176]</small></small></a></span>in his speeches -denouncing the Thirty-ninth Congress, and declaring it to be a Congress -of only a part of the "States."</blockquote> - -<div>These charges were presented by the managers of the impeachment to the -Senate on March 5th, the day upon which the Senate organized itself as - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The charges<br> -presented to<br> -the Senate.</b></small> -</div> - -a Court of Impeachment, by assembling under the presidency of the Chief -Justice of the United States, who administered the oath to the Senators -as members of the court. The court directed its sergeant-at-arms to -serve its summons upon the President to appear before its bar and -answer to the charges preferred against him, and then adjourned to the -13th of the month. On the 13th the court reassembled. The chief clerk -read the return of the sergeant-at-arms to the writ of summons, to the -effect that he had served the writ upon the President at seven o'clock - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -appearance<br> -entered by<br> -his counsel.</b></small> -</div> - -<small>P.M.</small> of Saturday, the 7th day of the month; and the President entered -his appearance by his counsel, Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, -Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts and Thomas A. R. Nelson, and asked -for forty days for the preparation of his answer to the charges. The -first four of these men were the most noted constitutional lawyers of -the country, and the fifth was one of Mr. Johnson's loyal Tennessee -friends and his chief ally in the Union cause in Tennessee during the -years of sorest trial. Mr. Stanbery had resigned the office of -Attorney-General of the United States in order to take the leading part -in the defence of the President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side134"></a> -<div>The managers on the part of the House very ungenerously objected to -giving the President any time at all for the preparation of his answer - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's answer<br> -to the complaint.</b></small> -</div> - -further than what he had had since the service of the summons upon him, -but the Senate <span class="pagenum"><a name="page177"><small><small>[p. 177]</small></small></a></span> -resolved to give him ten days, that is until March -23d. Upon the latter day the Senate resumed its sitting as a Court of -Impeachment, and the President's counsel appeared with his answer to -the charges made against him.</div> -<br> -<a name="side135"></a> -<div>An incident occurred at this point in the history of the procedure, -which should be related, although it interrupts somewhat the thread of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The withdrawal of<br> -Mr. Black from the<br> -President's counsel.</b></small> -</div> - -the narrative. It was the disappearance of Mr. Black from among the -counsel for the President, and the appearance of Mr. Groesbeck in his -place. It was the gossip among the enemies of the President, and this -gossip was sedulously spread abroad throughout the whole country by -them, that Black on examining the case had become convinced of the -President's guilt and had retired from the case for this reason, and -for the further reason that he had become disgusted with the -President's conduct. It did not become known until later that during -this time Judge Black was counsel for a firm composed of one Patterson -and one Marguiendo, which firm claimed a guano island in the West -Indies, called Alta Vela, and that one of Judge Black's colleagues in -the prosecution of the Patterson-Marguiendo claim, one J. W. Shaffer, -procured a letter of the date of the 9th of March, 1868, that is one -week after the House of Representatives had resolved to impeach the -President, signed by General Benjamin F. Butler and approved by John A. -Logan, J. A. Garfield, W. H. Koontz, J. K. Moorhead, Thaddeus Stevens, -J. G. Blaine and John A. Bingham, some of them the most bitter among -the President's enemies, which contained the statement that these -gentlemen were clearly of the opinion that the citizens of the United -States had the exclusive right to the guano beds of Alta Vela island, -and an expression of their <span class="pagenum"><a name="page178"><small><small>[p. 178]</small></small></a></span> -surprise that the President had not -upheld this right by force against the claims of the Dominican -Government to the island, and caused this letter to be placed in the -hands of the President on the 16th day of March, and that on the 17th -or 18th of March Judge Black had an interview with the President and -urged him to send an armed vessel of the United States to Alta Vela to -take possession of the island, and that the President, viewing this -approach to him at this time as an attempt to take advantage of his -situation, refused, and that on the next day, the 19th of March, Judge -Black declined to appear further as the President's counsel in the -impeachment trial.</div> -<br> -<div>It must have taken a good deal of self-control on the part of the -President, in possession of all these facts, to keep them quietly to -himself for more than a month from the time of Judge Black's retirement -from his case, while his enemies were pointing the finger of a supposed -triumphant scorn at him as being unworthy to have so honest a man as -Judge Black among his counsel, and then to allow them to be given out -only under provocation from the managers of the impeachment, taunting -him with his treatment of Judge Black, and with Judge Black's -withdrawal from his case.</div> -<br> -<a name="side136"></a> -<div>But to return to the President's answer to the charges against him. -Disregarding again legal verbiage and order, the President answered - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The contents of the<br> -President's answer.</b></small> -</div> - -substantially that Stanton's case was not affected by the -Tenure-of-Office Act, and that he held his office, according to the -Constitution and laws of the United States, and the wording of his -commission, at the pleasure of the President; that even if Stanton's -case were covered by the Act, the President was within his right and -was not thereby committing any crime or misdemeanor at all, to so act -as to make up an issue <span class="pagenum"><a name="page179"><small><small>[p. 179]</small></small></a></span> -before the Supreme Court of the United -States, whereby the constitutionality of the Act might be tested; that -the authority given to General Thomas to act as Secretary of War <i>ad -interim</i> was not an appointment nor an attempt to make an appointment, -but was only a designation of a person to act temporarily until an -appointment could be made by and with the consent of the Senate, a -thing which the President was empowered to do by the Act of February -13th, 1795, still in force; that he had not entered into any conspiracy -with Thomas or anybody else to force Stanton out of the War Office, or -to seize the property and papers of the United States in the War -Office, that he could not in fact do so, since Stanton was not lawfully -in the War Office, and since the President of the United States was the -ultimate lawful custodian of the property and papers of the United -States in the War Office, but that his communications with Thomas were -orders from the President to a subordinate officer, to whom the -President gave no authority to use force for their execution, and who -did not use any force in his attempts to execute them, the intention of -the President only being, if his authority should be resisted by Mr. -Stanton, to create an issue before the Supreme Court of the United -States, and secure thereby a judicial determination of the rights and -powers of the parties concerned, and not to do anything unlawful; that -he had never undertaken to induce General Emory to take his orders -immediately from himself in violation of the Act of March 2d, 1867, -which provided that all of the military orders and instructions issuing -from the President and the Secretary of War should pass through the -hands of the General of the Army, but that he had only expressed to -General Emory, as he had to Congress, his conviction that the Act was -in violation of the Constitution, which latter -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page180"><small><small>[p. 180]</small></small></a></span>conferred upon the -President the Commandership-in-chief of the army and the navy; and -finally, that his speeches were simply the expression of his opinions -as a free citizen of the Republic, which right was guaranteed to him -and to every other citizen by the Constitution of the country, and -could not be made out in any way to have any of the qualities of a -crime or a misdemeanor, and that his declaration that the Thirty-ninth -Congress was a Congress of only a part of the "States" was intended by -him in no other sense than that of an assertion that ten "States" of -the Union were not represented in it, all of which ought to be so -represented when they should send loyal men to take seats therein, and -that he had never intended by this declaration to deny the validity of -the acts of the Congress or its power to originate and adopt an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States.</div> -<br> -<div>After the filing of this answer, the counsel of the President asked the -Court of Impeachment for thirty days' time after the replication of the -House of Representatives to this answer should be filed for the -preparation of the President's case. But the managers on the part of -the House again very ungenerously opposed giving them any time at all -for this purpose. The debate over this point lasted until after the -replication of the House was filed on the following day, that is on the -24th of March. The Court of Impeachment then decided to give them until -March 30th, and ordered the trial to proceed on that day.</div> -<br> -<a name="side137"></a> -<div>The replication filed by the House of Representatives, on the 26th, was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The replication of<br> -the House to the<br> -President's answer.</b></small> -</div> - -an exception to the answer of the President as insufficient, a denial -of all the averments of the answer, a declaration of the guilt of the -President of the high crimes and misdemeanors charged, and an offer to -prove the same.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page181"><small><small>[p. 181]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side138"></a> -<div>On the 30th, the trial opened with the fierce, not to say brutal, -attack of Mr. Butler on the President. During the entire course of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The trial.<br><br> -Conduct of<br> -the managers.</b></small> -</div> - -trial, from the 30th of March until the 16th of May, the managers -followed a line of conduct which no impartial student of this day can -fail to condemn, and which, even in that time of hostile passion -against the President, lost to them a large measure of popular favor. -They tried to prevail upon the Court of Impeachment to regard itself as -a political body instead of a court, to renounce all limitations upon -its powers, and to accept common rumors against the President as good -evidence of his guilt. On the other hand, they objected to the -introduction of evidence by the President to prove the purpose of his -acts, and to show the advice upon which he had proceeded in their -commission. They succeeded in inducing the Court of Impeachment to -refuse to hear the President's evidence upon these points, although the -Chief Justice had ruled in favor of its reception. There is no doubt -that their cause was greatly weakened in the public esteem by this -manifestation of partisanship on the part of the court.</div> -<br> -<a name="side139"></a> -<div>The evidence in the case showed no conspiracy with Thomas to do -anything, and no orders to him to use any force in what he was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The evidence<br> -in the case.</b></small> -</div> - -authorized to do, and no attempt to induce General Emory to violate any -law or any orders received from or through the General of the Army or -any other legal authority. The case, thus, rested chiefly upon the -question as to whether the President had violated the Tenure-of-Office -Act; and the transactions of the President in regard to this subject -were matters of record.</div> -<br> -<a name="side140"></a> -<div>When one, at this lapse of time from the events, peruses the calm, -dignified, convincing and masterful arguments of the President's -counsel, and compares <span class="pagenum"><a name="page182"><small><small>[p. 182]</small></small></a></span> -them with the passionate, partisan - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The argument.</b></small> -</div> - -harangues of the managers, it is very difficult to understand how the -latter could have made any serious impression at all. There was only a -single point upon the law seemingly involved in the case in regard to -which they held the better reason. That was the claim on their part -that the President had no right to violate an act of Congress for the -purpose of testing its validity before the United States courts, or for -any other purpose. They argued with much force that to allow the -President the power to violate an act of Congress, or to omit to -execute an act of Congress, in order to make up an issue before the -courts upon the question of its constitutionality, would be virtually -to attribute to the President the once hated royal power of suspending -the law at the pleasure of the Executive. They contended that the veto -power was placed in the hands of the President for the purpose of -allowing him to be heard at the proper time, and to act at the proper -time, in regard to the passage of any law, and that no other power was -given him in relation to the subject; that after he had exhausted this -power, he was bound to execute the legislation of Congress, and could -not suspend it or violate it for any purpose whatsoever; and that the -constitutionality of any of the acts of Congress could be raised before -the courts only by persons not charged with the execution of the law -and having such interests affected by the act in question as would -warrant a judicial procedure.</div> -<br> -<div>Judge Curtis was so influenced by the consideration that to claim such -a power for the President would give him a double veto upon all of the -acts of Congress, a veto when acting as a part of the legislature in -the enactment of law, and then a purely executive veto which could be -overcome only by an adverse judicial decision, that he expressed his -contention on the subject in very <span class="pagenum"><a name="page183"><small><small>[p. 183]</small></small></a></span> -cautious language. He declared -that the President claimed no such general power as that, but he said -"when a question arises whether a particular law has cut off a power -confided to him by the people through the Constitution, and he alone -can raise that question, and he alone can cause a judicial decision to -come between the two branches of the Government to say which of them is -right, and after due deliberation, with the advice of those who are his -proper advisers, he settles down firmly upon the opinion that such is -the character of the law, it remains to be decided by you, Senators, -whether there is any violation of his duty when he takes the needful -steps to raise that question and have it peacefully decided."</div> -<br> -<div>The great lawyer refused thus to commit himself upon this fundamental -question of constitutional law. And well he might, for to recognize any -such power in the President would be to enable him to rule with such -arbitrariness as to upset the principles and practices of all free -government. The President can constitutionally defend his prerogatives -with the veto power, a power which nothing short of a two-thirds -majority of both Houses of Congress can overcome, and he has no other -power of defence confided to him by the Constitution. He must execute -the laws passed over his veto upon matters which in his opinion touch -his executive prerogatives, just the same as upon all other matters, -and if persons not connected with the administration of the laws do not -call such measures in question before the courts, the remedies provided -by the Constitution for the people of the United States are either the -election of members of Congress who will repeal the enactments, or else -the amendment of the Constitution so as to repeal them. It was, -however, a question whether, in showing the sole purpose of making an -issue before the courts, the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page184"><small><small>[p. 184]</small></small></a></span> -President would not clear himself of -any criminal intent. Happily his case did not require this, as was -demonstrated by his counsel and by Senators Trumbull and Fessenden in -their opinions.</div> -<br> -<a name="side141"></a> -<div>The law governing the President's case was perfectly clear to anyone -who could divest himself of political prejudice and of personal - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The law in<br> -the case.</b></small> -</div> - -hostility. It was briefly this. By an Act of the First Congress, of the -date of August 7th, 1789, Congress interpreted the Constitution as -giving the President the power to remove any officer of the United -States, except judges of the United States courts, at his discretion, -as an incident of his sole executive responsibility, and in an especial -sense recognized this constitutional power as belonging to the -President in the case of the heads of the governmental departments, the -members of the Cabinet, as they afterwards came to be called, since -these persons stood, and must stand, in a peculiarly confidential -relation to the President, as his official advisers. This -interpretation of the Constitution as to the President's power of -removal and the practice built upon it remained untouched by the -Congress until the 2d of March, 1867, when, as we have seen, Congress -enacted, "that every person holding any civil office to which he has -been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and -every person who shall be hereafter appointed to any such office, and -shall become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to -hold such office until a successor shall have been in like manner -appointed and duly qualified, except as herein otherwise provided: -Provided, That the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of -the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-General, and the -Attorney-General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during -the term of the President by whom they may have been -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page185"><small><small>[p. 185]</small></small></a></span>appointed, -and one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and -consent of the Senate."</div> -<br> -<div>It will be remembered that in the Tenure-of-Office bill as it -originated in the Senate the members of the Cabinet were entirely -excepted from its operation; that the House in passing the bill -included them; that the Senate would not agree to their inclusion; that -the bill was then sent to a conference committee; that this committee -invented the compromise contained in the proviso; that this proviso was -understood to give to each President the power to choose his own -Cabinet officers once during his term, and therefore to remove any -Cabinet officer not originally appointed by him, but holding under a -commission from a former President, and remaining in office only by the -sufferance of the existing President; that this was especially the true -meaning of the proviso in regard to those Cabinet officers then in -office, but who had been appointed and commissioned by Mr. Lincoln -during his first term to hold during the pleasure of the President; and -that it was upon this explanation of the meaning of the proviso that -the Senate voted the resolution of the conference committee.</div> -<br> -<div>From all this it is entirely clear that the President had the legal -power to remove Mr. Stanton, no matter whether the Tenure-of-Office Act -was constitutional or not, simply because his case was excepted by the -proviso in the first article in the Act from the operation of the Act, -and was left to the operation of the laws in existence at the time the -Act was passed. There is little question now that that Act was not in -accordance with a fair interpretation of the Constitution, but it was -not at all necessary to hold that view in order to clear the President -of the accusation of having violated the Constitution and the laws of -the land.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page186"><small><small>[p. 186]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The law in reference to the <i>ad interim</i> appointment, or -designation, of General Thomas was equally plain to the impartial eye. -The Constitution provides only for vacancies that may happen during the -recess of the Senate, and empowers the President to fill all such by -granting commissions which shall expire at the end of its next session. -By an act of May 8th, 1792, Congress empowered the President, in case -of the death, sickness, or absence from the seat of government, of the -Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of -War, whether these events should occur during a session, or a recess, -of the Senate, "to authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, -to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a successor -be appointed, or until such absence or inability by sickness should cease."</div> -<br> -<div>Another act of Congress of February 13th, 1795, empowered the -President, in case of vacancy from any cause in the offices of -Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of War, -happening either during a recess or a session of the Senate, "to -authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the -duties of the said respective offices until a successor be appointed or -such vacancy be filled," provided, however, that no one vacancy should -be supplied in that manner for a longer time than six months.</div> -<br> -<div>It will be seen that neither of these statutes provided for the -temporary filling of vacancies in any of the Departments, except those -of State, the Treasury, and War. In practice, however, the Presidents -have followed the analogies of the law of 1795, when it became -necessary, in their opinion, to make a temporary designation in the -other Departments. On the 22d of September, 1862, President Lincoln -appointed J. B. L. Skinner Postmaster-General <i>ad interim</i>. It was Mr. -Lincoln himself <span class="pagenum"><a name="page187"><small><small>[p. 187]</small></small></a></span> -who called the attention of Congress to the fact -that he had no literal legal authority for this, and who on January 2d, -1863, asked Congress to extend the Act of May 8th, 1792, so as to cover -the cases of the other Departments, and empower the President to make -<i>ad interim</i> appointments to fill vacancies in these Departments -happening on account of death, sickness, or absence from the seat of -government. Why the President did not ask for the extension of the Act -of February 13th, 1795, which covered all vacancies happening from -whatever cause, instead of the Act of 1792, which covered those only -which might happen from death, sickness, or absence from the seat of -government, we do not know. We only know that in January, 1863, both -the President and Congress were greatly pressed by the exigencies of -the war, and did things generally in haste and without much -consideration. In answer to the President's suggestion, Congress passed -the Act of February 20th, 1863, extending the Act of 1792 so as to -cover all the executive Departments in the cases of vacancy provided -for in that Act, viz., by cause of death, sickness, or absence from the -seat of Government—adding resignation—and limiting the President, -however, in these appointments to persons already officers in one or -the other of the Departments, and providing that no one vacancy should -be so supplied for a longer period than six months. The vacancies which -might happen from expiration of term or by removal were not at all -provided for by the Act of 1863; and as the Act of 1863 did not -expressly repeal the Act of 1795, but only declared that "all acts and -parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed," the Act -of 1795 remained in force as to all vacancies caused by expiration of -term or by removal, whether happening during a recess or a session of -the Senate.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page188"><small><small>[p. 188]</small></small></a></span> -<div>Neither did the Tenure-of-Office Act of 1867 repeal the Act of -1795 in regard to first vacancies happening among the Secretaries of -Departments by other causes than those provided for in the Act of 1863, -either expressly or by implication, since these first vacancies were -expressly excepted from the operation of the Act of 1867, by the -proviso attached to the first article. And even if it should be held -that the Act of 1867 did repeal that of 1795 entirely, yet, in that it -did not forbid the President to make <i>ad interim</i> appointments in the -cases where a Secretary's term expired, or a Secretary was lawfully -removed by him, the President's designation of Thomas could not be -considered as a violation of law but only as an act without warrant of -law, the very kind of an act committed by Mr. Lincoln in his -appointment of Skinner as Postmaster-General <i>ad interim</i> in 1862, and -committed by other Presidents in other cases.</div> -<br> -<div>The managers made much of the argument that the President had -recognized the validity of the Tenure-of-Office Act in suspending -Stanton the preceding August, and reporting his suspension to the -Senate, and in notifying the Secretary of the Treasury of the -suspension, as provided in the Act, and asserted that he was therefore -estopped from denying its constitutionality. But while it can be easily -shown that these acts of the President did not at all militate against -his claim that other parts of the statute were unconstitutional, still -this was not at all necessary to the President's defence, under the -view here advanced of the relations between the Acts of 1867, 1863, and -1795. It made no difference, under this view, whether the Act of 1867 -was, or was not, constitutional and valid. In either case the President -had violated no law, either constitutional or statutory.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page189"><small><small>[p. 189]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side142"></a> -<div>The fact is that Mr. Stanton and those who abetted him were the -violators of law. Every official act which he committed after receiving - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Stanton's<br> -violation of law.</b></small> -</div> - -the notification from the President of his removal, on the 21st of -February, was a usurpation of governmental powers by a private citizen, -and the gathering of armed men about him with the purpose of sustaining -him in holding on to the War Office after his dismissal by the -President was treason. It is a question whether his official acts after -the 13th of January and down to February 21st were not also -usurpations. That depends upon whether the Tenure-of-Office Act was, or -was not, constitutional, and whether, if it were, the right of a member -of the Cabinet, suspended from office, to resume the functions of the -office, after disapproval of the suspension by the Senate, was made, by -the Act, to apply to such members of the Cabinet as were excepted from -the operation of the first article of the Act by the proviso to that -article. The best Republican lawyers in the Senate, Trumbull, -Fessenden, Grimes and Doolittle, took the view of the law in the -President's case as here explained. They, with one other Republican, -Van Winkle of West Virginia, filed, after the vote on impeachment, -opinions in the case expressing substantially this view.</div> -<br> -<a name="side143"></a> -<div>It is now known that during the trial some of these men expressed to -one of the President's counsel the belief that Mr. Johnson could not be - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The nomination of<br> -General Schofield to<br> -be Secretary of War.</b></small> -</div> - -convicted upon the law and evidence in the case, and that should the -Senate vote to remove him, "it would be done wholly from supposed party -necessity," and from fear of what the President might do in case he -were acquitted, and that they suggested to this member of the -President's counsel the wisdom of the President's sending to the -Senate, at that <span class="pagenum"><a name="page190"><small><small>[p. 190]</small></small></a></span> -juncture, a nomination for the Secretaryship of -War, which would allay all reasonable apprehension that the President -would, if acquitted, use the War Department for the accomplishment of -any arbitrary purposes, and that they mentioned General Schofield as a -man who would be satisfactory. These communications were made about the -20th of April. The President was immediately informed of them, as was -General Schofield, and, on April 24th, the President nominated General -Schofield to the Senate to be Secretary of War. Whether this move on -the part of the President influenced any Senator to vote for acquittal -is unknown. It certainly served to allay popular apprehension, if the -testimony of the newspapers of the day may be taken on that point.</div> -<br> -<a name="side144"></a> -<div>Fifty-four Senators from the twenty-seven "States" represented -constituted the membership of the Court of Impeachment under the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The vote upon<br> -impeachment.</b></small> -</div> - -presidency of the Chief Justice. The President must, therefore, have -nineteen votes in order to escape conviction. Of these fifty-four, only -eight were Democrats. It was practically certain that all of these -would vote for acquittal. He needed, therefore, at least eleven -Republican votes in his favor. The closing of the case by the -prosecution occurred on the 6th of May, and, on the 7th, the court -passed the resolution to take the vote of its members upon the articles -of impeachment on the 12th. On that day Mr. Chandler of Michigan -informed the court that his colleague, Mr. Howard, was too ill to -appear, and asked the court to adjourn to the 16th, in order to give -Mr. Howard the opportunity to be present. The court agreed to this -request. On the 16th, with all the members present, the voting began. -The last article, the eleventh, was, by an order of the court, taken -first, and the Chief Justice <span class="pagenum"><a name="page191"><small><small>[p. 191]</small></small></a></span> -put the question to each Senator: -"Mr. Senator—how say you? Is the respondent Andrew Johnson, President -of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor, as -charged in this article?" Thirty-five votes were cast in the -affirmative, and nineteen in the negative. So soon as it was known that -the President had been acquitted upon this article, a motion was made -by Mr. Williams of Oregon to adjourn the court to the 26th. After the -announcement of the vote by the Chief Justice, this motion was carried -and the court adjourned to the 26th. On that day it reassembled and -proceeded to vote upon the second article and then on the third, with -the same result as upon the eleventh. Whereupon Mr. Williams moved that -the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment adjourn <i>sine die</i>, and -the motion was carried by a vote of 34 to 16, 4 not voting. The -Republicans who voted "not guilty" were Messrs. Dixon of Connecticut, -Doolittle of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Fowler of Tennessee, Grimes -of Iowa, Henderson of Missouri, Norton of Minnesota, Patterson of -Tennessee, Ross of Kansas, Trumbull of Illinois, and Van Winkle of West -Virginia. The country and the Republican party itself were placed under -the deepest obligation to these men for their courage and independent -action. They saved the country from the direst results of the great -political scandal of the age, and they saved the Republican party from -the commission of a deed which would have destroyed its hold upon the people.</div> -<br> -<a name="side145"></a> -<div>The truth of the whole matter is that, while Mr. Johnson was an unfit -person to be President of the United States—which may be also affirmed - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The truth of<br> -the matter.</b></small> -</div> - -of some others who have occupied the high place—he was utterly and -entirely guiltless of the commission of any crime or misdemeanor. He -was <span class="pagenum"><a name="page192"><small><small>[p. 192]</small></small></a></span> -low-born and low-bred, violent in temper, obstinate, coarse, -vindictive, and lacking in the sense of propriety, but he was not -behind any of his accusers in patriotism and loyalty to the country, -and in his willingness to sacrifice every personal advantage for the -maintenance of the Union and the preservation of the Government. In -fact, most of them were pygmies in these qualities beside him. It is -true that he differed with them somewhat in his conception of what -measures were for the welfare of the country and what not, but the -sequel has shown that he was nearer right than they in this respect.</div> -<br> -<a name="side146"></a> -<div>So soon as the Court of Impeachment pronounced its acquittal of the -President, Mr. Stanton addressed to the President a letter announcing - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The abdication of Stanton.</b></small> -</div> - -his relinquishment of the War Department, and his delivery of the -papers and properties thereof to General Townsend, subject to the -President's directions.</div> -<br> -<a name="side147"></a> -<div>The Senate now confirmed the nomination of General Schofield to be -Secretary of War. The General at once accepted the appointment and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Schofield's confirmation<br> -as Secretary of War and<br> -his acceptance of the office.</b></small> -</div> - -entered upon the duties of his office, and administered these duties to -the end of his term, according to his own testimony, in perfect harmony -with the President.</div> -<br> -<div>Some of Stanton's friends have tried to make out that but for Stanton's -resistance and the impeachment, and its nearness to success, Johnson -would have appointed a tool of his own to the War Office and have rode -rough-shod over the laws of the land, and that he was frightened out of -this purpose, and frightened into an implied agreement with certain -Senators and General Schofield that the Reconstruction laws should be -executed as Stanton understood them, and not as the President -understood them. There is little ground for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page193"><small><small>[p. 193]</small></small></a></span>any such assumptions. -There is certainly none in the character of the men whom the President -asked to take the War Office, Grant, Sherman and Ewing; and it must be -remembered that through Mr. Stanbery, in the case of Mississippi vs. -Johnson, he had long before announced to the Southerners that his -opposition to the Reconstruction Acts ceased with his unsuccessful veto -of them, and that he should execute them both in letter and in spirit. -It was Republican Senators who suggested to the President's counsel the -nomination of General Schofield, a man entirely friendly with the -President and acceptable to him. Neither the President nor the -President's counsel approached any Senator with the proposition. It was -the Republican Senators who were frightened, rather than the President -or his counsel. These Senators knew that the law and the evidence were -with the President, and that the Republican party was on trial, as much -so as the President; and they knew that, if the Republican Senate -should, upon the showing made by the President's counsel of the law and -the evidence in the case, convict the President and remove him from -office, the party would stand arraigned before the people for having -destroyed the constitutional balance between the executive and the -legislature in order to gain a partisan end. They recognized the -dilemma into which the hot-headed leaders of the party in the House of -Representatives had, by their hasty impeachment procedure, brought the -party, and they were very much relieved to secure any understanding -with the President's counsel whereby the chance of averting the -catastrophe to the party, as well as to the country, might be -increased. The suspicion that Mr. Stanton was playing his part for the -purpose of securing the Republican nomination for the presidency in -1868, rather than from any motives of disinterested -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page194"><small><small>[p. 194]</small></small></a></span>patriotism, -has about as little foundation as has the theory of salutary terror, -produced by the impeachment, controlling the President's subsequent -actions against his own preconceived plans and purposes. Both of these -speculations are no valid parts of the history of this great -transaction. What we have as certain facts are that the judgment was an -acquittal, that it was rendered in accordance with law and evidence, -and that it preserved the constitutional balance between the executive -and the legislature in the governmental system of the country; and that -for this the judgment of history coincides with the judgment of the court.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap10"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page195"><small><small>[p. 195]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER X</h3> -<center>RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side148">The McCardle -Case</a>—<a href="#side149">The Congressional Acts Admitting the Senators- and -Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed "States" to Seats in -Congress</a>—<a href="#side150">The Veto of these Bills by the -President</a>—<a href="#side151">The Vetoes -Overridden</a>—<a href="#side152">Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the -President's Proclamations Declaring Reconstruction Completed</a>—<a href="#side153">Seward's -Proclamation Declaring the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by -the Required Number of "States"</a>—<a href="#side154">The Questions Suggested by Mr. -Seward's First Proclamation</a>—<a href="#side155">The Concurrent Resolution of Congress upon -these Questions</a>—<a href="#side156">The Correct -Procedure</a>—<a href="#side157">The National Conventions of -1868</a>—<a href="#side158">Platform and Nominees of the Republican -Party</a>—<a href="#side159">Democratic -Platform and Nominees</a>—<a href="#side160">The Election and the -Electoral Vote</a>—<a href="#side161">The Conduct -of the President during the Campaign</a>—<a href="#side162">Congress and the -President</a>—<a href="#side163">The -President's Last Annual Message</a>—<a href="#side164">The President's Amnesty Proclamation -of December 25th, 1868</a>—<a href="#side165">The President's Veto of the Bill in Regard to -the Colored Schools in the District of Columbia</a>—<a href="#side166">The Fifteenth -Amendment</a>—<a href="#side167">Criticism of the Republican -View</a>—<a href="#side168">Johnson's Retirement from -the Presidency</a>—<a href="#side169">The President and the Republican Party</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side148"></a> -<div>During the period of the impeachment trial, a case was in progress -before the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its final - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The McCardle case.</b></small> -</div> - -settlement was destined to deprive the President of any hope that a -judicial decision in regard to the constitutionality of the -Reconstruction Acts could ever be attained. We have seen that in the -cases of Mississippi vs. Johnson and of Georgia vs. Stanton the -President had resisted the jurisdiction of the Court when -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page196"><small><small>[p. 196]</small></small></a></span>aimed -directly at the Executive and his immediate agents. This was his duty, -and he performed it sincerely and successfully. But it is not to be -inferred from this that he would not have welcomed a judicial decision -from the Supreme Court of the United States pronouncing these Acts null -and void, if it could have been reached through the forms of a proper -case, one not involving the executive authority at all.</div> -<br> -<div>Such a case had appeared in this Court in the winter term of 1867-68, -and the argument as to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the decision -of this point in the affirmative, had both been made before the -impeachment trial began. One William H. McCardle, arrested and held by -the military authorities in Mississippi for trial before a military -commission on charge of having published in a newspaper, of which he -was editor, libellous and incendiary articles, petitioned the Circuit -Court of the United States for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ was -issued, and return was made by the military commander, General A. C. -Gillem, admitting the arrest and detention of McCardle, but contending -that these acts were lawful. The Circuit Court, on the 25th of -November, 1867, remanded McCardle, who had been held in custody between -the time of the return to the writ and this date by the United States -marshal, to the custody of General Gillem. McCardle then appealed from -this judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United -States. Upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, made by the counsel of the -military authorities, this Court decided that under the statute of -February 5th, 1867, the Supreme Court of the United States could hear -the appeal, and denied the motion to dismiss it.</div> -<br> -<div>The question was now before the Supreme Court upon its merits, and it -involved the constitutionality <span class="pagenum"><a name="page197"><small><small>[p. 197]</small></small></a></span> -of the Reconstruction Acts. It was -argued very ably, and the part of the Reconstruction Acts putting the -districts of the South under martial law two years after the Civil War -had ended, and when the civil authority of the United States was -everywhere recognized and enforced, was pretty clearly shown to have -been a very serious stretching of its powers by Congress, if not a -distinct usurpation. The Republicans in Congress were greatly -frightened, and while the case was under advisement in the Court, they -hastened to repeal the Act of February 5th, 1867, and to make the -repeal apply to appeals already taken under that Act, as well as to -such as might be attempted in the future. The repealing bill was vetoed -by the President on the 25th of March, but it was immediately repassed -by the majority necessary to override the veto, repassed without the -slightest regard to the President's very sound and convincing -objections. This Act of the 27th of March was intended to prevent any -decision upon the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, and did -do so most effectively, but it was an abominable subterfuge on the part -of Congress and a shameful abuse of its powers.</div> -<br> -<div>As will be remembered, seven of the ten Southern communities, viz., -North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, -and Arkansas, had already before the close of the impeachment trial -ratified the "State" constitutions framed for them by the "carpet-bag, -scalawag, negro conventions" held in each for them, had elected "State" -officers and legislators, and the legislature of one of them, Arkansas, -had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States, as the legislature of each of them was required to -do before it could be admitted to representation in Congress.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page198"><small><small>[p. 198]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side149"></a> -<div>Congress now looked upon the work of its hands and pronounced it good, -and proceeded to pass the acts, necessary in its conceit, to admit - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Congressional Acts<br> -admitting the Senators-<br> -and Representatives-elect<br> -from the reconstructed<br> -"States" to seats in Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -these communities to representation in the legislative houses of the -Nation. First came the Act in reference to Arkansas, of the 22d of -June, 1868, since, as has been just said, the new legislature of -Arkansas had already ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. It -provided "that the State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to -representation in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, on the -following fundamental condition: That the constitution of Arkansas -shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen, or -class of citizens, of the United States of the right to vote who are -entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as a -punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof -they shall have been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to -all the inhabitants of said State: Provided that any alteration of said -constitution prospective in its effect may be made in regard to the -time and place of residence of voters."</div> -<br> -<div>Three days later, that is on the 25th, Congress provided in a single -act for the admission of the Senators and Representatives from the -other six reconstructed "States" to the national legislature in the -following language: "<i>Be it enacted, &c.</i>, That each of the States of -North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and -Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress -as a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have -duly ratified the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as Article XIV., upon -the following fundamental <span class="pagenum"><a name="page199"><small><small>[p. 199]</small></small></a></span> -conditions: That the constitution of -neither of said States shall ever be so amended or changed as to -deprive any citizen, or class of citizens, of the United States of the -right to vote in said State who are entitled to vote by the -constitution thereof, herein recognized, except as a punishment for -such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have -been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the -inhabitants of said State: <i>Provided</i>, that any alteration of said -constitutions may be made with regard to the time and place of -residence of voters." It was also further provided that the legislature -of Georgia should, by solemn public act, declare its assent to the -fundamental condition that the article of the new constitution of -Georgia prohibiting the courts within the "State" from entertaining any -suit against any resident of the "State" for any debt existing prior to -June 1st, 1865, and prohibiting the judicial and ministerial officers -of the "State" from executing any process in reference to such debts, -should be considered and treated as null and void.</div> -<br> -<a name="side150"></a> -<div>The President had placed his veto on both of these bills. The veto of -the Arkansas bill bears the date of June 20th, and that of the other - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The veto of<br> -these bills by<br> -the President.</b></small> -</div> - -bill bears the date of June 25th. There are parts of the President's -argument which are entirely convincing to any candid mind at the -present day. He pointed out that the fundamental condition imposed by -Congress, in all these cases, upon the admission of Senators and -Representatives to Congress, viz., that no change should ever be made -in the suffrage qualifications provided in these "State" constitutions -whereby any citizen or class of citizens of the United States having -the right to vote under these constitutions should be deprived of such -right, was an assumption of power by Congress to regulate a subject, -within the "States," which by the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page200"><small><small>[p. 200]</small></small></a></span> -existing Constitution of the -United States belonged exclusively to the "States," to each "State" for itself.</div> -<br> -<div>There can be no question that the President was entirely correct in -this contention. The Fifteenth Amendment was as yet no part of the -Constitution. It had not even been proposed by Congress to the -"States." It is very questionable whether a majority in Congress could -have been found, at that time, in favor of making such a proposition, -much less the required extraordinary majority of two-thirds. And until -the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified as a part of the Constitution -of the United States, Congress had no power to exact such a concession, -or anything like it, from any "State" as the price of the admission of -representatives from it to the Houses of the National Legislature. And -even since the Fifteenth Amendment has become a part of the -Constitution, the Government of the United States cannot prohibit such -changes in a "State" constitution, unless the deprivation of suffrage -is made on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.</div> -<br> -<div>The President also called attention to the fact that no way was -provided in the bills whereby the "States" should signify their -acceptance of this "fundamental condition" of admission to -representation in Congress, and that no penalty was prescribed for a -violation of the condition. Did Congress mean that, in case of any -violation of its "fundamental condition," it would throw the "State" -back under martial law, and proceed to reconstruct anew? That was a -question which might well be asked in view of what Congress had already -done; and it was a question which was not calculated to allay -uneasiness in the minds of the people in the Southern communities.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page201"><small><small>[p. 201]</small></small></a></span> -<div>Finally, in the veto of the Arkansas bill, the President -expressed his very serious doubts whether the new "State" constitution -had been ratified by the electorate created by the Acts of Congress for -that purpose, since a section in that constitution prescribed that no -person would be allowed to vote upon the ratification of the -constitution who had not previously taken an oath to the effect "that -he accepted the doctrine of the civil and political equality of all -men, and agreed not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on -account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or -civil right, privilege or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men," -thus adding a new qualification for registration and voting to those -prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. There is no question -that the President was right about this, too. And there is no question -that this new qualification was entirely null and void, in so far as it -applied to voting upon, and registering to vote upon, the ratification -of the constitution itself, unless we ascribe constituent power to the -convention which framed the constitution, instead of the power of -initiation only. We know that no constitutional convention has, or then -had, any such powers in our system. It was nothing more or less than a -palpable usurpation of constituent power when the convention in -Arkansas presumed to add this qualification to those prescribed by -Congress for voting upon the ratification of the constitution itself. -Of course it would have been lawful and regular for the "State" -constitution to make this additional requirement for voting in all -future elections, after the constitution prescribing it should have -been adopted by the electorate created by the Congressional Acts, -although the requirement itself would have been unreasonable and -oppressive. But for the convention, a mere proposing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page202"><small><small>[p. 202]</small></small></a></span>body, to -ordain this new qualification for voting on the question of the -adoption of the constitution itself was a political outrage of the -first order.</div> -<br> -<a name="side151"></a> -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The vetoes<br> -overridden.</b></small> -</div> - -<div>Congress was not, however, in a state of mind to listen to any -suggestions from the President, no matter how correct and important -they might be. Both Houses promptly, almost mockingly, passed the two -bills over the President's vetoes.</div> -<br> -<a name="side152"></a> -<div>Such of the legislatures created under the new "State" constitutions as -were not already in session were quickly summoned to assemble, and by - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification of the<br> -Fourteenth Amendment<br> -and the President's<br> -proclamations declaring<br> -Reconstruction completed.</b></small> -</div> - -July 21st all of them had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to -the Constitution of the United States, and the legislature of Georgia had -also pledged by solemn act that the repudiation article of the new -constitution should never be enforced. By July 27th the President had -issued his several proclamations, as required by the Act of June 25th, -announcing the ratification of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by -these legislatures, and consequently the admission of these "States" to -representation in Congress; and so far as the seven "States" of -Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida and -Louisiana were concerned the work of reconstruction was now completed. -Virginia, Mississippi and Texas still remained under martial law.</div> -<br> -<a name="side153"></a> -<div>On the 28th day of July, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, issued his - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Seward's proclamation<br> -declaring the ratification<br> -of the Fourteenth<br> -Amendment by the required<br> -number of "States."</b></small> -</div> - -proclamation, declaring the ratification of the proposed Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by the legislatures -of thirty States of the Union, and its consequent validity as a part of -the Constitution of the United States.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page203"><small><small>[p. 203]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side154"></a> -<div>Eight days before this proclamation, that is on the 20th, Mr. Seward -had issued a proclamation declaring that the legislatures of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The questions<br> -suggested by<br> -Mr. Seward's<br> -first proclamation.</b></small> -</div> - -twenty-three States, viz., of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Tennessee, -New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, -Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Minnesota, Rhode Island, -Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Iowa, -had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and that six -"newly-constituted and newly-established bodies avowing themselves to -be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of -Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and -Alabama" had also ratified it; that the legislatures of Ohio and New -Jersey had subsequently passed resolutions withdrawing their -ratification of the Amendment; and that, if these latter resolutions of -the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey should be disregarded, the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted by the legislatures of -twenty-nine of the thirty-seven "States" of the Union and had thus -become a valid part of the Constitution of the United States.</div> -<br> -<div>Besides the question expressed in this Proclamation, Mr. Seward -indicates by his language a further question, viz., whether the six -"newly-constituted and newly-established bodies, avowing themselves to -be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of -Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and -Alabama" were genuine "State" legislatures. They were the legislatures -established under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, but as Congress -had refused to recognize the "States" for whom these bodies acted as -entitled to representation in Congress, that is as "States" having the -rights of "States" of the Union, until -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page204"><small><small>[p. 204]</small></small></a></span>after these bodies had -ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States, it was no wonder that so good a constitutional lawyer -and so logical a thinker as Mr. Seward had his doubts as to whether -these bodies were genuine "State" legislatures.</div> -<br> -<a name="side155"></a> -<div>In order to quiet these doubts, if possible, the two Houses of Congress -passed on the following day, July 21st, the following concurrent - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The concurrent<br> -resolution of<br> -Congress upon<br> -these questions.</b></small> -</div> - -resolution: "Whereas the legislatures of the States of Connecticut, -Tennessee, <i>New Jersey</i>, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, Kansas, -Missouri, Indiana, <i>Ohio</i>, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, -Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, -Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maine, Iowa, <i>Arkansas</i>, <i>Florida</i>, <i>North -Carolina</i>, <i>Alabama</i>, <i>South Carolina</i> and <i>Louisiana</i>, being -three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have -ratified the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the -Thirty-ninth Congress; therefore, Resolved by the Senate (the House of -Representatives concurring), That said Fourteenth Article is hereby -declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it -shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State." Upon the -basis of this resolution, which decided, in so far as Congress can -decide, that the consent of the legislature of a "State" to a proposed -amendment to the Constitution of the United States cannot be withdrawn -when once given, and that the "newly-constituted and newly-established -bodies, avowing themselves to be, and acting as, the legislatures, -respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, -Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama" were genuine "State" -legislatures qualified to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page205"><small><small>[p. 205]</small></small></a></span> -vote upon the ratification of a -proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Seward -issued his proclamation of the 28th of July, above recited. As the -Georgia Legislature ratified the proposed amendment on the 21st inst. -and also gave its pledge not to allow the repudiation article in its -constitution to be enforced, Mr. Seward included Georgia in this last -proclamation.</div> -<br> -<div>It will be seen that both Mr. Seward and Congress counted all of the -Southern communities which had ever been "States" as being "States," -making the whole number of "States" thirty-seven, and the number -necessary for ratification of the amendment twenty-eight. Upon this -basis of calculation two more than the necessary number had ratified at -the date of Mr. Seward's final proclamation. It will also be seen that -both Mr. Seward and Congress, that is that both the legislative and -executive departments of the Government, ignored the attempt of Ohio -and New Jersey to withdraw their consent to the amendment, and fixed -the precedent in the constitutional practice of the United States that -a "State" legislature cannot reconsider its ratification of an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States at any time. This -means, when scientifically appreciated, that the ratification of an -amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not an agreement -between the "States," and therefore becomes valid as to each only after -three-fourths of the "States," the constitutional number necessary to -make the proposed amendment a valid part of the Constitution, shall -have ratified it, but that ratification by a "State" legislature, and -<i>a fortiori</i> by a convention of the people within a "State," is only an -indirect vote of a part of the people of the United States upon a -question submitted to the suffrages of the whole people of the United -States. When, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page206"><small><small>[p. 206]</small></small></a></span> -therefore, this affirmative vote has been once -officially announced by the proper authorities within the "State" to -the proper authorities of the United States there is no further control -over it by the authorities within the "State."</div> -<br> -<a name="side156"></a> -<div>If, however, the votes of Ohio and New Jersey had not been counted in -the affirmative, there was still a three-fourths majority of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The correct<br> -procedure.</b></small> -</div> - -thirty-seven "States" in favor of ratification. And if the ten Southern -communities had been left out of the computation altogether, which -would have made the Union to consist, so far as that part of it erected -into "States" was concerned, of twenty-seven "States," there would -still have been more than a three-fourths majority in favor of -ratification, with or without Ohio and New Jersey. The correct -procedure, from a scientific point of view, would undoubtedly have been -to have computed the necessary majority upon the basis of twenty-seven -"States," to have included Ohio and New Jersey among the "States" whose -legislatures voted for ratification, and then to have admitted the ten -Southern communities as "States" under the Constitution of the United -States, <i>with the Fourteenth Amendment as an already established part -of it</i>, concerning which they had no more to say than they had in -regard to any other part of the Constitution. But, however that may be, -no objection can be made to the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment on -the ground of the majority by which it was ratified. In whatever way we -may compute the whole number of "States" and the majority voting in the -affirmative, the Amendment was lawfully ratified.</div> -<br> -<a name="side157"></a> -<div>During these movements in execution of the Reconstruction Acts, the -national party conventions for the nomination of candidates for the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The national<br> -conventions<br> -of 1868.</b></small> -</div> - -presidency and for the formation of platforms were held. That of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page207"><small><small>[p. 207]</small></small></a></span> -Republican party assembled first, on the twenty-first day of May -in Chicago, at the moment when its radical elements were filled with -rage and chagrin at the failure of the impeachment of the President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side158"></a> -<div>It made General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, its presiding -officer; adopted a platform, a large part of which was devoted to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Platform and nominees<br> -of the Republican party.</b></small> -</div> - -denunciation of the President, to the promise of bountiful pensions, -and to a twist of the British lion's tail on the subject of -expatriation; the main principles of which, however, were good faith in -the payment of the public debt with sound money, and equal suffrage by -Congressional law in the Southern communities; and nominated Grant and -Colfax for the presidency and the vice-presidency.</div> -<br> -<div>In pronouncing for the guaranty of negro suffrage at the South by -Congressional law, the platform attempted to steer clear of the -prejudices against negro suffrage at the North by a sort of proviso, -which read, "While the question of suffrage in all the loyal States -properly belongs to the people of those States." This was certainly -inconsistent, not to say hypocritical. Negro suffrage at the North -would have been a comparatively harmless thing on account of the -fewness of the negroes as compared with the whites in that section, and -on account of the superior average intelligence of the negroes of the -North when compared with that of those of the South. There was no sound -principle in this article of the platform. It was a mean, shuffling bit -of partisan politics. The party itself felt it to be so in the course -of the campaign, and came out finally for the settlement of the whole -question of negro suffrage upon the same basis for the whole country -and by means of a constitutional amendment.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page208"><small><small>[p. 208]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The nominees immediately accepted their nominations in -characteristic letters, that of General Grant being short, crisp, -modest and ending with the now famous sentence: "Let us have peace," -and that of Colfax being more lengthy and wordy and containing a -rhetorical defence of some of the more questionable parts of the platform.</div> -<br> -<a name="side159"></a> -<div>The Democratic convention assembled in New York on the 4th day of July. -It was confronted at the start with the Greenback heresy, and the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Democratic<br> -platform and<br> -nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -candidacy of the Greenback champion for the presidency, Mr. George H. -Pendleton of Ohio. This heresy was in a sentence the doctrine that all -the public debt of the United States not made expressly payable in coin -should be paid in United States paper, which Congress might order to be -stamped, issued, and made legal tender, to any amount it might please. -The shibboleth was, "the same currency for the bondholder and the -plough-holder." It had taken firm hold in Ohio, and was rapidly -spreading through the valley of the Mississippi. The Eastern Democrats, -however, looked upon it with disfavor, and were determined to defeat -the nomination of Mr. Pendleton. They were obliged, however, to accept -the platform, in so far as it related to this subject, as dictated by -their Western compatriots. The third plank in the platform read, "... -and where the obligations of the Government do not expressly state upon -their face, or the law under which they were issued does not provide, -that they shall be paid in coin, they ought in right and in justice to -be paid in the lawful money of the United States." The fifth plank also -read, "one currency for the Government and the people, the laborer and -the officeholder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the -bondholder." It is true that the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page209"><small><small>[p. 209]</small></small></a></span>platform did not expressly -pronounce in favor of an unlimited issue of paper money with which to -pay the bonds, but it was generally understood that this was what was -meant. The questions then of sound money and of the faithful discharge -of the public obligations were thus put in issue. The Democrats also -met squarely the Republican doctrine of Reconstruction. They demanded -the "immediate restoration of all the States to their rights in the -Union under the Constitution, and of civil government to the American -people," with "amnesty for all past political offences, and the -regulation of the election franchise in the States by their citizens." -And they denounced the Radical party, as they termed the Republicans, -"for its disregard of right, and the unparalleled oppression and -tyranny which have marked its career," declared the Reconstruction Acts -to be unconstitutional, revolutionary and void, and lauded President -Johnson for his unflinching resistance to "the aggressions of Congress -upon the constitutional rights of the States and the people."</div> -<br> -<div>There is no question that the platform of the Democrats, with its paper -money doctrine, and its hostility to Reconstruction and universal - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Weakness of<br> -the platform.</b></small> -</div> - -suffrage, was a shaky foundation for any party to attempt to stand upon -at that juncture. Not much conscience and not much sentiment could be -aroused with such tenets. Conscience and sentiment were much more -amenable to the appeals of the Republican platform upon these points. -Moreover, the tremendous popularity of the Republican candidates had to -be reckoned with. Where could the Democrats find a candidate who would -both match Grant in the popular affection and overbalance also the -weakness of the platform? The New Yorkers in the convention, led by -Seymour, Tilden, Schell and Kernan, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page210"><small><small>[p. 210]</small></small></a></span>had their man for this -emergency, but they dared not reveal at the outset their plan. They -were resolved to nominate Chief Justice Chase. They thought that -Chase's well-known devotion to the principles of universal suffrage and -his career as Secretary of the Treasury would satisfy the Eastern men -in regard to the platform, and that his attachment to the principles of -civil government versus militarism would, in some degree at least, -neutralize the popularity of the military hero. The delegates from -Ohio, Mr. Chase's own "State," suspected the purpose of the New -Yorkers, and were determined to foil it. If they could not get -Pendleton, they were determined not to have Chase. After the first six -ballots without result, Pendleton, however, leading, the New Yorkers -brought forward Hendricks of Indiana, in order to break down -Pendleton's vote. Having succeeded in this after some six more ballots, -the name of Chase was brought before the convention by a half vote from -California. The purpose was probably to feel of the convention. It was -highly successful. The announcement of the half vote was received with -enthusiastic applause. Masking themselves behind Hancock, who was at -that juncture in the lead, and Hendricks, the New Yorkers now prepared -to present Chase; but the Ohioans were too quick for them. They -succeeded in withdrawing Pendleton and presenting Seymour himself as -their candidate, before the New Yorkers knew what they were about. -Seymour, who was occupying the presidency of the convention, declared -from his seat that he could not accept, but the Ohioans stuck to their -nomination, and the New Yorkers had to assent. They were fairly caught -in their own net.</div> -<br> -<div>Seymour finally yielded, and the convention addressed itself to the -nomination of its candidate for the vice-presidency. The ex-Confederate - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -General William Preston of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page211"><small><small>[p. 211]</small></small></a></span> -Kentucky presented the name of the -noted Union General Francis P. Blair of Missouri for the place. The -nomination was seconded by the ex-Confederate General Wade Hampton of -South Carolina, and was made by acclamation. While General Blair was a -noted Union soldier of high ability and undoubted loyalty, he was a -fierce enemy of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, and was for this -reason very popular with the ex-Confederates. In an open letter to -Colonel J. O. Brodhead of St. Louis, written five days before the -assembly of the Democratic convention, he not only denounced the -Reconstruction Acts as unconstitutional, but advanced a method for -getting rid of them and their effects in case a Democratic President -should be elected. He proposed that the new President should "declare -these Acts null and void, compel the army to undo its usurpations at -the South, disperse the carpet-bag State governments, allow the white -people to reorganize their own governments, and elect Senators and -Representatives." He said, further, that the House of Representatives -would contain a majority of Democrats from the North, who would admit -the members elected to that body from the South to seats, and that the -House with the President would exert such a pressure on the Senate as -to cause the doors of that body to be opened to the members from the -Southern "States." When General Blair wrote this letter he was being -spoken of as a candidate for the presidency, and this letter was taken -as the declaration of what he would do if elected to the position of -Chief Magistrate of the nation. After his nomination for the -vice-presidency, in his speech and letter of acceptance, he announced -the chief issue in the contest to be the relief of the South from -martial law and negro domination. The ex-Confederates represented it -the same way at the South, and threw themselves into -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page212"><small><small>[p. 212]</small></small></a></span>the campaign -with great enthusiasm for Seymour and Blair.</div> -<br> -<div>On the other hand, the bland, politic and persuasive Seymour pursued a -much more moderate and conciliatory course, and when it became evident -that General Blair's violent expressions and revolutionary purposes -were ruining the Democratic prospects at the North, he went into the -campaign personally, and by his diplomatic manners and fine oratory -succeeded in stemming the tide which, running against the Democrats -from the moment when their platform was proclaimed, had been driven on -to a flood by General Blair's indiscretions, to put it very mildly, in -speech and conduct. But while some lost ground was regained, it was -evident that the hopes of the Democrats had been blasted.</div> -<br> -<a name="side160"></a> -<div>The electoral votes of thirty-four "States" were counted, Virginia, -Mississippi and Texas being still regarded by Congress as - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The election and<br> -the electoral vote.</b></small> -</div> - -unreconstructed. Of these thirty-four, eight cast their votes for -Seymour and Blair. These were New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, -Kentucky, Oregon, Georgia and Louisiana. The rest went for Grant and -Colfax. The electoral vote stood eighty for Seymour and Blair and two -hundred and fourteen for Grant and Colfax. The popular vote stood two -millions seven hundred and three thousand two hundred and forty-nine -for Seymour and Blair, and three millions and twelve thousand eight -hundred and thirty-three for Grant and Colfax. The exclusion of -Virginia, Mississippi and Texas from the vote and the inclusion of the -suffrages of the "carpet-baggers" and the negroes, under the protection -of the military, in the reconstructed "States," had saved the day for -Grant and Colfax. If the electorate of the South had been as in 1860, -or probably as it was in the years of the Johnson governments, Seymour -and Blair <span class="pagenum"><a name="page213"><small><small>[p. 213]</small></small></a></span> -would have triumphed. As it was, but for the Greenback -plank in the Democratic platform and the indiscretions of General -Blair, they might have triumphed. That is to say, if the Reconstruction -policy of Congress had been the sole issue, it is quite possible that -the Republicans would have lost the election, even with the most -popular man in the North as their standard bearer.</div> -<br> -<a name="side161"></a> -<div>Meanwhile the President had continued to ply the Congress with his -vetoes and messages and to address the country with his proclamations. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The conduct of<br> -the President<br> -during the<br> -campaign.</b></small> -</div> - -He had thought that he ought to be vindicated by being nominated by the -Democrats for the presidency, and had actually received sixty-five -votes on the first ballot. His failure before the convention ought to -have taught him that he was no longer a factor to be reckoned with in -the domain of politics, and that his proper course was to execute -quietly the functions of his office to the end of his term, and then -retire to private life. But he seemed to think that his political -opinions were still of great value, and in a very few days after the -adjournment of the Democratic convention he addressed a message to -Congress advising a most radical change in the structure of the -government by means of constitutional amendment. He therein recommended -that Congress should propose to the "States" so to amend the -Constitution as to provide for the election of the President and -Vice-President by a direct vote of the people, for the ineligibility of -these officers for a second term, for the designation of the members of -the Cabinet in a certain order, beginning with the Secretary of State, -as the persons to discharge the duties of the President in case of a -vacancy in the presidential office by the death, resignation or removal -of both the President and the Vice-President, for the election of the -Senators by the direct vote of the people, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page214"><small><small>[p. 214]</small></small></a></span>and for the limitation -of the terms of the United States judges to a period of years. There -was sound reason for the third of these suggestions, the designation by -the Constitution of the Cabinet officers in a certain order as the -successors to the powers and duties of the President, when the country -might be without both a President and a Vice-President, and it has -since then been made law under the form of a statute of Congress.</div> -<br> -<a name="side162"></a> -<div>But the Congress was not then in a mood to hear anything from Mr. -Johnson. Two days later, July 20th, the President vetoed the joint - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Congress and<br> -the President.</b></small> -</div> - -resolution passed by the two Houses, excluding from the electoral -college in the coming presidential election the votes of "States" -lately in rebellion which should not have been reorganized under the -Reconstruction Acts of Congress. In this veto he went over his whole -argument once more against the constitutionality of these Acts and in -favor of his own method of Reconstruction. But the Congress treated the -message with contempt and promptly repassed the resolution.</div> -<br> -<a name="side163"></a> -<div>On the 9th of December President Johnson sent his last annual Message -to Congress. It was a grave, dignified and statesmanlike document both - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's last<br> -annual Message.</b></small> -</div> - -in form and content. In it he told Congress plainly and respectfully -that its Reconstruction policy had arrayed the races against each other -at the South, had impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations that -had previously existed between them, and had given mortal offence to -the civilized race by placing the uncivilized race in domination over -it; and he urged that legislation which had produced such baleful -consequences ought to be abrogated. He also told Congress that it had -seriously impaired the power of the President to exact the necessary -accountability of the public officers by its Tenure-of-Office Act, and -had embarrassed <span class="pagenum"><a name="page215"><small><small>[p. 215]</small></small></a></span> -the Executive in the exercise of his -constitutional military functions by the Act of March 2d, 1867; and he -urged the repeal of both of these measures. He also gave a most serious -and startling account of the condition of the public finances, and of -the consumption of the wealth of the Nation by the bondholders, -officials and pensioners. He pointed out that the public debt, which in -1860 was 64,000,000 dollars, had become 2,527,129,552 dollars; that the -annual expenditure, which was, in 1860, 63,000,000 dollars, had become -336,000,000 dollars and more, and that the expenditure per capita, -which was two dollars in 1860, had become nearly ten dollars. And he -suggested the ways in which this threatening condition might be -relieved, viz., by a refunding of the bonds at a lower interest, by a -speedy resumption of specie payment, by a reduction of the army and of -the horde of Reconstruction officials in the South, and by a strict -accountability of the revenue officials to their superiors and of these -latter to the President. From the point of view of sound political -science, good public policy and true patriotism all of these -suggestions were at least worth consideration, but Congress took no -more notice of them than it did of the distant murmurs of the waters of -the Potomac.</div> -<br> -<a name="side164"></a> -<div>Only once again did the Congress break over its apparent resolve to -ignore the President, and that was upon the occasion of his issue of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -amnesty proclamation<br> -of December 25th, 1868.</b></small> -</div> - -his universal and unconditional pardon and amnesty to all persons who -had participated, either directly or indirectly, in the rebellion, with -the restoration of all their rights, privileges and immunities under -the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. The date of -this document was December 25th, 1868. On the 5th of January, 1869, the -Senate called him to account for this by a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page216"><small><small>[p. 216]</small></small></a></span>resolution calling -upon him "to transmit to the Senate a copy of any proclamation of -amnesty made by him since the last adjournment of Congress, and also to -communicate to the Senate by what authority of law the same was made." -The President replied on the 18th, sending a copy of his proclamation -of December 25th, 1868, and declaring that he issued it by authority of -the second section of Article second of the Constitution, which vested -in the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences -against the United States, except in cases of impeachment, and in -accordance with precedents established by his predecessors in office, -Washington, Adams, Madison and Lincoln. The Senate did not say that he -had no right to claim any constitutional prerogative, and that he was -not worthy to act under precedents set by Washington, Adams, Madison, -and Lincoln, but most of the Senators evidently so thought. The -proclamation had no effect upon the qualifications for suffrage in the -face of the Reconstruction Acts and the "State" constitutions framed -and established in accordance with them. It was little more than the -bull against the comet.</div> -<br> -<a name="side165"></a> -<div>As a sort of final stroke the President vetoed the bill concerning the -transfer of the control of the colored schools in the District of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's veto of<br> -the Bill in regard to the<br> -colored schools in the<br> -District of Columbia.</b></small> -</div> - -Columbia, and the bill for raising the duties on imported copper and -copper ores. He gave excellent reasons for both of these vetoes, but -Congress had long ceased to be guided by reason in matters which -related to the President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side166"></a> -<div>On its side it was busy with a project which, though not intended as a -blow at him particularly, was not in accordance with his view that the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Fifteenth Amendment.</b></small> -</div> - -regulation of the suffrage within the "States" was, and should be, left -to the "States" respectively, and exclusively, viz., -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page217"><small><small>[p. 217]</small></small></a></span>the proposed -Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Reference has already been -made to the inconsistent doctrine, we might almost say the timorous -subterfuge, of the Republican platform on the matter of negro suffrage, -and to the growing conviction on the part of the Republicans during the -campaign that this question must be settled for the entire country -alike, and by a constitutional amendment. At the opening of Congress in -December, and during the first days of the session, the proposition was -presented which finally took on the form given it by the conference -committee of the two Houses in the words: "The right of citizens of the -United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United -States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition -of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by -appropriate legislation." It was passed by both Houses with the -requisite two-thirds majority on the 26th of February and sent to the -legislatures of the "States" for ratification. The Republicans had at -last come to the view that the emancipation of the freedmen involved -their civil equality with the whites, and that such equality could not -be maintained unless they possessed the elective franchise, and that it -was cowardly for the "States" of the North to force negro suffrage on -the South without accepting it for themselves.</div> -<br> -<a name="side167"></a> -<div>It is certainly true that full freedom implies civil liberty and civil -equality, but there was another way, and a better way, to have secured - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism of the<br> -Republican view.</b></small> -</div> - -these than by the immediate and universal suffrage of the newly -emancipated in all their ignorance, immorality and poverty, and that -was by the nationalization of civil liberty, and its protection and -enforcement by the United States courts. Most of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page218"><small><small>[p. 218]</small></small></a></span>Republicans -believed, at that moment, that that had been secured by the Fourteenth -Amendment; and there can be little question that a very important -consideration with such was the fear that after Reconstruction should -be accomplished, the Southern "States" might amend negro suffrage out -of their "State" constitutions, and thus destroy the Republican party -in these "States," unless the Constitution of the United States should -be so amended as to prevent it. The most radical among them were no -doubt moved chiefly by the extravagant humanitarianism of the period, -which had developed in their minds to the point of justifying not only -the political equality of the races, but the political superiority, at -least in loyalty to the Union, the Constitution and republican -government, of the uncivilized negroes over the whites of the South; -but that this conviction was not very strong among the masses of them -can be readily concluded from the fact that that party is to-day the -party which is following the European idea of the duty of civilized -races to impose their political sovereignty upon uncivilized, or half -civilized, or not fully civilized, races anywhere and everywhere in the -world. No party can, in so short a time, so completely change its -fundamental principle of political ethics when it is really and -conscientiously believed in by the masses of the party.</div> -<br> -<a name="side168"></a> -<div>This proposed Fifteenth Amendment was not sent to the President for his -approval, but went, according to custom, to the Secretary of State, to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Johnson's retirement<br> -from the presidency.</b></small> -</div> - -be submitted to the "State" legislatures. The President was now within -a very few days of the end of his term. His sun had fairly set, and the -disrespect felt for him by the members of the dominant party in -Congress and out of Congress was expressed in the rude and quite -unprecedented refusal of General Grant to sit in the same carriage with -him in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page219"><small><small>[p. 219]</small></small></a></span> -procession from the White House to the Capitol, on the -4th of March, for the ceremonies of the inauguration of the new -President. Discredited, despised, and scoffed at, as a traitor to his -party, to his political creed, and to his country, Mr. Johnson stepped -down from the high office which he had occupied during one of the two -most critical periods in American history since the establishment of -the present Constitution.</div> -<br> -<a name="side169"></a> -<div>And yet it is certainly true that the Republican party had left him -rather than that he had left the party. This party began simply as a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President and<br> -the Republican party.</b></small> -</div> - -Union party and an anti-slavery extension party. Mr. Johnson, an -original Democrat, joined with the Republicans upon this basis, and he -never left it. On the other hand, when the necessities of the war for -the Union made it evident that the slaves within the Southern -communities which had declared secession, and were engaged in -rebellion, must be proclaimed free, Mr. Johnson still went with the -Republicans in the justification of this measure. And when, finally, -the war was ended and the Union was preserved, and the Republicans -decided that the legitimate outcome of the victory was the prohibition -of slavery everywhere within the United States by an amendment to the -Constitution, Mr. Johnson still marched with them, at the head of the -column. It was only when they became more and more radical in their -policy, and insisted upon transforming rather than restoring the -"States" of the South, by placing civil rights under national -protection instead of "State" protection, disfranchising the whites of -the South, and enfranchising the negroes, and upon overcoming the -Executive's objections to these movements not simply by overriding the -veto, but by generally subordinating the Executive to Congress—it was -only then that he <span class="pagenum"><a name="page220"><small><small>[p. 220]</small></small></a></span> -separated from them and fell back naturally on -such support as he could get, which was chiefly from the Democratic party.</div> -<br> -<div>No fair mind can claim that the Republicans in their quarrel with the -President had not departed from their solemn declaration made in -Congress assembled in those dark July days of 1861, just after the -first great defeat of the Union arms, "That this war is not waged upon -our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest -or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the -rights or established institutions of the Southern States, but to -defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve -the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several -States unimpaired." And it was upon the basis of this understanding -that the Democrats in Congress, Mr. Johnson among them, stood with the -Republicans in the prosecution of the war. It is indeed a serious -question of political casuistry as to how far declarations of policy -are binding upon a political party. They are certainly not like -agreements entered into between sovereign states, and the law of -development rather than the law of contract must be the constructive -force in party creed. But this, at least, must be held, viz., that a -man originally not of a given political party, but acting with it upon -the basis of a given creed, cannot be accused of being an apostate from -that party if he does not continue with it when it adopts a new creed -in many respects the very opposite of that given creed, except in the -most groveling sense of machine politics; and that when he and it do -part company, more by its own departures from the given creed than by -his, he is certainly not on that account to be necessarily considered -as a traitor to his country. The truth is, that while all men who -occupy high station are <span class="pagenum"><a name="page221"><small><small>[p. 221]</small></small></a></span> -peculiarly subject to wanton, as well as -ignorant, assaults upon their purposes and their conduct, few men that -have occupied so high a station have ever been so unreasonably -slandered and vilified as Andrew Johnson. His own unfortunate and -irritating manners and methods will account for a good deal of the -misunderstanding of his character, but the violence of the times was -the occasion of a great deal more of it. The true Union men of -Tennessee will, however, never forget the hope, and encouragement, and -support which he gave to them, when they were left in the lurch by -their own natural leader, John Bell; and the Nation should for this, if -nothing else, write his name in the book of its heroes.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap11"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page222"><small><small>[p. 222]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER XI</h3> -<center>PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side170">The Situation at the Moment of Grant's -Accession to Power</a>—<a href="#side171">The Georgia -Question</a>—<a href="#side172">The Attitude of the New President -toward Reconstruction</a>—<a href="#side173">The -Virginia Case</a>—<a href="#side174">Grant's Message to Congress of April 7th, 1869, and His -Proclamation of May 14th</a>—<a href="#side175">Ratification of the Virginia Constitution and -Election of "State" Officers under it</a>—<a href="#side176">The Restoration of Virginia to -Her Federal Relations</a>—<a href="#side177">Ratification of the Mississippi Constitution and -Election of "State" Officers and Legislative Members under it</a>—<a href="#side178">The -Restoration of Mississippi to Her Federal Relations</a>—<a href="#side179">Ratification of -the Texas Constitution and Election of "State" Officers and Legislative -Members under it—Restoration of Texas to Her Federal Relations</a>—<a href="#side180">Grant -and the Tenure-of-Office Act</a>—<a href="#side181">Congress and the Tenure-of-Office Act -after Grant's Accession to the Presidency</a>—<a href="#side182">The Modification of the -Tenure-of-Office Act</a>—<a href="#side183">The President's Dissatisfaction with the -Measure</a>—<a href="#side184">The Facts in the Georgia -Case</a>—<a href="#side185">New Conditions Imposed on -Georgia</a>—<a href="#side186">The Final Restoration of Georgia to Her Federal -Relations</a>—<a href="#side187">Negro Rule in the South from the Point of View of Political -Science and Ethnical Principle</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side170"></a> -<div>At the moment of Grant's accession to power, four of the Southern -communities were still denied recognition as "States" upon the floor of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The situation at the<br> -moment of Grant's<br> -accession to power.</b></small> -</div> - -Congress. Three of the four had not yet adopted "State" constitutions, -viz.: Virginia, Mississippi and Texas; and the fourth, Georgia, the -representatives from which to the lower House of Congress had been -admitted in December of 1868, was still unrepresented in the Senate, -for the reason that the legislature of Georgia, after electing United -States Senators, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page223"><small><small>[p. 223]</small></small></a></span> -had rejected the negro members-elect of that -body on the ground that negroes were not eligible to legislative seats -in Georgia.</div> -<br> -<a name="side171"></a> -<div>When the news of this procedure reached Washington, the Senate held -back from admitting the Senators-elect from Georgia to seats and did - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Georgia<br> -question.</b></small> -</div> - -not admit them during the last session of the Fortieth Congress; and at -the opening of the Forty-first Congress, on March 4th, 1869, the day of -Grant's inauguration, one of the first acts of the respective Houses -was to refuse admittance to the representatives from Georgia to <i>either -House</i>, and to refer their credentials to the Committee of each House -on Elections.</div> -<br> -<a name="side172"></a> -<div>In his inaugural Address the new President made no reference to these -questions, but he had hardly been one month in the presidential office - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The attitude of the<br> -new President toward<br> -Reconstruction.</b></small> -</div> - -before he recognized the difficulties with which his predecessor had -been beset, and asked and almost demanded of Congress relief from them. -On the 7th day of April he addressed a message to Congress requesting -that body to provide for submitting to the voters of Virginia the -"State" constitution drafted and adopted by a constitutional convention -at Richmond nearly a year before, and recommending that "a separate -vote be taken upon such parts as might be thought expedient," and that -the constitution, "<i>or such parts thereof as shall have been adopted by -the people,</i>" should be submitted to Congress on the first Monday of -the following December, and that the officers provided for under the -said constitution should be chosen at the same election.</div> -<br> -<div>The President also suggested that the constitution framed by the -convention in Mississippi and rejected by the voters might be -resubmitted in the same way. The events in Mississippi culminating in -the rejection <span class="pagenum"><a name="page224"><small><small>[p. 224]</small></small></a></span> -of the proposed State constitution by the voters in -June of 1868 have been already related.</div> -<br> -<a name="side173"></a> -<div>The case of Virginia, on the other hand, which differed in several -material respects from that of any of the others, has not been as yet - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Virginia case.</b></small> -</div> - -sufficiently stated for a clear understanding of the President's -meaning in his recommendations to Congress of April 7th. It will be -remembered that a loyal government of Virginia, with its seat first at -Wheeling and then at Alexandria, existed during the entire period of -the Civil War, and that from 1861 to 1864 Virginia, under this -government, had been represented in Congress, and that it was this -government which consented to the partition of Virginia recognized by -Congress. On the 23d day of May, 1865, this government transferred -itself from Alexandria to Richmond, having been recognized by President -Johnson on May 9th as the true government of Virginia. The legislative -department of it met in session on the 20th of June following. The -Governor, Mr. Pierpont, recommended, in his message to that body, that -a constitutional amendment should be drafted, and proposed by it to the -voters for ratification, which would enfranchise, and qualify for -office, a much larger proportion of the people than was the case under -the revised constitution of Virginia of 1864, adopted by the loyal -convention at Alexandria. The legislature followed the Governor's -advice and proposed an amendment to the voters which granted suffrage -and eligibility substantially to the old ante-bellum electorate and -eligibles on the condition of future loyalty to the United States. This -proposition was voted on at the elections held on the 12th of October -for the choice of members of the legislature and of the lower House of -Congress, and was ratified by a large majority. The election was held -in every county and the result was fairly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page225"><small><small>[p. 225]</small></small></a></span>representative of the -people. There was lacking but one thing more for the complete -restoration of the "State" to its federal relations, viz., the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from it to seats in -Congress. They presented themselves at the opening of the Congressional -session on the first Monday of December following, and were excluded, -along with the Senators and Representatives from the other "Johnson -States," by the Stevens resolution.</div> -<br> -<div>For more than a year, however, this government continued to act as the -"State" government of Virginia, under the limitations placed upon it by -the presence of the military of the United States, and the interference -of the commanding general in behalf of the freedmen. On January 15th, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Vagrant Act.</b></small> -</div> - -1866, the legislature chosen at the October elections of the preceding -year passed the vagrant act, which defined as vagrants "all persons -who, not having wherewith to maintain themselves and their families, -live idly and without employment, and refuse to work for the usual and -common wages given to the laborers in the like work in the place where -they are," and which authorized the condemned vagrant to be hired out, -and his wages applied to his own use or the use of his family, and, in -case of his running away from the hirer, to be apprehended on the -warrant of a justice and returned to the hirer, who should have one -month of service extra, and without wages, for the interruption of the -service contracted for, and other trouble and expense, and should also -have the right, by permission of the justice, to work the returned -vagrant with ball and chain, in order to prevent a repetition of his -flight. On the 24th, just nine days after the passage of the act, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>General Terry's<br> -order setting<br> -aside the<br> -Vagrant Act.</b></small> -</div> - -General Terry, the military commander at Richmond, issued an order -setting aside this measure as to the freedmen. He based his order on -the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page226"><small><small>[p. 226]</small></small></a></span> -tendency of the statute to influence employers to combine for -the purpose of lowering the wages of the freedmen to a point that would -pauperize them and drive them into vagrancy, and create thus the very -situation which, under the operation of the measure, would lead to a -species of servitude worse than the old domestic slavery. He had no -reliable facts of experience upon which to base his theory. It was a -bit of political and economic prophecy on his part. It was sufficient, -however, to call down maledictions from the Congress at Washington and -the people of the North upon the legislature at Richmond and the people -of Virginia and of the South generally.</div> -<br> -<div>Congress, however, gave this legislature one more opportunity to redeem -itself. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States was submitted to it for ratification in June of 1866. -After long deliberation upon it, the legislature rejected it on the 9th -of January, 1867. This act sealed the fate of that legislature. -Virginia was brought, with the other Southern communities which had -rejected or not adopted the proposed Amendment, under the -Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, and became the first military - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Virginia made a<br> -Military District.</b></small> -</div> - -district under those Acts, with General Schofield as commander. -Schofield ordered the election for delegates to a constitutional -convention, by the voters designated in the Reconstruction Acts, to be -held in November of 1867, and ordered the delegates so elected to -assemble in Richmond on the 3d of the following December. These orders -were successfully executed under the supervision and control of the -military. Schofield himself appeared in the convention, and urged the -delegates to be moderate in the propositions for the disfranchisement -and disqualification of those who had participated in rebellion. But -the delegates <span class="pagenum"><a name="page227"><small><small>[p. 227]</small></small></a></span> -elected under the Reconstruction Acts, and by the -electorate created through them, were not only radical, but bent upon -retaliation. They would not listen to the wise counsel of Schofield, -but drafted and adopted such provisions in regard to suffrage -qualifications and eligibility to office and mandate as would have put -the "State" government, based on such a constitution, in the hands of -negroes, "scalawags" and "carpet-bag" adventurers. The opposition to -these provisions on the part of the commander and the Administration at -Washington was, however, sufficiently effective to delay indefinitely -the submission of the constitution to the voters. Near the end of the -year 1868, a conference of prominent Virginians assembled at Richmond -and appointed a committee, and sent its members to Washington to -petition Congress to allow the disfranchising and disqualifying -clauses, and the clauses in reference to county organization, to be -voted on separately from the other parts of the proposed constitution. -This committee proceeded to Washington in January of 1869, and argued -their case before committees of both of the Houses of Congress, and -also presented the same to the new President-elect, General Grant.</div> -<br> -<a name="side174"></a> -<div>It was in consequence of such representations and prayers, that -President Grant sent his message of April 7th to Congress, requesting - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Grant's message to<br> -Congress of April<br> -7th, 1869, and<br> -his proclamation<br> -of May 14th.</b></small> -</div> - -authority to accede to the petition of the Virginians, and that -Congress immediately conferred the authority upon him. Armed with this -authority, the President issued a proclamation on the 14th day of May, -1869, commanding the "State" constitution framed for Virginia by the -convention which assembled on December 3d, 1867, at Richmond, to be -submitted to the voters, on July 6th, 1869, for ratification or -rejection, and also commanding that those -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page228"><small><small>[p. 228]</small></small></a></span>provisions -disqualifying persons from voting and holding office who had in any way -aided the rebellion against the United States should be separately -submitted.</div> -<br> -<a name="side175"></a> -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification of the<br> -Virginia Constitution.</b></small> -</div> - -<div>At the election ordered by the President, the constitution without -these clauses was ratified, and the conservative Republican candidates -for office and legislative membership were elected.</div> -<br> -<a name="side176"></a> -<div>At the next session of Congress, in December of 1869, the Senators and -Representatives presented themselves for admission. Their claims were - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The restoration of<br> -Virginia to her<br> -Federal relations.</b></small> -</div> - -sustained by the President, who reported to Congress that Virginia had -fulfilled all of the conditions required of her for readmission to her -full privileges as a member of the Union, having among other things -ratified by legislative acts both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth -Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and urged the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from the "State" to -Congress. After a good deal of discussion and some wrangling, the bill -for the accomplishment of this object was passed, and, in the last days -of January of 1870, Virginia was restored to her proper federal -relations, on the conditions that the constitution of the "State" -should never be so amended as to deprive any person enfranchised -therein of the suffrage, or any citizen or class of citizens of the -United States of the educational rights and privileges provided -therein, or any citizen of the United States of the equal right to hold -office, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, -or of the school rights provided in the constitution of the "State." -The Congressional Act also undertook to purge the new "State" -legislature by requiring that every member must take an oath that he -was not disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States, or that, if he had been, he had also been -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page229"><small><small>[p. 229]</small></small></a></span> -relieved by the Congressional Act authorized for the case in the Amendment.</div> -<br> -<a name="side177"></a> -<div>The Act of Congress of April 10th empowered the President to deal with -the question of Reconstruction in Mississippi in the same manner as in -Virginia. By virtue of this power, the President issued a proclamation, -on the 13th of July, 1869, commanding the resubmission to the voters of -the constitution adopted by the Mississippi convention, on the 15th of -May, 1868, and rejected by the voters as stated on a previous page, and -designating the 30th day of November, 1869, as the date of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification of the<br> -Mississippi constitution.</b></small> -</div> - -election. As in the case of Virginia, the President ordered a separate -vote to be taken upon the disfranchising and disqualifying clauses of -the constitution which prohibited any person from voting or holding -office who had given any aid or comfort to persons in rebellion.</div> -<br> -<a name="side178"></a> -<div>The result of the vote on the constitution was the same as in Virginia. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The restoration of<br> -Mississippi to her<br> -Federal relations.</b></small> -</div> - -The constitution was ratified without these clauses; and on the 23d of -February, 1870, the bill for the restoration of Mississippi and the -admission of the Senators and Representatives from the "State" to -Congress, on the same conditions as those exacted of Virginia, became law.</div> -<br> -<a name="side179"></a> -<div>The Act of April 10th, 1869, also invested the President with the power -of ordering the submission of the constitution framed and adopted by -the convention at Austin, Texas, in June of 1868, to the voters for -ratification. By virtue of this authority, the President ordered a vote -to be taken upon this instrument on the 30th day of November, 1869. -This proposed constitution did not contain any such disfranchising and -disqualifying clauses as those which rendered the Virginia and -Mississippi instruments <span class="pagenum"><a name="page230"><small><small>[p. 230]</small></small></a></span> -obnoxious to the intelligence of these - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification of the<br> -Texas Constitution.<br><br> -Restoration of <br> -Texas to her<br> -Federal relations.</b></small> -</div> - -communities, and the vote was, therefore, ordered to be taken upon the -entire constitution at once. The result was ratification; and on the -30th of March, 1870, the Congressional measure for the complete -restoration of Texas to her proper federal relations, upon the same -fundamental conditions as those required of Virginia and Mississippi, -became law.</div> -<br> -<div>Thus while the new President did not, as his predecessor had done, -dispute the power of Congress to direct and control the reconstruction -of the disrupted Southern communities as "States" of the Union, he -appealed to Congress for the authority to relieve some of them still -suffering under military rule from the hard alternative of negro -domination, and when Congress gave him the power requested, he used it -for the amelioration of the situation. This was true statesmanship. If -President Johnson had done this instead of insisting upon his -constitutional power to reconstruct, independently of Congress, these -communities, and repeating continually his unsound, though specious, -arguments in support of his view, it is quite possible that he might -have maintained his influence, in some degree at least, with the -Republican majority, and at the same time, and in consequence thereof, -might have accomplished something in the interest of a true -conservatism in Reconstruction. This is not, however, certain. Johnson -had none of Grant's vast popularity with the people of the North -whereby to overawe Congress, and there is no doubt, deny it as we may -to conscious reflection, that down below consciousness there was a sort -of distrust of a Southern Union man on the part of a large portion of -the people of the North. Mr. Johnson had to suffer under the influence -of this feeling, like all others of his class, and whenever he -suggested any moderate <span class="pagenum"><a name="page231"><small><small>[p. 231]</small></small></a></span> -course in the treatment of former rebels, -he fell under the suspicion of masking sympathy with their sentiments -under a pretence of Unionism. He was, thus, rather an object of -Congressional distrust from the first, and could probably never have -done so much as Grant succeeded in doing for conservatism in Virginia -and Mississippi, even though he had recognized the power of Congress in -the work of reconstruction, and had preferred respectful requests, -instead of asserting presidential prerogatives.</div> -<br> -<a name="side180"></a> -<div>Likewise the new President found, as soon as he began the work of -administration, that the Tenure-of-Office Act was an unendurable - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Grant and the<br> -Tenure-of-Office Act.</b></small> -</div> - -hindrance to the efficient discharge of his duties. None of Mr. -Johnson's Secretaries, it is true, gave him any trouble by attempting -to hold on to office for the one month allowed them after the -expiration of Mr. Johnson's term. The men nominated by President Grant -for his Cabinet of chiefs and advisers were immediately confirmed, and, -with one exception, inducted into office. These men were E. B. -Washburne, of Illinois, as Secretary of State; A. T. Stewart, of New -York, as Secretary of the Treasury; A. E. Borie, of Pennsylvania, as -Secretary of the Navy; J. D. Cox, of Ohio, as Secretary of the -Interior; E. R. Hoar, of Massachusetts, as Attorney-General; and J. A. -J. Creswell, of Maryland, as Postmaster-General. No immediate -nomination was made for the Secretaryship of War, and General Schofield -remained for a few days at the head of the Department. The President -soon found that Mr. Stewart, being a large importer of foreign goods, -was disqualified by statute from holding the office of Secretary of the -Treasury. He first suggested to the Senate the removal of the -disability by a joint resolution of Congress, and, on objection being -made to the introduction of a <span class="pagenum"><a name="page232"><small><small>[p. 232]</small></small></a></span> -bill repealing the disqualifying -statute, he withdrew the suggestion. Mr. Stewart then relieved the -situation by sending in his declination, and the President nominated -Mr. G. S. Boutwell of Massachusetts for the office, which nomination -was immediately confirmed, and Mr. Boutwell took immediate charge of -the Department. Mr. Washburne, the Secretary of State, resigned the -office within a few days, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, was -nominated and appointed to succeed him. General Schofield next resigned -the War Office, and was succeeded by General John A. Rawlins of -Illinois. Finally, Mr. Borie resigned in June the Secretaryship of the -Navy, and was succeeded by Mr. G. M. Robeson of New Jersey. The Senate -put nothing in the way of these changes. But President Grant made up -his mind in a very few days after his inauguration not to have his -hands tied in regard to any of the officers for whose acts he was -responsible. He gave the Republican leaders in Congress to understand -that he would allow the existing incumbents of the offices to remain in -office, unless they should commit some such offence as would call for -their suspension, so long as the Tenure-of-Office Act should remain on -the statute book. The Republicans were hungry for a new distribution of -the spoils. They called it a righteous desire for the "cleaning of the -Augean stables." Whatever it was, they were thrown into a great state -of trepidation by this covert threat of the President not to clear the -way for their friends.</div> -<br> -<a name="side181"></a> -<div>On the 9th day of March, less than a week after the accession of the -new President to power, a bill was introduced into the House of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Congress and the<br> -Tenure-of-Office Act<br> -after Grant's accession<br> -to the presidency.</b></small> -</div> - -Representatives providing for the immediate repeal of the -Tenure-of-Office Act, and was passed, immediately and without debate, -by a vote of 138 to 16. These 16 were naturally Republicans. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page233"><small><small>[p. 233]</small></small></a></span>The -Democrats voted for the repeal on principle. When the bill reached the -Senate it was sent to the Judiciary Committee. This Committee quickly -reported to the Senate a substitute for the bill of the House. This -substitute provided that the Tenure-of-Office Act should be suspended -from operation until the next session of Congress. No more shameless -piece of partisanship was ever advanced on the floor of the Senate than -this. It simply meant, suspend the Act when the Republicans wanted to -get the offices, and keep it in force when they might be in danger of -being put out. The Senate itself could not be brought to vote this -proposition of its Judiciary Committee. It was withdrawn by the -committee, and Mr. Trumbull proposed to supersede the existing law with -a measure which would allow the President to suspend from office -without assigning any cause for the same to the Senate, or even -reporting the suspension to the Senate, and to nominate to the Senate a -person to fill the vacancy, and in case of rejection by the Senate to -nominate another person; and only when the session of the Senate should -come to a close without a ratification should the suspended officer be restored.</div> -<br> -<a name="side182"></a> -<div>It was pretty clear that the President would not find any trouble with -such a measure as this, but it seemed to the House that the Senate was -trying to cling to a certain control over the Executive, and the House -refused concurrence in the bill. The matter was finally referred to a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The modification of the<br> -Tenure-of-Office Act.</b></small> -</div> - -conference committee, and this committee speedily matured and reported -a measure, which allowed the President, during a recess of the Senate, -to suspend any civil officer appointed by and with the consent of the -Senate, except judges of the United States courts, until the end of the -next session of the Senate, and to designate some other person -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page234"><small><small>[p. 234]</small></small></a></span>to -discharge the duties of the vacant office in the meantime, and made it -the duty of the President simply to nominate to the Senate, within -thirty days from the beginning of its next session, some one to succeed -to the office permanently, and in case the Senate should refuse to -ratify the nomination, to nominate another person. Both Houses accepted -the recommendation of the Committee and the bill agreed upon by its -members became law April 5, 1869.</div> -<br> -<a name="side183"></a> -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -dissatisfaction<br> -with the measure.</b></small> -</div> - -<div>Still the President was not satisfied with it. He thought that any -control whatever of the Senate over dismissal from office was not -warranted by the Constitution, and he regarded the attempt of the -Senate to cling to any shadow of such a power as a personal affront to himself.</div> -<br> -<div>In his first annual Message, that of December 6th, 1869, he earnestly -recommended the total repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Acts, and declared -them both unconstitutional, and inconsistent with "a faithful and -efficient administration of the Government." His recommendation was -probably an effective warning to Congress against any attempt to hamper -him by claiming any power under them to control his dismissals and -suspensions, but they still remained on the statute book for nearly two -decades longer. The glaring inconsistency of a bare and bald repeal of -the Acts was too great even for the partisan Congress. It was willing -to make them practically null and void, but it wanted a shadow with -which to cover its nakedness. At any rate, the position taken by -President Grant toward them was a complete vindication of President -Johnson's views concerning them, and, in no small degree, of his deeds also.</div> -<br> -<div>At the date of this Message all of the Southern communities had -completed the acts required by Congress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page235"><small><small>[p. 235]</small></small></a></span>for their restoration as -"States" of the Union, but the result of the elections held in -Mississippi were not known in Washington. The President simply -expressed the hope that the constitutions submitted in these -communities to the voters would be ratified, and "thus close the work -of Reconstruction." As we have seen, the elections resulted as the -President hoped, and these communities were restored, on the basis of -the "State" constitutions adopted, to their proper federal relations.</div> -<br> -<a name="side184"></a> -<div>The case of Georgia still remained, however, unsettled, and the -President suggested that Congress should enact a law authorizing the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The facts in the<br> -Georgia case.</b></small> -</div> - -Governor of Georgia, Mr. Bullock, "to convene the members originally -elected to the legislature, requiring each member to take the oath -prescribed by the Reconstruction Acts, and none to be admitted who were -ineligible under the third clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The -situation was briefly as follows: The Senators and Representatives from -Georgia had been refused admission to seats in Congress at the first -session of the Forty-first Congress which convened the 4th of March, -1869, because the legislature of Georgia had expelled the colored men -elected to that body as ineligible, and had rejected the proposed -Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is -true that the Senators from Georgia had been elected by the legislature -before the colored members were expelled, and that the Representatives -had been admitted to seats in the House during the last session of the -Fortieth Congress, and that the ostensible reason for not admitting the -members to the lower House of the Forty-first Congress was that they -had not been elected to the Forty-first Congress. However, Georgia had -no representation in either House of Congress at the date of President -Grant's first annual Message in December of 1869. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page236"><small><small>[p. 236]</small></small></a></span>Her "State" -government seems, therefore, to have been considered by Congress as -being still only provisional, despite the fact that by the Act of June -25th, 1868, she had been declared entitled to admission to -representation in Congress upon conditions which she had subsequently fulfilled.</div> -<br> -<div>A bill had been introduced into Congress soon after the opening of the -session beginning March 4th, 1869, dealing with the subject. It was -claimed in the preamble of this bill that the Georgia legislature had -not purged itself of disloyal members as required by the Fourteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it had -violated the constitution of Georgia and the Constitution of the United -States and the fundamental principles of the Reconstruction Acts by -expelling the negro members for ineligibility, and that the civil -authorities in the "State" could not, or did not, protect the loyal -citizens in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties or even in -their persons. The bill proposed to meet these difficulties by -providing that the Governor of Georgia should reconvene the originally -elected members of the legislature, reseat the expelled negro members, -and expel such members as could not swear that they were not -disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the -United States. It may be remarked here in passing that the Fourteenth -Amendment does not disqualify anybody, in express language, from being -a member of a "State" legislature. It disqualifies all persons who have -engaged in rebellion after having taken an oath, as a member of -Congress or of a "State" legislature, or as a United States or a -"State" officer, to support the Constitution of the United States, from -holding a seat in Congress or from being an officer of the United -States or of a "State," <i>but not from holding a seat in a "State" -legislature</i>. The word officer in the public -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page237"><small><small>[p. 237]</small></small></a></span>jurisprudence of -this country does not include membership in a legislative body. But to -return to the bill. It provided finally for making United States troops -in Georgia subject to the Governor's call for assistance. This bill was -so seriously opposed by the Democrats and the conservative Republicans -that it did not pass, and during this session Congress did nothing -further for the restoration of Georgia.</div> -<br> -<div>On the other hand, the conservatives in Georgia undertook to do -something for themselves. They got up a test case in the Supreme Court - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The case of<br> -White and<br> -Clements.</b></small> -</div> - -of the "State" to determine the rights of negroes to hold office. The -case was that of White and Clements, and the office involved was a -county court clerkship. Of course the decision was not binding upon the -legislative houses in judging of the eligibility of their members, but -it was thought that it would have an influence upon their views. The -court decided that under the new constitution of Georgia and the code -of Georgia negroes could hold office, since the constitution of 1868 -declared that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and -residents in Georgia were citizens of Georgia, and the code declared -that among the rights of citizens was the right to hold office. Of -course the legislature could abolish or amend the code. After the -rendering of this decision the conservative members of the legislature -requested the Governor, Mr. Bullock, who was a radical Republican, and -a New Yorker by birth, to reconvene the legislature for the purpose of -reseating the expelled negro members. The Governor refused, apparently -not desiring to anticipate the action of Congress in the case. The -attempt of the conservatives to help themselves thus came to naught, -and the unhappy community drifted on toward anarchy and violence, -according to the report now made by -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page238"><small><small>[p. 238]</small></small></a></span>General Terry to the -President, who declared it to be his opinion that the United States -Government must intervene anew in order to preserve it against that fate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side185"></a> -<div>It was then with a good deal of irritation that Congress came to -consider the subject of Reconstruction in Georgia again in the session - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>New conditions<br> -imposed on Georgia.</b></small> -</div> - -of 1869-70, and the determination soon became manifest to impose -additional and harder conditions upon this community than upon the -others. Moreover, as matters appeared at that juncture, the -ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment by the legislature of Georgia -would be necessary to make out the required three-fourths majority. It -was in this temper, and under the pressure of this supposed necessity, -that Congress, acting promptly upon the general suggestion in the -President's Message, passed a bill which provided that the Governor of -Georgia should forthwith summon the persons declared by the -proclamation of General Meade, of the date of June 25th, 1868, to be -members-elect of the legislature, to assemble at Atlanta; that every -such person should take an oath or affirmation that he had never, after -having been a member of Congress or of a "State" legislature, or an -officer of the United States or of a "State" "engaged in insurrection -or rebellion against the United States, or given any aid or comfort to -its enemies, or rendered, except in consequence of direct physical -compulsion, any support or aid to any insurrection, or rebellion -against the United States, or held any office under, or given any -support to, any government of any kind acting in hostility to the -United States, or levying war against the United States," or should -make oath or affirmation that, if he had so acted, he had been relieved -by Congress from any disability attaching to such act in the manner -provided in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page239"><small><small>[p. 239]</small></small></a></span> -the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; that in -case any person claiming to be a member of the legislature should fail -to make such an oath or affirmation he should be excluded from a seat -in the body; that no member-elect should be excluded on account of -race, color or previous condition of servitude; that, on application of -the Governor, the President should employ the military power of the -United States to enforce the provisions of the Act; and that the -legislature of Georgia should ratify the proposed Fifteenth Amendment -to the Constitution of the United States before Senators and -Representatives from Georgia should be admitted to seats in Congress. -This bill was approved by the President on the 22d of December, 1869.</div> -<br> -<div>So great was the opposition to Reconstruction, under these hard -conditions, on the part of the white people in Georgia, that the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Resumption of military<br> -government in Georgia.</b></small> -</div> - -Governor was obliged to call for the military of the United States to -aid him, and finally to step aside for General Terry, who by an order -from the President, dated January 4th, 1870, was authorized to resume -the powers in Georgia of the commander of a military district, as -provided under the Reconstruction Act of March 2d, 1867. The General -found a number of members in the legislature recognized by General -Meade's proclamation who could not take either of the oaths or -affirmations prescribed. These he caused to be removed from their seats -in very arbitrary ways. This procedure put the Republicans in the -legislature in majority, and they filled these vacancies by admitting -persons who had received the next highest number of votes to those cast -for the expelled members in the election, and who could take one or the -other of the oaths or affirmations prescribed in the Act of the 22d of -December, 1869.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page240"><small><small>[p. 240]</small></small></a></span> -<div>The legislature as thus reconstructed was approved by the military -authorities, and it now proceeded to fulfil the final condition - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Ratification of the<br> -Fifteenth Amendment by<br> -the Georgia legislature.</b></small> -</div> - -required of Georgia, viz., the ratification of the proposed Fifteenth -Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It also ratified -the Fourteenth Amendment. This was, from a legal point of view, -entirely superfluous, since the Fourteenth Amendment was, at the -moment, already a part of the Constitution, as much so as any other -Article, and in resuming the status of a "State" in the Union, Georgia -was, of course, subject to all parts of the Constitution alike. The -legislature might, with equal reason, have ratified specially any other -part of the Constitution. The idea seems to have been to correct any -possible defects in the ratification of this amendment which the -Georgia legislature had voted on July 21st, 1868.</div> -<br> -<div>This purified legislature now elected United States Senators, both of -them Republicans, of course. All these things were done in the latter - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Further delay in<br> -the admission of<br> -representatives<br> -from Georgia.</b></small> -</div> - -part of January and the early part of February of 1870, and as the -Congress was in session, there was reason to expect that Georgia would -be, at once, fully restored as a "State" of the Union. A bill was -reported in the House of Representatives on the 25th of February from -the Committee on Reconstruction for this purpose. It was nearly -identical in its provisions and language with the Virginia and -Mississippi bills, but it dragged along through nearly five months of -debate and partisan wrangling before it became law. The reason of this -delay was that, on March 4th, General Butler proposed an amendment to -the bill which provided: "That the power granted by the constitution of -Georgia to the general assembly to change the time of holding -elections, and prescribe the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page241"><small><small>[p. 241]</small></small></a></span> -day of meeting of the general -assembly, shall not be so exercised as to postpone the election of the -next general assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in -November in the year 1872, nor shall such power ever be by any future -legislature so exercised as to extend the term of any office beyond the -regular period named in said constitution; and the said general -assembly shall by joint resolution consent to this condition before -this Act shall take effect."</div> -<br> -<div>This language was at once taken to mean that Congress would undertake -to empower the legislature of Georgia to extend the terms of the -members of the Georgia legislature and of the Governor, elected in -April of 1868, by two years, on the ground that the "State" government -of Georgia was still provisional, and would so remain until the passage -of this Act, and that these terms would, therefore, not really begin -until the passage of this Act. The conservative Republicans as well as -the Democrats repudiated this interpretation of the powers of Congress -to extend, or to authorize the "State" legislature to extend, the terms -of the members of the legislature and of "State" officers as an -unprecedented usurpation. Some of them repudiated the idea that there -could be a provisional "State" government, and declared that any -further legislation in regard to the reconstruction of Georgia was -unnecessary, since the Act of June 25th, 1868, had restored Georgia to -her position as a "State" of the Union, along with North Carolina, -South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, upon certain -conditions, all of which Georgia had fulfilled, just as the others had -done, and since all the others had been admitted to the enjoyment of -all of their rights and privileges as "States" of the Union without any -further legislation than the Act of June 25th, 1868.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page242"><small><small>[p. 242]</small></small></a></span> -<div>There is no doubt that the Butler amendment meant, and was -intended by its author to mean, just what was charged by the -conservatives. General Butler at last acknowledged and avowed it, and -attempted to justify it. But he was unable to rally a majority to -sustain it, and he withdrew it in the face of an amendment offered by -Mr. Bingham on the 7th, which provided that nothing contained in the -bill should be construed either to vacate any of the "State" offices in -Georgia, or to extend the terms of the present holders of them beyond -the time provided in the "State" constitution, or deprive the people of -Georgia of the right under their "State" constitution of electing -members of their legislature in the year 1870.</div> -<br> -<div>This amendment was passed on the 8th of March, and the bill as thus -amended was passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the -Senate on the same day. It was immediately referred to the Judiciary -Committee of that body and on the next day, the 9th, it was reported -back to the Senate by this committee, without amendment. The Senate now -considered it in committee of the whole from this time to April 19th, -and when it was reported to the Senate it had been changed to a bill -which declared the existing government of Georgia to be provisional and -subject to the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867; ordered -an election in Georgia on the 15th day of November, 1870, for members -of the "State" legislature as provided for in the "State" constitution -of 1868; ordered the assembly of this legislature on the 13th of -December, 1870, and its organization preparatory to the admission of -the "State" to representation in Congress; declared that the powers and -functions of the members of the existing legislature should cease on -the 13th day of December, 1870; and made it the duty of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page243"><small><small>[p. 243]</small></small></a></span> -President of the United States, in case of domestic violence in any -municipality in the "State," reported to him by the legislature or -Governor of the State, to suppress by military power such domestic -violence, and "to exercise all such powers and inflict such punishments -as may by the laws, or the rules and articles of war be exercised or -inflicted in case of insurrection or invasion." The Senate concurred in -the recommendations of the committee of the whole, and added a -provision repealing that part of the Act of March 2d, 1867, which -prohibited the organizing of any militia force in Georgia.</div> -<br> -<a name="side186"></a> -<div>In this form and with this content the bill was returned to the House. -Here it was again debated, off and on, until June 24th, when it was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The final restoration<br> -of Georgia to her<br> -Federal relations.</b></small> -</div> - -finally agreed upon with the following contents: "That the State of -Georgia having complied with the Reconstruction Acts, and the -Fourteenth and Fifteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of -the United States having been ratified in good faith by a legal -legislature of said State, it is hereby declared that the State of -Georgia is entitled to representation in the Congress of the United -States. But nothing in this act contained shall be construed to deprive -the people of Georgia of the right to an election for members of the -general assembly of said State, as provided for in the constitution -thereof," and "That so much of the Act of March 2d, 1867, as prohibits -the organization, arming, or calling into service of the militia forces -in the States of Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia be, and the -same is, hereby repealed."</div> -<br> -<div>The Senate disagreed to the bill in this form and with these contents, -and asked for a conference committee. The House agreed and appointed -members. The conference committee agreed upon the bill as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page244"><small><small>[p. 244]</small></small></a></span> -perfected by the House with the addition to the second section of these -words: "And nothing in this or any other Act of Congress shall be -construed to affect the term to which any officer has been appointed or -any member of the general assembly elected, as prescribed by the -constitution of the State of Georgia." Both the Senate and the House -accepted and concurred in the recommendations of the committee, and the -bill, as thus perfected, became law on the 15th day of July, 1870. This -bill terminated the era of Reconstruction legislation by Congress, and -at the next session of Congress, the session of 1870-71, the Senators -and Representatives from Georgia were admitted to their seats, the -Senate admitting those chosen to that body in July of 1868, Messrs. -Hill and Miller. The attempt of Governor Bullock to prolong the terms -of the members of the legislature and of the officers of the "State" -government was decidedly disapproved of by President Grant's -Administration, and an election was held for members and county -officers and for Representatives in Congress in December of 1870. The -white residents of the "State" stood well together, and carried the -election by a large majority against the Republicans. So soon as the -result was known Governor Bullock, whose term had still two more years -to run, abandoned his office and left the "State," and Georgia was thus -early rescued from negro domination, or rather "carpet-bag" domination -through negro suffrage. Her harder experiences during the years from -1868 to 1870 had worked out to her advantage, in that it brought the -respectable and capable portion of her white citizens together earlier -than was the case in the other reconstructed Commonwealths similarly situated.</div> -<br> -<a name="side187"></a> -<div>From the point of view of a sound political science the imposition of -universal negro suffrage upon the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page245"><small><small>[p. 245]</small></small></a></span>Southern communities, in some -of which the negroes were in large majority, was one of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Negro rule in the<br> -South from the point<br> -of view of political<br> -science and<br> -ethnical principle.</b></small> -</div> - -"blunder-crimes" of the century. There is something natural in the -subordination of an inferior race to a superior race, even to the point -of the enslavement of the inferior race, but there is nothing natural -in the opposite. It is entirely unnatural, ruinous, and utterly -demoralizing and barbarizing to both races. It is difficult to believe -that the creation of such a relation between the blacks and whites of -the South was at all within the intentions of the framers of the -Reconstruction Acts. They were irritated because these communities -would not accord civil equality to the freedmen, would not accept the -proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and had passed acts which created a new -species of slavery or quasi-slavery of the blacks. They thought they -were placed between the alternative of continuing military government -in the South indefinitely, or giving the negro the political power with -which to maintain his civil rights.</div> -<br> -<div>Opposition to military government in time of peace was an ingrained -principle of the American people, and there was a large part of people -of the North, nearly all adhering to the Republican party, who believed -that manhood suffrage was the true principle of a sound political -science. And it was thought that the only way of creating "States" in -the South which would sustain the Republican party was by giving the -negro the suffrage. It is not surprising, then, that they adopted the -course which they did. There was a third alternative, as has already -been pointed out, viz., the placing of these communities under -Territorial civil government and keeping them there until the spirit of -loyalty to the Nation was established and the principle and practice of -civil equality among all citizens was made thoroughly secure. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page246"><small><small>[p. 246]</small></small></a></span> -But, as has been said, the idea that these communities were "States" of -the Union, notwithstanding their rebellion against the United States -and their attempted secession from the Union, seemed to prohibit the -following of this course, the only true and sound course. And so these -unhappy communities were given over, as sham "States" of the Union, to -the rule of the ignorant and vicious part of their population, to be -sustained therein by the military power of the Nation, under the excuse -that that part alone was loyal.</div> -<br> -<div>A period of darkness now settled down upon these unhappy communities -blacker and more hopeless than the worst experiences of the war. The -conduct of the men who now appeared upon the scene as the creators of -the new South was so tyrannic, corrupt, mean and vulgar as to repel the -historian from attempting any detailed account of their doings, and -incline him to the vaguest outline. Moreover it is most difficult to -fix upon reliable facts in this period of confusion and political -night, illuminated only by the lurid gleams of passion and hatred. It -is best for the North, best for the South, best for the whole country, -and best for the world that this terrible mistake of the North and this -terrible degradation of the South should be dealt with briefly and -impersonally, and that lessons of warning should be drawn from these -experiences, instead of multiplying criminations and recriminations in -regard to them.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap12"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page247"><small><small>[p. 247]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER XII</h3> -<center>"CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN 1868 -AND 1876</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side188">Escape of Virginia, Georgia and Texas from -Negro Rule</a>—<a href="#side189">North Carolina's -Rapid Recovery from Negro Rule</a>—<a href="#side190">The Loyal -League</a>—<a href="#side191">Origin of the K. K. -K.'s</a>—<a href="#side192">Methods of the -Ku-Klux</a>—<a href="#side193">Periods in the History of Negro -Rule</a>—<a href="#side194">The -Act for the Enforcement of the New Amendments</a>—<a href="#side195">The Corruption in the -New "State" Governments</a>—<a href="#side196">The Supplemental -Enforcement Act</a>—<a href="#side197">The -President's Proclamation of March 23d, 1871</a>—<a href="#side198">The Ku-Klux Act of April -20th, 1871</a>—<a href="#side199">Interference of the United States Military Power in the -Affairs of South Carolina</a>—<a href="#side200">The President's Proclamation of May 3d, -1871</a>—<a href="#side201">The President's Proclamation to the People of -South Carolina</a>—<a href="#side202">The -Ku-Klux Trials</a>—<a href="#side203">Corruption in the "State" -Governments of the South</a>—<a href="#side204">The -Revolt in the Republican Party</a>—<a href="#side205">The Liberal Republican Convention of -1872</a>—<a href="#side206">Acceptance of the Liberal Republican Candidates by the -Democrats</a>—<a href="#side207">Division in the Democratic -Party</a>—<a href="#side208">The Republican Platform -and Nominees</a>—<a href="#side209">The Republican -Triumph</a>—<a href="#side210">Events in Alabama</a>—<a href="#side211">Events in -Louisiana</a>—<a href="#side212">The Downward Course between 1872 and 1874—The Elections of -1874</a>—<a href="#side213">The Change in Alabama, Arkansas and -Texas</a>—<a href="#side214">The Status in South -Carolina in 1874</a>—<a href="#side215">The Day of Complete Deliverance—The Status in -Mississippi in 1875</a>—<a href="#side216">Fiat Money and the Resumption of Specie -Payments</a>—<a href="#side217">The Inflation Bill of 1874 and the Veto of it by the -President</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side188"></a> -<div>Virginia, Texas and Georgia had been in no great hurry, as we have -seen, to exchange military government exercised by the white officers - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Escape of Virginia,<br> -Georgia and Texas<br> -from negro rule.</b></small> -</div> - -of the United States army for "State" government under the electorate -proposed in the Reconstruction Acts. In this they were wise. The army -officers did not, as a rule, sympathize with the radical -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page248"><small><small>[p. 248]</small></small></a></span> -movements of the Republicans in Congress, and they so executed the -duties imposed upon them as to cause the least suffering and -inconvenience. Their rule, though exercised under a repellent title, -was in fact far milder than, and far preferable to, the civil -government of the adventurer and the negro. They mingled socially with -the old families, and, in many cases, married their fair daughters. The -common soldiers from the Northern "States" also fraternized with their -race relatives in the South. They did not fancy the black soldiers -either of the regular army or the "State" militia, and many were the -cases in which they intervened between the defenceless ex-Confederates -and the brutal blacks in blue. It is even said by men who have every -opportunity to know that many of them doffed their uniforms on election -day, went to the polls, and voted the Democratic ticket.</div> -<br> -<div>In spite of the threats of Congress, and the ever-increasing conditions -imposed by that body upon the permission to resume the "State" status, -these three communities held out under military rule until so many of -their leading citizens had been amnestied by Congress and made again -eligible to office and mandate, and until so much better provisions -concerning the enfranchisement of the ex-Confederates had been secured, -as to put them in a far better position to resume "State" government -than was the case two years before. Moreover, these communities had -larger white than black populations. After their full restoration, -consequently, Virginia and Georgia escaped largely the suffering -experienced by most of the others, and Texas also managed to pull -through the years from 1870 to 1874 with only about a four-fold -increase of taxation, and the creation of a debt of only about -5,000,000 of dollars, when she reached the period of union of almost -all her best citizens in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page249"><small><small>[p. 249]</small></small></a></span> -Democratic party, which, in the -election of Richard Coke as Governor in 1874, and of a majority of the -legislative members, permanently triumphed in Texas. Mississippi also -had held back in 1868 and 1869, as we have seen, in order to secure -better terms for the ex-Confederates in the enfranchising and -disfranchising provisions of the "State" constitution, and by doing so -had accomplished this result. But Mississippi was one of the three -Southern communities in which the negro population far outnumbered the -white. Mississippi was not, for this reason chiefly, so fortunate as -Virginia, Texas and Georgia. She was obliged, with South Carolina and -Louisiana, to pass through the fiery furnace in order to fuse the -respectable white elements in her population into a single political -party with a well-understood and a well-determined purpose.</div> -<br> -<a name="side189"></a> -<div>Of all the "States" included in the Congressional Act of June 25th, -1868, only North Carolina had been fortunate enough to rid herself, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>North Carolina's<br> -rapid recovery<br> -from negro rule.</b></small> -</div> - -before 1872, of the rule of the adventurers and their ignorant negro -support. This happened because matters were driven to a crisis sooner -here than elsewhere. The legislature of 1868 had proceeded promptly to -authorize the issue of $25,000,000 of bonds, when the whole taxable -property of the "State" was not over $125,000,000. From the first -moment the people were threatened with confiscation, and when to this -was added the legislative act, known as the Schaffner law, authorizing -the Governor to suspend civil government, and institute martial law in -any part of the "State," and when he actually undertook to do so in -three counties of the "State," the whites came together in the election -of 1870, captured the legislature and redeemed the "State" from the -hideous tyranny with which it was threatened.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page250"><small><small>[p. 250]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side190"></a> -<div>Already before the Reconstruction Acts were passed, the political -adventurers in the South had begun organizing the negroes into secret - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Loyal League.</b></small> -</div> - -bodies, known later as the Union or Loyal League. The members of these -bodies were sworn to obey the decisions of the organization and to -execute them. The original idea seems to have been a combination for -protection against bands of lawless white people, and for mutual aid -and assistance in the hard struggle for existence to which the freedmen -were now exposed. The League soon took on, however, a political -character, and became a sort of Republican party organization in the South.</div> -<br> -<a name="side191"></a> -<div>It is difficult to determine whether the Ku-Klux organization preceded -that of the Loyal League and provoked it or not. So far as we know, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Origin of the<br> -K. K. K.'s.</b></small> -</div> - -both of them were first heard of in the year 1866. It is probable that -the Ku-Klux had its origin a little farther north than the Loyal -League. It is said by those who profess to know most about it, that the -first appearance of this body was in one of the southern counties of -Tennessee, Giles County; that it was first organized by a lot of young -loafers, probably ex-Confederate soldiers, who lived in the town of -Pulaski, the county town of that county; and that their first purpose -was the playing of practical jokes upon the ignorant and superstitious -negroes of the neighborhood. They operated in the night-time, went -disguised, travelled on horseback, their horses being also disguised, -and were oath-bound to execute the decisions of the organization, and -to protect each other. Whatever may have been its origin, this body -also soon found its political usefulness. It soon proved to be a -powerful means for intimidating and terrorizing the negroes, and also -white men acting with the negroes.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page251"><small><small>[p. 251]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side192"></a> -<div>After the Reconstruction Acts were passed and put into operation, and -especially after the Southern communities were reorganized as "States" - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Methods of<br> -the Ku-Klux.</b></small> -</div> - -under them, and the military governments gave way to the "State" -governments, this organization spread all over the South, and -contributed much by its violent and unlawful methods toward wringing -finally the new "State" governments of the South from the hands of the -negroes and the "carpet-baggers." As it extended, its methods became -more lawless and violent. Its members whipped, plundered, burned, -abducted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered, for the prime purpose of -keeping the negroes from exercising suffrage and holding office. They -were protected by many respectable people who would not have -participated personally in their nefarious work. And they had -confederates everywhere, who, upon the witness stand and in the jury -box, would perjure themselves to prevent their conviction and -punishment. It was even said that there were many cases where members -of these Klans were able to have themselves subpoenaed as witnesses, or -summoned as jurors, in the trials of their comrades, and that they were -sworn to perjure themselves, if necessary, to clear each other. The -respectable people of the South tried to make it appear that these -lawless bands were simply freebooters, such as generally infest a -country for a time after a period of war, and had no political meaning -or purpose whatsoever; and it is probably true that the Klans never -went beyond county organization, any wider bond than the county -organization, or Klan, being rather the moral bond of a common purpose; -but it cannot be well questioned now that they had one purpose at least -in common, and that that was a chief purpose with them all, viz., to -terrorize the negro out of the exercise of his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page252"><small><small>[p. 252]</small></small></a></span>newly-granted -privileges of suffrage and office-holding, and keep him in his place as -a menial.</div> -<br> -<div>The appearance of both the Loyal Leagues and the Ku-Klux Klans in the -manner in which they appeared, and at the time when they appeared, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The naturalness of<br> -these organizations.</b></small> -</div> - -ought not to cause any surprise to the student of history. Under the -reconstruction of the Southern communities as pursued before March of -1867 it seemed as if the freedmen were to be left to the tender mercies -of their former masters, irritated against them by the act of the North -in emancipating them, and by failure in war to prevent it. It was -entirely natural, not to say praiseworthy, for them to combine for the -defence of their newly found rights, and for mutual assistance in the -hard battle against want which they were now obliged to wage. And it -was no less natural that they should look for the intellectual power -necessary for forming such combinations to the white men from the North -who had helped them out of their bondage, and had given them food and -clothes in their hunger and nakedness.</div> -<br> -<div>And, again, when by the Reconstruction Acts and the restoration of -martial law in the South under them, Congress turned the tables upon -the Southern white people, and placed the ignorant barbarians in -political control of them, and made every open attempt to resist this -control a penal offence, it was also rather natural, though not -praiseworthy, that men should have bound themselves together by secret -oaths to do anything and everything in their power to defeat this -blunder-crime against civilization. Whether natural or not, it always -happens when such attempts are made, and it is always to be expected.</div> -<br> -<div>But to return to the order of the narrative. The formation of the Union -Leagues in 1867 and 1868 enabled <span class="pagenum"><a name="page253"><small><small>[p. 253]</small></small></a></span> -the negroes to vote in these - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The opportunity for<br> -political adventurers.</b></small> -</div> - -years for delegates to the constitutional conventions required under -the Reconstruction Acts, and to vote upon the ratification of the -constitutions framed by them, and to participate in the election for -the "State" officers and legislative members under those constitutions, -with the help and under the direction of these organizations, and to -operate the newly established "State" governments under the same -direction. This opened the way for the "carpet-bag" governments in the -Southern "States," whose deeds may be now briefly narrated.</div> -<br> -<a name="side193"></a> -<div>The landing places in this story may be placed at the years 1872, 1874, -and 1876. The year 1872 is the date of the national revolt against the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Periods in<br> -the history of<br> -negro rule.</b></small> -</div> - -policy of the Washington government in the affairs of the reconstructed -"States." The year 1874 is the date when some of the reconstructed -"States" succeeded in overthrowing carpet-bag and negro rule, and the -Democrats succeeded in electing a majority of members in the lower -House of Congress. And the year 1876 is the date of the complete -overthrow of that rule and the complete establishment of the "solid -South" under white Democratic government.</div> -<br> -<a name="side194"></a> -<div>Before all of the Southern communities had been admitted to -representation in Congress, and before any of them except Tennessee had - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Act for the<br> -enforcement of the<br> -new Amendments.</b></small> -</div> - -gotten fairly under way with their new "State" governments, a bill was -presented in Congress to provide for the enforcement of the Fourteenth -and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. It -will be remembered that these Amendments authorized the exercise of -power by the United States Government against "State" action only. They -read: "No <i>State</i> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the -privileges or immunities of a citizen of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page254"><small><small>[p. 254]</small></small></a></span>the United States; nor -shall any <i>State</i> deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, -without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its -jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; and "the right of -citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged -by the United States or by any <i>State</i> on account of race, color or -previous condition of servitude."</div> -<br> -<div>It is entirely clear from this language that, in the enforcement of -these new provisions of the Constitution, the United States Government -must direct its powers against the action of the "States," -respectively, through their legislators and officials, and against that -only. But in this bill which became law on the 31st of May, 1870, -Congress enacted penalties not only against "State" officers and agents -for the violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but -severe penalties against any <i>person</i> within the "States," as well as -the Territories, who should undertake to deprive by unlawful means any -other person of his right to qualify and vote at any election, and -against any <i>person</i> who under color of any law, statute or ordinance, -regulation or custom, should undertake to deprive any other person of -his civil rights and civil equality. Congress also, in this Act, vested -the jurisdiction over such cases in the United States courts and -authorized the President of the United States to enforce their -decisions by the aid of the United States army and navy if necessary. -Now, while it may probably be rightly claimed that the <i>Thirteenth</i> -Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "Neither slavery nor -involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the -party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, -or in any place subject to their jurisdiction," empowers Congress to -make laws protecting the civil rights and civil equality of persons -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page255"><small><small>[p. 255]</small></small></a></span> -within the "States" against infringement by other <i>persons</i>, and -to invest the officers of the United States, both judicial and -executive, with the power to enforce these laws, since in this -Amendment the prohibition of slavery or involuntary servitude is not -directed against "State" action solely, but against any attempt made by -anybody to create an involuntary servitude, it cannot on the other hand -be claimed, with any show of correct interpretation, that the -<i>Fourteenth</i> Amendment warrants the exercise of any such power by the -United States Government, and it is entirely out of the question to -claim that the Fifteenth Amendment protects the right of a person, -within a State, to vote against the attempt of another person or of -other persons to infringe the same, or even against the "State" itself -to do so, except it be on account of race, color or previous condition -of servitude.</div> -<br> -<div>There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any good constitutional -lawyer, at the present time, that Congress overstepped its - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Criticism<br> -of the Act.</b></small> -</div> - -constitutional powers in that part of the Enforcement Act of May 31st, -1870, which related to the exercise of the suffrage, and trenched upon -the reserved powers of the "States." The excuse for it was that lawless -bands of white men, the Ku-Klux Klans and the like, were intimidating -the blacks, and in the approaching elections of the autumn of 1870 -would prevent them from voting. But that was a matter for the "State" -governments to look out for, and the "State" governments in the South -were, at the time of the passage of this Act, with the exception of -Tennessee, in the hands of the Republicans.</div> -<br> -<a name="side195"></a> -<div>Meanwhile the new "State" governments had well begun their career of -corruption, shame and vulgarity. They were plundering the treasury, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The corruption in the<br> -new "State" governments.</b></small> -</div> - -increasing the taxes, selling franchises, issuing bonds, and -celebrating <span class="pagenum"><a name="page256"><small><small>[p. 256]</small></small></a></span> -high carnival everywhere and all the time. The -gentlemen and political leaders of the old school, and the old -political class, of the South looked on aghast, with mingled feelings -of bitter degradation and anger, and the hotspurs and desperadoes were -stirred to deeds of intimidation and violence. There is little doubt -that some negroes were terrified out of exercising the suffrage in the -election of 1870. Not yet, however, had enough of the disqualified -whites been amnestied, or enough intimidation been exercised, or -sufficient unity among the whites been attained, to work the overthrow -of "carpet-bag," negro rule. Enough, however, was threatened to -influence the Republican Congress to proceed to more complete, if not -more extreme, measures for the protection of the negro in his civil and -political rights, and to move the President to garrison the principal -points in the Southern "States" with United States soldiers.</div> -<br> -<a name="side196"></a> -<div>The Congress passed the Act of the 28th of February, 1871, which so -supplemented the Act of May 31st, 1870, as to place the whole control - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The supplemental<br> -enforcement Act.</b></small> -</div> - -of the registrations and elections when and where Representatives to -Congress should be chosen, in the hands of United States officers, the -supervisors, and the deputy marshals, commissioners and judges of the -United States courts. It may be claimed that Congress, under the power -to regulate the manner of holding Congressional elections vested in it -by Article I., section 4, of the Constitution, was authorized to pass -this law, provided it confined the action of it to the Congressional -registration and election. But since the "State" elections were held at -the same time and place, and under the same control and direction as -the Congressional, it was inevitable that the control of the United -States officers would be exercised, either directly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page257"><small><small>[p. 257]</small></small></a></span>or -indirectly, over those also. And this was unquestionably the chief -purpose of the Act, so far as its execution in the Southern "States" -was concerned.</div> -<br> -<a name="side197"></a> -<div>But this was not yet enough in the views of the Administration. In the -two years of his incumbency of the Presidential office, General Grant - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's Message<br> -of March 23d, 1871.</b></small> -</div> - -had fallen into the arms of the radical Republicans, who appeared to be -in large majority, and the usual manoeuvering had begun for the second -term. Upon the basis of information, which turned out to be very -insufficient and unreliable, the President, on the 23d of March, 1871, -addressed a message to Congress, in which he affirmed that life and -property were insecure in some of the "States," and the carrying of the -mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous; that the power to -correct these evils was not possessed by the "State" governments; and -that it was doubtful if the Executive of the United States, under -existing laws, had the power to meet these exigencies; and asked -Congress to pass such laws as would enable him to cope with the situation.</div> -<br> -<a name="side198"></a> -<div>Congress answered this appeal with the noted, not to say notorious, -Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871, in which Congress simply threw to the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Ku-Klux Act of<br> -April 20th, 1871.</b></small> -</div> - -winds the constitutional distribution of powers between the "States" -and the United States Government in respect to civil liberty, crime and -punishment, and assumed to legislate freely and without limitation for -the preservation of civil and political rights within the "States," and -for the punishment of the infraction of the same by individual persons -conspiring together for that end, and for the punishment of the -conspiracy alone, whether the infraction or the conspiracy was executed -upon, or directed against, officers of the Government or merely private -persons; and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page258"><small><small>[p. 258]</small></small></a></span> -in which the act of a combination of private -individuals defying successfully the constituted authorities of the -United States in a given "State," or those of the "State" concerned, -was declared to be rebellion against the United States, upon the -happening, and during the continuance, of which the President might -suspend the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus within such -districts as he, by proclamation, might designate.</div> -<br> -<div>The first part of this Act was, unquestionably, an unconstitutional -encroachment upon the powers of the "States," in so far as it is - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The unconstitutionality<br> -of the Act.</b></small> -</div> - -related to the protection of political rights against infraction, or -against conspiracy for the purpose of infraction, by private persons. -The second part was probably within the powers of Congress, but it was -a most extreme use of its powers. The "State" governments in the South -were in the hands of the Republican "carpet-baggers" and Republican -negroes, and there is no question that the governors and legislatures -of these "States" were quick enough to call in the aid of United States -troops long before it was necessary to do so. Moreover, the militia of -these "States" was composed almost entirely of negroes, and the whites -were forbidden to keep arms. Under such circumstances this Act of -Congress empowering the President to establish martial law upon his own -motion in time of peace within a "State" when combinations of private -persons had successfully defied, in any instance, the laws of the -"State" was a very stiff measure, and unwarranted by the facts of the situation.</div> -<br> -<a name="side199"></a> -<div>As a matter of fact, the Governor of South Carolina had asked the -President to give him United States soldiers for the protection of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Interference of the<br> -United States military<br> -power in the affairs<br> -of South Carolina.</b></small> -</div> - -"State" and its citizens against domestic violence, and the President -had, on the 24th of March just preceding the passage of this act, -issued his proclamation commanding the persons -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page259"><small><small>[p. 259]</small></small></a></span>composing the -unlawful combinations to disperse and retire to their abodes within -twenty days. This was the method prescribed by the Constitution for -bringing the military power of the United States to the assistance of a -"State" government whenever the "State" government might not be able to -maintain itself against domestic violence. There is no doubt that -General Scott of Ohio, whilom officer in the Union army and in the -Freedmen's Bureau, the "carpet-bag," radical Republican Governor of -South Carolina, attributed the most traitorous character possible to -these combinations, exaggerated the strength and extent of them to the -highest possible degree, and called for United States troops to -suppress them at the earliest possible moment. The most trustworthy men -in South Carolina affirmed then, and have continued to affirm to this -day, that those combinations had no traitorous intent whatsoever, but -were simply defensive in their nature; that the wholesale pardoning of -criminals by the Governor and the vagrancy of the negroes had filled -the country with desperadoes who made life, property, and female honor -insecure; and that, as the militia was composed of the friends of these -fiends, and the "State" government itself would not protect the white -citizens, it was absolutely necessary for the white people to create -some means of united action in self-defence and take the law into their -own hands. Statements to this effect were made by one Judge Carpenter, -a Republican "State" official of South Carolina, before the -investigating committee of Congress in 1871.</div> -<br> -<a name="side200"></a> -<div>On the 3d day of May following the passage of the Ku-Klux Act, the -President issued his general proclamation warning the people that the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -proclamation of<br> -May 3d, 1871.</b></small> -</div> - -law applied to the whole country, but particularly exhorting the people -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page260"><small><small>[p. 260]</small></small></a></span> -in the newly reconstructed "States" to suppress all unlawful -combinations by their own voluntary efforts, and declaring, that while -he was reluctant to make use of the extraordinary powers conferred on -him by the Act, he would nevertheless do so if it should be found -necessary for securing all the citizens of the United States in "the -peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution -and the laws."</div> -<br> -<a name="side201"></a> -<div>On the 12th of the following October, the President directed his -proclamation to the people of South Carolina alone, declaring that - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -proclamation to<br> -the people of<br> -South Carolina.</b></small> -</div> - -hostile combinations of persons making armed resistance to the civil -authorities of the "State" and the United States, in their attempt to -secure the people in their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the -United States and the Congressional Act of April 20th, 1871, too strong -to be overcome by these authorities, existed in the counties of York, -Marion, Chester, Laurens, Newberry, Fairfield, Lancaster and -Chesterfield, and commanding the members of these combinations to -deliver their arms and accoutrements into the hands of the United -States officers in those districts, and disperse to their abodes within -five days.</div> -<br> -<div>At the end of the five days of grace, the President issued a third - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Suspension of the<br> -privileges of the writ<br> -of Habeas Corpus<br> -by the President in<br> -certain counties of<br> -South Carolina.</b></small> -</div> - -proclamation, declaring that the members of these unlawful combinations -in the places mentioned in his former proclamation had not dispersed -and had not delivered up their arms and accoutrements as ordered, and -suspending the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus in the counties -of South Carolina above designated.</div> -<br> -<div>On the 3d day of the following November a fourth proclamation was -published, in which the President -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page261"><small><small>[p. 261]</small></small></a></span>acknowledged his error in -including the county of Marion in the list of counties in which the -privileges of the writ were suspended, but declared that the situation -in Union county was such as to warrant the suspension of those -privileges in that county also, and warned the insurgents in that -county to deliver up their arms and accoutrements and disperse to their -abodes within five days. This warning not having been obeyed, according -to the views of the President, a final proclamation was issued by him -on the 10th day of November suspending the privileges of the writ of -Habeas Corpus in Union county.</div> -<br> -<a name="side202"></a> -<div>In execution of the Act of April 20th, and in pursuance of these -proclamations, the President now sent a strong force of United States - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Ku-Klux trials.</b></small> -</div> - -troops into the district composed of the nine counties mentioned, the -commanders of which arrested some five or six hundred persons, kept -them in confinement so long as they pleased, and procured the -arraignment of some of them before the United States courts, where a -number of them were convicted and sentenced to fine or imprisonment or -to both. Whether there was any necessity for the exercise of such -harshness as this is a grave question. It was felt at the South to be -an abominable outrage, and the Democrats of the North held the same -opinion. More ominous than all this, however, was the fact that many -leading Republicans raised their voices in disapproval of it, and of -the law which authorized it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side203"></a> -<div>During the year 1872, in addition to all this, there came to the -knowledge of Congress and of the people of the North the frightful and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Corruption in the<br> -"State" governments<br> -of the South.<br><br> -In South Carolina.</b></small> -</div> - -scandalous corruption of the "State" governments in the South. It is -very difficult to get at distinct and reliable facts upon a subject -which officials undertake to cover up and keep shrouded in darkness. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page262"><small><small>[p. 262]</small></small></a></span> -But the record of these doings in South Carolina was something as -follows. The House of Representatives, the majority of the members of -which were negroes, and the presiding officer of which was the -notorious F. J. Moses, spent ninety-five thousand dollars to refurnish -its assembly hall, where the aristocrats of South Carolina had never -spent over five thousand. Clocks costing six hundred dollars each, -sofas two hundred dollars each, chairs at sixty dollars each, desks at -a hundred and twenty-five dollars each, mirrors at six hundred dollars -each, cuspidors at eight dollars each—such were the items of the bill. -In the four years from 1868 to 1872, two hundred thousand dollars were -expended for furniture for the legislative chambers alone. Then came -the bills of supplies, sundries and incidentals, amounting in one -session to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, one hundred and -twenty-five thousand of it for a free restaurant, lunch counter and -bar, at which the members and their friends fared most royally, eating, -drinking and smoking, and paying not a penny therefor directly, nor -indirectly, since many, if not most, of the members of that legislature -paid no stiver of the taxes. Then came the printing bills, averaging -more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year where ten -thousand dollars would have been more than enough to pay every -legitimate expense of that kind.</div> -<br> -<div>Then came the sale of franchises of all kinds, and the pledging of the -credit of the "State" in the form of bonds to aid all sorts of -enterprises pretended to be set on foot, or promoted as is now said, by -combinations of legislators or officials or their friends. In 1868 the -"State" debt was about five millions of dollars, with almost enough -assets to pay it. In 1872 the assets had disappeared and the debt was -more than eighteen <span class="pagenum"><a name="page263"><small><small>[p. 263]</small></small></a></span> -millions, and nothing worth mentioning to show -for it. And all this when the "State" taxes had been raised from less -than a half million of dollars a year on a valuation of over four -hundred millions to two millions of dollars a year on a valuation of -less than two hundred millions of property.</div> -<br> -<div>In Louisiana, under the leadership of the brilliant young adventurer, -Henry C. Warmoth of Illinois, the financial history of the "State" was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>In Louisiana.</b></small> -</div> - -even more scandalous. During the four years of Warmoth's governorship, -from 1868 to 1872, the average annual expenditure of the "State" -government was about six millions of dollars, when, measured by the -previous experiences of the "State," six hundred thousand dollars would -have been ample to defray all legitimate expenses. At the beginning of -Warmoth's administration the debt of the "State" was between six and -seven millions of dollars, with more than enough assets to extinguish -it. At the end of the four years of his power, in 1872, the debt was -nearly fifty millions of dollars, the assets had all disappeared, and -there was nothing worth mentioning to show for the one or the other.</div> -<br> -<div>In the counties and municipalities of both "States" the corruption was -equally rampant, shameless, and vulgar. It is impossible to obtain -exact figures in regard to it, or to estimate with any degree of -exactness, or even probability, the amounts stolen and made away with. -In the other reconstructed "States" where the adventurers and the -negroes held sway, the "State" governments worked along the same lines, -though not to the same appalling extent.</div> -<br> -<div>It was the most soul-sickening spectacle that Americans had ever been -called upon to behold. Every principle of the old American polity was -here reversed. In place of government by the most intelligent and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page264"><small><small>[p. 264]</small></small></a></span> -virtuous part of the people for the benefit of the governed, here was -government by the most ignorant and vicious part of the population for -the benefit, the vulgar, materialistic, brutal benefit of the governing set.</div> -<br> -<a name="side204"></a> -<div>It is no subject of surprise or wonder that, confronted with these -frightful results of radical Republican policy and administration in - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The revolt in the<br> -Republican party.</b></small> -</div> - -the South, such Republicans as Horace Greeley, Charles Francis Adams, -Lyman Trumbull, David Davis, Carl Schurz, Gratz Brown, Stanley -Matthews, George Hoadly, J. R. Spaulding, George W. Julian, Horace -White, David A. Wells, and the like, turned with disgust from the -nauseating transactions and resolved to do what was in their power to -put an end to it all. Even the radical, but honest, Sumner gave his -adherence to the movement for a change of the Administration, as the -only way to check the terrible corruption which was creeping over the -land. Sumner, it is true, had been made to feel personally the heavy -hand of the Administration. He had been dropped, the preceding year, -from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the -requirement of the Administration, because he had so strongly and -successfully opposed the Santo Domingo policy of the President and his -"aide-de-camp." But he had opposed that because he saw in it -corruption, robbery and bloodshed.</div> -<br> -<a name="side205"></a> -<div>The Liberal Republicans were bolters, of course, from the regular -organization, and there was no sufficient opportunity for them to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Liberal Republican<br> -convention of 1872.</b></small> -</div> - -construct a party organization for themselves in time for the -Presidential election of 1872. A general call for the leaders among -them to meet in mass convention was issued from a "State" convention of -Liberal <span class="pagenum"><a name="page265"><small><small>[p. 265]</small></small></a></span> -Republicans in Missouri, and the meeting took place at -Cincinnati on the 1st day of May, 1872.</div> -<br> -<div>The platform which it presented to the people demanded the removal, at -once, of all political disabilities from the white men of the South, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Their platform.</b></small> -</div> - -the maintenance of impartial suffrage and of equal civil rights, the -cessation of military rule in the South and the supremacy of civil over -military power, the reform of the civil service, and a speedy return to -specie payments. Many of the Liberal Republicans were inclined toward a -much more moderate tariff policy, but out of respect for the opinions -of those among them who were strong protectionists, they abandoned -their attempt to insert any doctrine on this subject in the platform. -The protectionists were equally considerate, and so the new party went -to the country uncommitted upon this very important question.</div> -<br> -<div>It was at first supposed that the choice of the convention for the -Presidency would lay between Judge David Davis of Illinois, Charles - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Their nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -Francis Adams of Massachusetts and Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois. -But an unexpected hostility of a very bitter nature soon developed -between the supporters of Davis and Adams, and rendered the nomination -of either of them impossible. This was evident on the first ballot, on -which Mr. Greeley, Senator Trumbull and Gratz Brown each received more -votes than Judge Davis, and together more votes than Mr. Adams. It was -thus manifest that the Western men would not take Mr. Adams and the -Eastern men would not take Judge Davis. The compromise was quickly made -upon Greeley, and Gratz Brown was put with him upon the ticket. It was -an unfortunate selection. The country did not want any brilliant -experiments at the moment. It wanted to settle down to business. And it -was to be <span class="pagenum"><a name="page266"><small><small>[p. 266]</small></small></a></span> -foreseen that it would not be willing to make a -newspaper man President at such a juncture.</div> -<br> -<a name="side206"></a> -<div>But stranger than the fact that the prince of protectionists was now -running for the presidency on a platform which ignored protection, was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Acceptance of the<br> -Liberal Republican<br> -candidates by the<br> -Democrats.</b></small> -</div> - -the fact that the Democratic party, strengthened again by its Southern -wing, now accepted the platform of the Liberal Republicans, and in -convention at Baltimore, in July following the Cincinnati meeting, -nominated the Liberal Republican candidates for the presidency and the -vice-presidency as its own candidates. The action of the Democrats, -both as to the platform and the candidates, was almost unanimous, and -it would be ungracious to express any suspicion of its sincerity. The -change of profession on the part of the Southern Democrats was very -great indeed, so great as to be surprising, but they had evidently come -to the conclusion that it was useless to contend with the North any -longer against the civil and political rights of the freedmen, and that -it was best for all concerned to accept the inevitable, and try to put -themselves in the most advantageous position possible for adjusting the -relations of their section to it.</div> -<br> -<div>Mr. Greeley was, indeed, in strange company, but the company had come -to him. He had not gone to them. He welcomed their support, and became - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Greeley and<br> -the Democrats.</b></small> -</div> - -contaminated by it in the eyes of a vast majority of the people of the -North. His own great ambition to be President also caused him to say -and to do some imprudent and undignified things. More than all, the -time had not yet come for the great change. The country was fast -approaching a financial crisis, and any shock would bring it on with -such sudden violence as to make it widespread and disastrous.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page267"><small><small>[p. 267]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side207"></a> -<div>As the last move, the "straight-out" Democrats bolted the ticket in -September, and at a convention held in Louisville, Kentucky, nominated - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Division in the<br> -Democratic Party.</b></small> -</div> - -Charles O'Conor of New York for President, and John Quincy Adams of -Massachusetts for Vice-President.</div> -<br> -<a name="side208"></a> -<div>The September and October elections in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, -Ohio, and Indiana demonstrated the hopelessness of the opposition to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republican<br> -platform and<br> -nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -the radical Republicans. They had held their convention in Philadelphia -in the early part of June, had issued a platform which simply asserted -the righteousness of what they had done and the determination to -persist in the course heretofore followed, and had nominated General -Grant for re-election to the presidency with Senator Henry Wilson, of -Massachusetts, for his running mate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side209"></a> -<div>In the election, they swept all of the Northern "States" by heavy -popular majorities, and with their election machinery in the Southern - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republican<br> -triumph.</b></small> -</div> - -"States" they captured a majority of these also. In those Southern -"States" which were free from carpet-bag negro rule the Greeley -electors were chosen, that is in Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, -Tennessee, Georgia and Texas. In the North, a very large number of -Democrats had failed to go to the polls. They could hardly have elected -Greeley, however, had they all voted for him. They were pretty sure of -this, and they took the opportunity of administering a rebuke to their -chiefs for not nominating candidates who were members of their own party.</div> -<br> -<div>While there is no doubt that the re-election of General Grant, and the -election of a strong Republican majority in Congress, quieted the mind - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The effect of the<br> -triumph of the<br> -Republicans.</b></small> -</div> - -of the North, there is also no doubt that they caused great -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page268"><small><small>[p. 268]</small></small></a></span> -discouragement among the white people of the South, since they operated -as an encouragement to the adventurers and the negroes to persevere in -their corrupt and conscienceless management of the "State" governments.</div> -<br> -<div>In several of the reconstructed "States" the Democrats had made strong -efforts to secure control of the "State" governments. The Amnesty Act -of May 22d, 1872, had removed the disqualifications of the Fourteenth -Amendment from all the Southern leaders, except such as had been -members of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, or had held -judicial, military, naval, or diplomatic office under the United -States, or had been heads of departments in ministerial office. A large -number of these leaders had thus been placed in a position to -participate as candidates for office and legislative position in the -election, and to aid greatly in the work of rescuing their "States" -from negro Republican rule. In Alabama and Louisiana they had very -nearly succeeded. In Alabama they had elected the Governor and a -majority of the members to the lower house of the legislature in the -autumn of 1870, and in 1872 they claimed to have elected a majority of -the members to both houses.</div> -<br> -<a name="side210"></a> -<div>In Alabama, the Democratic members-elect of the legislature convened in -the capitol, and the Republican members-elect in the court-house. The - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Events in<br> -Alabama.</b></small> -</div> - -Democratic Governor, Lindsay, recognized the Democratic legislature, -and the Democratic legislature then canvassed the votes for Governor -and declared the Republican candidate, D. P. Lewis, elected. Lewis then -recognized the Republican legislature, and telegraphed to Opelika for -United States soldiers to come to Montgomery. They arrived by the next -train, and, backed by these, the Governor and his friends, in and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page269"><small><small>[p. 269]</small></small></a></span> -out of the legislature, succeeded in constituting a legislature with a -small Republican majority in both houses; and the whites fell back -again under black rule, discouraged and exhausted by the exertions and -the failure to escape from it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side211"></a> -<div>In Louisiana the events were far more extraordinary and violent. -Warmoth's rule was approaching its end, and his Republican enemies, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Events in<br> -Louisiana.</b></small> -</div> - -what was known as the Custom House faction, the United States -officials, were fairly panting to get at him. To foil them, he went -over to the Democrats and promised to give them a fair chance to elect -their candidate for Governor and their candidates for the legislature. -For this he expected protection from them against the Custom House -gang, to whom he had denied what they had conceived to be their proper -share of the public plunder, and who, if in possession of the "State" -government, would make him answer for it. Warmoth supposed he was able -with his election machinery to give the "State" to the Democrats -whether the voters should do so or not. The election took place at the -same time as the presidential election, November 4th, 1872. The returns -were sent by the supervisors and commissioners of elections to Warmoth, -and he delivered them to his Returning Board, consisting of himself, -the Secretary of State, F. J. Herron, and one John Lynch; the other two -members of the Board as constituted by the legislature, by the act of -1870, viz., Lieutenant-Governor Pinchback and one Anderson, being -disqualified from serving, since both of them were candidates for -office at this election. The Governor had his suspicions aroused about -the loyalty of both Herron and Lynch to him before the count took -place, and having the legal power to remove Herron, he did so at once -and appointed one John Wharton, a friend upon whom he could rely, in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page270"><small><small>[p. 270]</small></small></a></span> -Herron's place. Lynch now refused to act with them, and Herron -denied the power of the Governor to dismiss him from the Secretaryship -of State, and from his <i>ex officio</i> membership in the Returning Board. -Warmoth and Wharton proceeded, however, to supply the place of Lynch, -as they might do under the law, and Herron and Lynch proceeded to -supply the place of Warmoth.</div> -<br> -<div>The Warmoth Board had the returns, and it was also generally felt that -the Democratic candidate for Governor, John McEnery, had been chosen by -the voters. Moreover, the right of Herron to retain the office of -Secretary of State was immediately brought before the supreme court of -the "State," and the court gave its decision against Herron's -contention. It seemed now certain that the Warmoth Returning Board -would declare McEnery to have been elected Governor. But the Republican -candidate, W. P. Kellogg, then a Senator from Louisiana in Congress, -was watchful and resourceful. He secured from United States District -Judge Durell an injunction which forbade the Warmoth Board to do -anything except in the presence of the Lynch Board, and forbade McEnery -from claiming his election under the returns which might be given out -by the Warmoth Board.</div> -<br> -<div>Warmoth met this by a move which was equally a <i>coup de surprise</i>. The -legislature had at its last session passed a law vesting the power to - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Warmoth<br> -and Durell.</b></small> -</div> - -select the members of the Returning Board in the senate. The Governor -had not signed this bill, and probably never intended to sign it, since -it proposed to take the control of the Board out of his hands, but it -now seemed to furnish him a way of escape from Durell's order. He -hastily signed the bill and promulgated it as law, and as the senate -was not in session, proceeded to appoint the members of the new Board -himself, under the power of the Governor to make temporary appointments -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page271"><small><small>[p. 271]</small></small></a></span> -to office when the senate was not in session. He appointed one -Dr. Feriet chairman of the Board, and put the election returns in his -hands. This Board declared that McEnery had been elected Governor and -that the Greeley electors had been chosen. The Governor published these -decisions officially on the 5th day of December, and the affair seemed -to have been closed. But to the surprise of everyone concerned, and of -the whole country, in the middle of the night following, Judge Durell -issued an order to the United States Marshal, S. B. Packard, to take -possession of the capitol and hold it at the pleasure of the Judge -against all unlawful bodies attempting to convene therein. The Judge -claimed that Warmoth had committed a contempt against his court in the -Returning Board proceeding, and he declared that the Lynch Board was -the legal body. His order furthermore required the commander of the -United States troops to furnish a detachment of soldiers to sustain the -United States marshal in taking possession of the capitol, and in -enforcing the Lynch Board's canvass and decision.</div> -<br> -<div>A more palpable outrage upon the lawful powers of a "State" could -hardly have been conceived. The Judge had not a scintilla of authority -upon which to rest his proceeding. It is claimed that he was drunk when -he made the order. But this can hardly have been true, that is he could -not have been any more than ordinarily drunk, since the order was not -withdrawn when he became ostensibly sober again, but was made the basis -of a proceeding which lasted through many days, and the results of -which were the counting in of Kellogg and of a Republican legislature -by the Lynch Board, the immediate instalment of the Lynch Board -legislature, the almost immediate impeachment of Warmoth by it and his -removal from the governorship, the installation of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page272"><small><small>[p. 272]</small></small></a></span> -Lieutenant-Governor, the negro Pinchback, in his seat, the recognition -of the Lynch Board legislature and of Pinchback by the President of the -United States as the lawful legislature and executive of Louisiana, and -the inauguration of Kellogg as Governor at the end of the -Warmoth-Pinchback term. If this was all the work of a drunken spree, it -must have been a very long one, and there must have been many -participants in it besides the Judge.</div> -<br> -<div>The Warmoth Board Governor and legislature undertook to set up -government also, sustained as they undoubtedly were both by the law, -and by public opinion in Louisiana and probably throughout the country, -and partially organized a militia force. It was the fighting between -this militia and the metropolitan police in the streets of New Orleans -which occasioned the suppression of the McEnery government at last by -United States soldiers.</div> -<br> -<a name="side212"></a> -<div>For two years more now the government of the adventurers, based on -negro support, continued in the "States" south of the Tennessee line, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The downward<br> -course between<br> -1872 and 1874.<br><br> -The elections<br> -of 1874.</b></small> -</div> - -except Georgia. Property was decreasing in amount and value; taxes were -being doubled; and new bond issues were being made, and the bonds sold -at a great reduction upon their face value, or stolen outright. But the -day of deliverance was coming. The conscience of the Nation had been -aroused, and in the elections of 1874 the voters throughout the country -delivered a stunning rebuke to the party responsible for the hideous -situation in the South. It is true that other issues were influential -in producing the <i>bouleversement</i> of 1874, especially the financial -panic of 1873 and the corruption in the circles of the Federal -Administration itself, the Whiskey ring frauds, and the Indian agent -peculations. We must also <span class="pagenum"><a name="page273"><small><small>[p. 273]</small></small></a></span> -remember that at this very election -several of the Southern "States" relieved themselves of Republican rule -and sent solid, or almost solid, Democratic delegations to Congress. -But with all proper allowance for the effect of these things, there -still remained, as the chief cause of the change of view in the North, -the revolt of the popular conscience against being any longer dragooned -into the support of the policy of the Republican party in the Southern -"States," and the popular disgust at the everlasting "waving of the -bloody shirt" whenever the dominance of that party seemed anywhere -threatened. At any rate, it was a clean sweep, and from a majority of -two-thirds in the Forty-third Congress, the Republicans found -themselves in possession of only about one-third of the seats in the -Lower House of the Forty-fourth Congress.</div> -<br> -<a name="side213"></a> -<div>Moreover, three more of the Southern "States" freed themselves, at this -time, from "Black Republican" rule. In Alabama, the respectable whites - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The change in Alabama,<br> -Arkansas and Texas.</b></small> -</div> - -had now about all gone into the Democratic ranks, and with the election -of George S. Houston as Governor, and a legislature in large majority -Democratic, the "State" won at last its self-government. Likewise by a -similar fusion of all the respectable whites into the Democratic party, -A. H. Garland was elected Governor of Arkansas and a legislature with a -large Democratic majority was chosen, and from that time forward the -"State" government has been in the hands of its own citizens. The same -result was reached in Texas, where the union of the respectables of all -parties upon the Democratic candidates elected Richard Coke Governor -and a legislature of reputable white men.</div> -<br> -<a name="side214"></a> -<div>Even South Carolina very nearly escaped her thraldom, and came near to -electing a white Democrat Governor. As it was, she got a moderate - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The status in South<br> -Carolina in 1874.<br><br> -Governor<br> -Chamberlain.</b></small> -</div> - -Republican for <span class="pagenum"><a name="page274"><small><small>[p. 274]</small></small></a></span> -Governor, Mr. D. H. Chamberlain, a Northerner -indeed, but a man of great ability and undoubted honesty, who did -everything in his power to redeem the "State" from the miserable -condition into which the errors and crimes of his predecessors had -brought it. He naturally soon found himself in conflict with some of -the leaders of his own party in the "State" and at Washington, and was -greatly impeded by them in carrying out his own purposes. At last, in -1875, the break between him and the members of his party in the -legislature was completed by the act of the legislature in electing the -notorious F. J. Moses, Jr., and the negro, W. J. Whipper, "State" -judges. The Governor was so incensed at this act of downright depravity -that he refused to commission the two judges-elect to the judicial -offices to which they had been chosen. Whipper threatened to use force -to gain possession of the office, and the Governor issued his -proclamation threatening to arrest every person who should give Whipper -any aid or support in this attempt as disturbers of the public peace. -The Governor triumphed and protected the "State" against the terrible -degradation which impended over it, but his brave attitude ruined him -with the radical and base elements of his party.</div> -<br> -<a name="side215"></a> -<div>The day of complete deliverance was now, however, rapidly approaching. -The election of 1875 in Mississippi showed that the domination of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The day of<br> -complete<br> -deliverance.<br><br> -The status in<br> -Mississippi<br> -in 1875.</b></small> -</div> - -"Black Republicans" in the Southern "State" governments could last no -longer. Here was a "State" in which the negro population exceeded the -white very largely, but in the election of 1875 the whites finally got -together and what they could not accomplish in one way they did in -another. The whites organized themselves into rifle clubs, attended the -Republican <span class="pagenum"><a name="page275"><small><small>[p. 275]</small></small></a></span> -meetings and insisted upon a division of the time -between their own speakers and the Republican speakers at these -meetings. A great deal of fraud and intimidation was practised, and -some violence was exercised, but always in such a manner as not to -provoke the calling of United States troops to the scene. The immediate -occasion of these desperate movements on the part of the whites was the -treatment accorded the petition made by the taxpayers' convention of -the "State" to the legislature for relief from the intolerable burdens -under which the taxpayers were suffering. This petition of the 4th of -January, 1875, recited that between the years 1869 and 1874 the rate of -"State" taxation had been raised from ten cents on the hundred dollars -of assessed value of lands to one dollar and forty cents, and that in -many cases the increase in the rate of the county levies had been even -greater, so that the whole product of the soil was hardly sufficient to -pay the taxes. The negro legislature laughed at these representations, -and did not deign to consider them, much less to do anything to satisfy -the frightful grievances complained of. It was now a choice between -complete destruction and the employment of any means necessary to -escape from it. There was no use in talking about observing the letter -of the law at such a moment. The law was iniquitous and it was rapidly -destroying all that was left of prosperity, civilization, morality and -decency. If it would not yield, it had to be broken. The movement was -successful. It was really a revolution. It resulted in the election of -a Democratic legislature in November of 1875, the disruption of the -Republican party in the "State," the framing of an impeachment against -the Republican Governor, Ames, his resignation and departure from the -"State," and the accession of the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page276"><small><small>[p. 276]</small></small></a></span> -Democrat, John M. Stone, to the gubernatorial office.</div> -<br> -<div>It was thus that the eventful year 1876 was introduced, and it was an -earnest of the relief which was now to come to the remaining "States" -of the South suffering under the rule of the adventurers and their -negro allies.</div> -<br> -<a name="side216"></a> -<div>While the Republican party had step by step, and almost unconsciously, -involved itself in the support of dishonest and oppressive government - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Fiat money and<br> -the resumption of<br> -of specie payments.</b></small> -</div> - -at the South, it was, on the other hand, fighting the battle for -financial honesty in the Nation at large against the fiat money heresy -and the schemes of repudiation invented and supported by the national -Democracy. Its Congressional majority had passed the Refunding Acts of -July 14th, 1870, and January 20th, 1871, for refunding the debt of the -United States in coin bonds bearing five, four and one-half and four -per centum interest. These acts authorized the issue of eighteen -hundred millions of dollars in these new bonds, five hundred millions -payable after ten years, and bearing five per centum interest, three -hundred millions payable after fifteen years and bearing four and -one-half per centum interest, and one thousand millions payable after -thirty years and bearing four per centum interest. By the Act of March -18th, 1869, the Republican Congress had declared that all of the -obligations of the United States should be paid in coin or its -equivalent, unless otherwise specifically stipulated in the law -authorizing the obligation. This Act was made applicable to past, as -well as future, obligations. It rested on the principle that debts must -be paid in the best money of the country unless otherwise agreed to in -the contract. This is, of course, the sound principle both of morals -and finance, and no act of Congress pronouncing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page277"><small><small>[p. 277]</small></small></a></span>it would have -been considered necessary, except for the great fact that the -Democratic party, in its campaign of 1868, had espoused the opposite -doctrine and had fought the campaign largely under that issue. The Act, -however, might of course be repealed, and in that case the question as -to whether the principal sum of the greater part of the national -indebtedness should be paid in coin would be again opened, since the -laws authorizing the incurring of these obligations provided only for -the payment of the interest upon them in coin. It was in order to -forestall the possibility of a repeal of the Act of March 18th, 1869, -as well as in order to make a large saving in the interest charge, that -these Refunding Acts were passed.</div> -<br> -<div>After the panic of 1873 had resulted in such a depression of business -and depreciation of values throughout the country as to create greater -discontent with the existing political management, and this discontent -had manifested itself so distinctly in the elections of 1874, -announcing to the Republican party that after March 5th, 1875, a -Democratic majority would prevail in the House of Representatives, it -was manifest to the Republican leaders, in Congress and out of -Congress, that if anything was to be done in regard to the resumption -of specie payment, anything for bringing the paper currency of the -United States up to a coin value, it must be done speedily, and on the -21st of December, 1874, Mr. Sherman reported a bill from the Finance -Committee to the Senate for this purpose, which became a law on the -14th day of January following, and which provided for the redemption of -the fractional currency with silver coins of the value of ten, -twenty-five and fifty cents, so rapidly as these coins could be minted; -abolished the charge of one-fifth of one per centum on the coinage of -gold, making the coinage of gold at the mints of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page278"><small><small>[p. 278]</small></small></a></span>United -States free; repealed the law limiting the aggregate amount of the -circulating notes of the national banking associations, and the law for -the withdrawal of national-bank currency from, and its redistribution -among, the several "States" and Territories; ordered the Secretary of -the Treasury in issuing new circulating notes to the national banking -associations to retire United States legal tender notes to the amount -of eighty per centum of such issues, until the United States legal -tender notes should be reduced to three hundred millions of dollars, -and after January 1st, 1879, to redeem these legal tender notes in coin -on their presentation at the office of the Assistant Treasurer of the -United States in the city of New York, in sums of not less than fifty -dollars; and, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to do this, -authorized him to use any unappropriated surplus revenue which might -be, from time to time, in the Treasury, and to sell bonds of the -description mentioned in the Act of July 14th, 1870, in such amounts as -he should find necessary to accomplish the purpose.</div> -<br> -<a name="side217"></a> -<div>It is true that the Republican majority in Congress had not taken this -high ground concerning the public credit and sound money without some -wavering. The President himself had become frightened by the panic of -the autumn of 1873, and in his annual message of December 1st following -had made recommendations that might be regarded as favorable to an -inflation of the existing body of paper money. His party friends in - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The inflation bill<br> -of 1874 and the<br> -veto of it by the<br> -President.</b></small> -</div> - -Congress very soon produced a bill which, among other things, provided -for the increase of the United States notes and the national bank notes -to the extent of about one hundred millions of dollars, and passed it. -But the President had either thought the question out more fully, or -had been in receipt of some very sound -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page279"><small><small>[p. 279]</small></small></a></span>advice, after he wrote the -message of December 1st, 1873. On the 22d of April, 1874, he sent a -special message to Congress vetoing the bill. This stand of the -President recalled the Republicans in Congress from their economic -aberrations, and set them again upon the course which led to the Act of -the 14th of January, 1875.</div> -<br> -<div>While at the moment this law for the resumption of specie payments in -the short period of four years, or rather less, from the time of its -enactment seemed a rather hazardous, not to say desperate, move on the -part of the Republicans, it soon became manifest that they could have -done nothing so calculated to strengthen the hold of the party upon the -solid and conservative men of the country as just this very thing. Many -of these men who had usually voted with the Republicans disapproved of -the Southern policy of the party, and were on the point of turning -against it. With the Resumption Act the financial policy of the -Republican party, and of the country, was dragged to the front, and the -Southern policy was forced backward, and made to constitute a less -prominent issue in the campaign of 1876. This was not only wise party -management, but it was also a fortunate thing for the entire country. -The country was not yet in a position to endure a Democratic -administration, and, on the other hand, it was surfeited with -reconstruction Republican administrations. It wanted a sound money -Republican administration, which would devote itself to the development -of the economic interests of the whole people, and would let the -"State" governments in the South have a chance to work out their own -salvation. And this was just what it got in the election of 1876, and -in the administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap13"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page280"><small><small>[p. 280]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER XIII</h3> -<center>THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side218">The Republican National Convention of 1876—The -Platform</a>—<a href="#side219">The Nominees</a>—<a href="#side220">The -National Democratic Convention of 1876—The Platform</a>—<a href="#side221">The -Nominees</a>—<a href="#side222">The Campaign and the -Election</a>—<a href="#side223">The Count and the -Twenty-second Joint Rule</a>—<a href="#side224">Views in Regard to the Power to Count the -Electoral Vote</a>—<a href="#side225">The Republicans in Advantage in the Count of the -Vote</a>—<a href="#side226">The Electoral Commission -Bill</a>—<a href="#side227">The Passage of the Bill</a>—<a href="#side228">The -Members of the Commission</a>—<a href="#side229">The Fifth -Justice</a>—<a href="#side230">Justice David Davis</a>—<a href="#side231">The -Counting of the Electoral Vote by Congress</a>—<a href="#side232">The Double Returns from -South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Oregon</a>—<a href="#side233">The Counsel before the -Commission</a>—<a href="#side234">The Republican -Position</a>—<a href="#side235">The Democratic Position</a>—<a href="#side236">The -Decisions of the Commission</a>—<a href="#side237">Mr. Hayes Declared -President</a>—<a href="#side238">The Truth in -Regard to the Election</a>—<a href="#side239">Mr. Hayes's Southern -Policy</a>—<a href="#side240">The Result of His -Policy</a>—<a href="#side241">Reconciliation between the North and the South</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<a name="side218"></a> -<div>When the managers of the Republican party met in National nominating -convention at Cincinnati, on the 14th of June, 1876, they rightly - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republican<br> -National<br> -Convention<br> -of 1876.<br><br> -The platform.</b></small> -</div> - -divined the policy which alone could lead them to victory in the -elections of the following autumn. They constructed their platform in -such a way as to place the financial issue in the foreground, with the -pledges of the party to uphold the public credit, and to place the -currency of the country on a coin basis. They also declared the -pacification of the South to be a sacred duty, and pledged the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page281"><small><small>[p. 281]</small></small></a></span> -party to a thoroughgoing reform of the civil service. Connected -therewith were, of course, the usual platitudes about the civil and -political liberty and equality of every American citizen and of -everybody else.</div> -<br> -<a name="side219"></a> -<div>While there was no name before the convention commanding universal -popular assent, as had been the case at the second nomination of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -Lincoln and the two nominations of Grant, still there was one which, in -so far as its possessor was known, inspired strong, if not -enthusiastic, confidence. It was not pronounced in the first balloting -so loudly as that of the brilliant Blaine, or the stolid Morton, or the -arrogant Conkling, but, as the voting continued, more and more of the -ballots contained it, and at last on the seventh round, it received a -majority of the votes. The choice was a wise one. Mr. Hayes had been a -good soldier, a valuable member of the National legislature, and an -excellent Governor of his native "State," in which office he was -serving for a third term at the time of his nomination for the -Presidency. He was a man of sound sense, unimpeachable character, -generous feeling, pleasing manners, and resolute will. There was a -tendency at first on the part of the friends of some of the -disappointed aspirants to belittle his qualities, and to represent him -as a weak man, and his conciliatory methods were often mistaken for -weakness by those who were not his rivals or his enemies, or the -friends of his rivals or his enemies; but as history sets his character -and his work in their proper perspective they both stand out more and -more strongly, and make his Administration appear to be one of the most -important in American annals. Especially does it honor him for his -earnest, faithful and successful battle for sound money and the -maintenance of the public faith, and for his determination to put an -end to the support by Federal <span class="pagenum"><a name="page282"><small><small>[p. 282]</small></small></a></span> -bayonets of the "carpet-bag," negro -"State" governments of the South.</div> -<br> -<a name="side220"></a> -<div>A fortnight after the nomination by the Republican convention of -Rutherford B. Hayes for President and William A. Wheeler for - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The National<br> -Democratic<br> -Convention<br> -of 1876.<br><br> -The platform.</b></small> -</div> - -Vice-President, the Democratic leaders met at St. Louis for the purpose -of issuing the campaign creed of their party and choosing its candidate -for the chief magistracy of the Nation. The platform put forward by -them was remarkable for its length, its language of fierce -vituperation, and its loud calls for reform. Its specific propositions -were the reduction of the duties on foreign imports to a revenue basis, -and the repeal of the Resumption Act of 1875, on the strange ground -that it obstructed the return to specie payments.</div> -<br> -<a name="side221"></a> -<div>Their candidate had virtually been determined on before they met. It -could be nobody else than the popular Governor of New York, Samuel J. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The nominees.</b></small> -</div> - -Tilden, shrewd in business, rich, the most successful political manager -New York had produced since Van Buren, greatly heralded as the very -archpriest of reform, the hope of the young men in politics; but not a -statesman in the highest sense of the word, nor a demagogue in the -lowest sense of that word—a genuine American politician of the first -order. He was nominated on the second ballot, and by a unanimous vote. -With him was placed as candidate for the second place the popular Mr. -Hendricks of Indiana. It was a strong ticket, and it was generally -believed that it would win. Mr. Tilden himself felt sure of the -electoral votes of all the Southern "States" and of New York, Indiana, -New Jersey and Connecticut.</div> -<br> -<a name="side222"></a> -<div>Mr. Tilden quietly managed his own campaign, while Mr. Hayes left his -political interests in the hands of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page283"><small><small>[p. 283]</small></small></a></span>very astute chairman of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The campaign<br> -and the election.</b></small> -</div> - -the National committee of the Republican party, Senator Chandler of -Michigan. There was not much doubt on the morning following the -election, the morning of the 8th November, that the Democrats had -triumphed. Almost all of the Republican newspapers conceded it. But the -Republican managers knew that they could do what they pleased with the -electoral votes of South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, through their -canvassing boards in these "States," with the power in these boards to -throw out the returns from any place where, in their opinion, there had -been any violence, intimidation, fraud or bribery exercised or -attempted; and when the managers found that they were pretty sure of -the electoral votes of all of the Northern Commonwealths, except -Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Indiana, they simply added to the -one hundred and sixty-six electoral votes of which they were -practically sure the nineteen votes of Louisiana, Florida and South -Carolina, of which they were absolutely sure, if needed, and sent out -from their head-quarters the positive announcement that Hayes and -Wheeler had been elected by a majority of one electoral vote.</div> -<br> -<a name="side223"></a> -<div>But the final count of the electoral vote must be in the presence of -the two Houses of Congress assembled in one place, and the Democrats - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The count and the<br> -twenty-second<br> -joint rule.</b></small> -</div> - -were in majority in one of the Houses, and the twenty-second joint -rule, as it was called, which had been applied since the count of -the electoral vote of 1864 for the ascertainment of the result of the -returns to Congress, ordained that the electoral vote of any "State" -might be thrown out by either House. If this rule should be considered -as still in force, and be applied in the impending count, the -Democratic House of Representatives could reject the returns of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page284"><small><small>[p. 284]</small></small></a></span> -Republican authorities in South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, -and thus secure the election of Mr. Tilden. This rule, however, was not -necessarily binding upon this Congress, as it had not been re-enacted -by the Houses composing it. That is, either House could lawfully refuse -to acquiesce in its further application. The Republicans now repudiated -it, although it was their predecessors who had created it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side224"></a> -<div>Some of the Republicans now claimed that the Constitution vested the -Vice-President, or rather the President of the Senate, with the power - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Views in regard to<br> -the power to count<br> -the electoral vote.</b></small> -</div> - -to count the electoral votes. The language of the Constitution was, and -still is, "the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the -Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the -votes shall then be counted." No President of the Senate had, however, -ever ventured to determine whether a disputed return, in case any such -had been received by him, was to be counted, and Mr. Ferry, the -President of the Senate, gave his Republican friends to understand that -he did not feel like assuming any such responsibility.</div> -<br> -<a name="side225"></a> -<div>Nevertheless, the Republicans were in decided advantage. They had the -President of the United States to execute by force whatever they might - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republicans in<br> -advantage in the<br> -count of the vote.</b></small> -</div> - -resolve upon, and they had the President of the Senate, whose scruples -the Democrats had not discovered, and, of course, they had one House of -the Congress, the Senate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side226"></a> -<div>The Democrats felt that they must make an effort to change the -situation. They, therefore, quickly seized upon a suggestion made by a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Electoral<br> -Commission Bill.</b></small> -</div> - -Republican member of the Judiciary Committee of the House of -Representatives, Mr. G. W. McCrary, and voted a measure in the House -for the appointment of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page285"><small><small>[p. 285]</small></small></a></span> -members to a joint committee of the two -Houses, which committee should immediately report a proposition for -counting the electoral votes. This was the 14th of December, 1876. The -Senate agreed to this measure on the next day. Three Republicans and -four Democrats were appointed by the House, and four Republicans and -three Democrats by the Senate, and the committee so constituted -reported, on the 18th of January, 1877, the famous Electoral Commission bill.</div> -<br> -<a name="side227"></a> -<div>The essential provisions of the bill were, first, the creation of a -Commission composed of five members of the House of Representatives, -five members of the Senate, and five Justices of the Supreme Court of -the United States, the members from the House to be chosen by the -House, the members from the Senate to be chosen by the Senate, while -the Justices of the Supreme Court from the first, third, eighth and -ninth circuits were designated in the bill, and they were authorized to -select a fifth from among the other members of the Court; second, the -fixing of the rule that the electoral vote of any "State" from which -only a single return had been received should be counted unless <i>both</i> -Houses should decide otherwise, and of the other rule that when more -than one return had been received from any "State," the Commission -should forthwith decide which return should be counted, and this return -should be counted unless <i>both</i> Houses should reject the decision, or -order otherwise; and third, the reservation of any right existing under -the Constitution and laws to question before the courts of the United -States the titles of the persons who should be declared elected -President and Vice-President to these respective offices. The bill was - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The passage<br> -of the Bill.</b></small> -</div> - -subjected to a most thorough discussion in <i>both</i> Houses. It passed the -Senate on the 24th of January by a vote of forty-seven to seventeen. -Twenty-one <span class="pagenum"><a name="page286"><small><small>[p. 286]</small></small></a></span> -Republicans and twenty-six Democrats voted in favor of -it, and sixteen Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. It -passed the House on the 26th by a vote of one hundred and ninety-one to -eighty-six. Thirty-three Republicans and one hundred and fifty-eight -Democrats voted for it, and sixty-eight Republicans and eighteen -Democrats voted against it. It is certainly fair, therefore, to call it -a Democratic measure. The President signed the bill, nevertheless, on the 29th.</div> -<br> -<a name="side228"></a> -<div>The Senate immediately chose Messrs. Edmunds, Frelinghuysen and Morton, -Republicans, and Messrs. Bayard and Thurman, Democrats, to represent it - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The members of<br> -the Commission.</b></small> -</div> - -upon the Commission, and the House chose Messrs. Garfield and Hoar, -Republicans, and Messrs. Abbott, Hunton and Payne, Democrats. The -Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the bill as members of the -Commission were Messrs. Clifford, Strong, Miller and Field. Strong and -Miller were understood to be Republicans, and Clifford and Field -Democrats. Upon these four the duty was imposed to select the fifth Justice.</div> -<br> -<a name="side229"></a> -<div>Since without the fifth Justice the Commission would consist of seven -Republicans and seven Democrats, it was evident that this Justice would - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The fifth<br> -Justice.</b></small> -</div> - -be the umpire in every question of disputed returns which the two -Houses could not themselves settle by concurrent agreement. The -responsibility which this Justice would have to bear would be one of -the most onerous and solemn duties ever imposed upon any mortal. It -could be no less than the making of a President, and it might be the -determination of the question whether there should be another civil -war. It was not a responsibility to be courted, but no man upon whom it -might fall could, with honor, refuse to accept it.</div> -<br> -<div>It was the general feeling throughout the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page287"><small><small>[p. 287]</small></small></a></span>discussion of the bill -that the man who would be chosen was Judge David Davis. He had been a -Republican and a close personal friend of Lincoln, but had latterly -inclined toward the Democracy, and, it was thought, had favored the -election of Mr. Tilden. He was regarded as the man of least political -prejudice among a set of men of very little political prejudice. The -Democrats, however, were entirely willing to risk their cause in his -hands, because they believed it was strong enough on its merits to -convince any unprejudiced mind, and there is little question that the -Republicans were afraid to risk their cause in his hands, because they -knew that they must win on every point or lose altogether, and they -hesitated to take such desperate chances unless whatever political -prejudice might exist in the mind of the umpire should be on their side.</div> -<br> -<a name="side230"></a> -<div>But to the apparent surprise of everybody and to the consternation of -the Democrats, Justice Davis was chosen by the Illinois legislature, on - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Justice David Davis.</b></small> -</div> - -the 25th of January, the day after the bill passed the Senate, and the -day before it passed the House, United States Senator, and a few days -after the bill passed the House, he accepted the position, which act -involved his resignation at an early day of his judicial office; and as -he was now to leave the bench and go into the political branch of the -Government, as a Democratic Senator, elected by the Democrats of the -Illinois legislature, there appeared to him an evident impropriety in -his acting on the Commission as a representative of the unpolitical -branch of the Government, and especially as that member upon whom the -weightiest responsibility would fall, and who would, therefore, be -expected to act with greatest political impartiality, and with an eye -single to public justice. Whether Justice Davis sought this election to -the senatorship at this juncture or not, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page288"><small><small>[p. 288]</small></small></a></span>in order to escape the -great responsibility that was about to fall upon him, we do not know. -He was not a particularly brave man. He was a big, fat man, a good -liver, and loved his ease. Ordinarily men will not exchange the high -and life-long office of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United -States for a seat in the Senate. Unless he had his eye upon the -Presidency of the United States, it would be very hard to explain his -action in exchanging his high judicial position for the senatorship on -any other ground than his desire to escape the terrible responsibility -of deciding whether Tilden or Hayes should be President. It is even -more difficult to account for the action of the Democrats in the -legislature of Illinois. They certainly did not intend to harm the -chances of Mr. Tilden by this act. The Republicans might have invented -such a scheme for disposing of the Justice, but for Democrats to have -been concerned in any such movement is incredible. It is probable that -it was simply a blunder on their part. They did not appreciate the -incompatibility between the position of a Democratic Senator-elect and -membership on the Electoral Commission as a judicial representative. -They thought that as the Justice would not take his seat in the Senate -until after the 4th of March he would remain a member of the Supreme -Court until then, and as such would be fully qualified for the place on -the Commission. The legislature at Springfield had no such delicate and -discriminating sense of official proprieties as obtained in Washington, -and throughout the more fastidious East.</div> -<br> -<div>The Democrats in the House of Representatives learned of the election -of Justice Davis to the Senate on the morning of the day they were to -vote on the passage of the Electoral Commission bill. Even they did not -fully realize that it meant that the Justice -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page289"><small><small>[p. 289]</small></small></a></span>would not serve on -the Commission. Moreover, they had gone to such lengths with the bill -that it was too late to turn back. So far as is known the Justice did -not inform them or anybody else of his intention to accept the -senatorship, or of his scruples about being a member of the Commission, -until after the bill became law. When he did do so, the correctness of -his position was so clear that the four Justices named in the Act -immediately selected Justice Joseph P. Bradley as the fifth judicial -member of the Commission. Bradley was a Republican, as were the other -three members of the court, Waite, Hunt and Swayne. That is, after -Justice Davis was disposed of there remained only Republicans to choose -from, and Bradley being regarded as the least partisan, and the most -learned in the law, was selected. He fully realized the vast -responsibility which had been thus unexpectedly thrust upon him, but he -accepted it bravely and without flinching, and discharged it with honor -and success.</div> -<br> -<a name="side231"></a> -<div>The Houses of Congress, and also the Electoral Commission, met on the -1st day of February to count the electoral vote. The Democrats still - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The counting of<br> -the electoral vote<br> -by Congress.</b></small> -</div> - -felt sure of success, since they would win the election, if successful -upon a single point, while the Republicans, to be successful, must win -upon every point. On the other hand, the hopes of the Republicans had -been raised by gaining the majority of the Commission.</div> -<br> -<a name="side232"></a> -<div>When the returns were opened by the President of the Senate two sets of -returns were found from each of the four "States," Florida, Louisiana, - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The double returns<br> -from South Carolina,<br> -Florida, Louisiana<br> -and Oregon.</b></small> -</div> - -South Carolina, and Oregon. In the case of Florida the electors voting -for Hayes and Wheeler sent with their votes the certification of the -"State" Canvassing Board and of the Governor to their election. The -case of South Carolina was the same. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page290"><small><small>[p. 290]</small></small></a></span>In the case of Louisiana the -electors voting for Hayes and Wheeler sent with their votes the -certification of Governor Kellogg and of the "State" Canvassing Board -acting with him to their election, and the electors voting for Tilden -and Hendricks sent the certification of John McEnery, claiming to be -Governor, and the Canvassing Board acting with him, to their election.</div> -<br> -<div>The Oregon case was more complicated. The three Republican electors -received the highest number of votes, as reported by the Secretary of -State, who by the laws of Oregon was the "State" canvassing officer, to -the Governor. But one of them, Watts, held the office of postmaster in -a small place at the time of his election, and the Constitution of the -United States provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person -holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be -appointed an elector." The Democratic Governor of Oregon decided in his -own mind that Watts was not eligible, and made out his certification to -include, beside the two Republican electors who were eligible, one -Cronin, the Democrat receiving the highest number of votes for elector, -although the number received by him was a minority of all the votes -cast for the electoral tickets. This certificate was attested by the -Secretary of State, and was given to Cronin. When the day for the -meeting of the electors came around Cronin presented himself holding -the Governor's certificate, the only certificate which had been issued -to the electors by Governor Grover. But in spite of the fact that he -had this technical advantage, the two Republican electors, whose names -were included in the Governor's certificate, refused to act with him, -and he refused to let them have the certificate to attach to their -return of the electoral vote to the President of the Senate of the -United States unless they should so act. Both parties persisted -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page291"><small><small>[p. 291]</small></small></a></span> -in their refusals. Whereupon Cronin selected one J. N. Y. Miller and -one John Parker to fill up the electoral college of Oregon and these -three cast two electoral votes for Hayes and Wheeler and one for Tilden -and Hendricks, and, after attaching the Governor's certification to the -record of their vote in due form, sent this return to the President of -the Senate of the United States, as required by the Constitution. At -the same time the two Republican electors, Odell and Cartwright, met to -cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth. Watts was also present. He -had resigned his office of postmaster, and now he resigned his position -as elector. The other two accepted his resignation, and immediately -chose him an elector. The three then cast the electoral vote of the -Commonwealth for Hayes and Wheeler. As we have seen, they did not have -the certification of their election by the Governor to attach to their -votes, as required by the law of the United States, but they procured -from the Secretary of State a certified copy of the canvass of the -votes for the electors, which showed the election of the three -Republican candidates, and sent this, and also a copy of their -proceedings in accepting the resignation of Watts, and then electing -him an elector, along with their report of the vote of the electors for -President and Vice-President, to the President of the Senate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side233"></a> -<div>Both the Republicans and the Democrats were represented by most able -counsel before the Electoral Commission. William M. Evarts, Stanley - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The counsel before<br> -the Commission.</b></small> -</div> - -Matthews, E. W. Stoughton, and Samuel Shellabarger were pitted against -a formidable array both as to ability and numbers on the other side, -Judge J. S. Black, Matthew H. Carpenter, Charles O'Conor, J. A. -Campbell, Lyman Trumbull, Ashbel Green, Montgomery Blair, George -Hoadly, William C. Whitney, R. T. Merrick and A. P. Morse.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page292"><small><small>[p. 292]</small></small></a></span> -<a name="side234"></a> -<div>The Republicans took their stand at the outset upon the principle that -Congress could not go behind the returns of the "State" Canvassing - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Republican<br> -position.</b></small> -</div> - -Board or officer, in counting the electoral vote from any "State." They -contended that in the election of the President and Vice-President, the -Constitution had separated the procedure into two distinct parts, and -had assigned the first part to the control of the several "States" -exclusively, and the second part to the control of Congress -exclusively; that up to the completion of the election of the electors -the exclusive control of the "States" respectively extended, but that -all control after that point had been reached was in Congress, and that -Congress had no power whatever, under the Constitution, to revise, -interfere with, or examine into, that part assigned by the Constitution -to the "States" respectively, and, on the other hand, that Congress was -bound to disregard any act of the "States," or of any of the officers -or agents of the "States," in that part assigned exclusively by the -Constitution to its own control. There is no question that this was all -sound constitutional law and that the Democrats would have to abandon -entirely their old "States'" rights doctrine and go over to the most -extreme nationalism in order to combat it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side235"></a> -<div>It did not appear to them necessary to do this in order to win their -case. One single electoral vote from any one of the four "States," from - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Democratic<br> -position.</b></small> -</div> - -which double returns had been received, would elect Tilden and -Hendricks. It did not seem to them that the line between the powers of -the "States" and those of Congress over the election of the President -and Vice-President could under the existing facts be drawn anywhere -without giving them at least this one vote. If the returns as certified -to by the Governors and the "State" canvassing officer, officers, or -boards, of these four <span class="pagenum"><a name="page293"><small><small>[p. 293]</small></small></a></span> -"States" should be received and counted -they would have this one vote from Oregon. If, on the other hand, the -popular vote for the electors as it came into the hands of the "State" -canvassing officers or boards was to be received and counted, then they -would have the electoral votes of at least Louisiana, Florida, or South -Carolina, and perhaps of all of them. But the Republicans contended -that the line between "State" control and Congressional control was to -be drawn between the Governor's certification and the report of the -"State" canvassing officer, officers, or board to the Governor of the -result of the vote for the electors. The certification issued by the -Governor, they held, was ordered by Congressional law and was under -Congressional control, even when the "State" canvassing officer, -officers, or board should join with the Governor in the certification -of the persons chosen electors. The report of the vote for the electors -by the "State" canvassing officer, officers, or board to the Governor -was thus the final act under "State" control, was the final act in the -election of the electors. This was unquestionably sound constitutional -law. But it would give all the electoral votes from all four of the -"States," from which double returns had been received, to Hayes and -Wheeler, and would elect them by one vote.</div> -<br> -<a name="side236"></a> -<div>The view of the counsel for the Republican candidates prevailed with a -majority of the Commission. By a majority of a single vote the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The decisions of<br> -the Commission.</b></small> -</div> - -Commission gave all the electoral votes of the four "States" from which -double returns had been received to Hayes and Wheeler, and since the -decisions of the Commission were final unless negatived by both Houses -of Congress, and the Republican Senate, of course, sustained the -decisions of the Commission, there was nothing for the Democrats to do -but submit or have recourse to violence. Threats were freely expressed -of having <span class="pagenum"><a name="page294"><small><small>[p. 294]</small></small></a></span> -Mr. Tilden take the oath of office, and then conducting -him, under the support of a large armed body, to the White House and -installing him there. But it was observed that the Southern Democrats -did not participate in these menacing declarations, and it was soon -learned that Mr. Tilden himself would not lend himself to any such -desperate movement. Moreover, the existing President had, with his -usual promptness and decision, prepared himself to meet all exigencies, -and had let it be known that he would uphold the decisions to which -Congress and its Commission might come by any power necessary to -accomplish the result.</div> -<br> -<a name="side237"></a> -<div>In the early morning of March 2d, the count was completed, and Hayes -and Wheeler were proclaimed by the presiding officer of the Senate, Mr. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Hayes<br> -declared<br> -President.</b></small> -</div> - -Ferry, elected President and Vice-President of the United States by a -majority of one electoral vote. The popular vote for the electors was -about eight millions three hundred thousand. Of this vast number the -Tilden electors had received the majority by about two hundred and -fifty thousand, according to the Republican count, and by about three -hundred thousand, according to the Democratic count. It must be -remembered, however, that it is quite possible for the candidate of one -party to receive a popular majority throughout the whole country, and -the candidate of the other to receive a majority of the electoral -votes, simply because the popular vote is counted, in electing the -electors, by "States" and not in the aggregate.</div> -<br> -<a name="side238"></a> -<div>The truth in regard to the whole transaction of the election probably -is that the Democrats did in some places in the South intimidate - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The truth in<br> -regard to<br> -the election.</b></small> -</div> - -voters; that the Republican "State" canvassing officers, making this a -justification, or an excuse, did throw out votes that ought to have -been counted; and that the existing law of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page295"><small><small>[p. 295]</small></small></a></span>elections, -administered by Republicans, was capable of being so interpreted as to -give legal warrant to all that was done by them. A perfectly fair -election in the "States" of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, -with the law of suffrage then obtaining, would probably have resulted -in a popular majority for the Republican candidates for electors. -Accepting the law of suffrage as then existing for the basis of our -reasoning, it will have to be conceded that the Republicans were in the -right both morally and legally, and that the title of Hayes and Wheeler -to the offices of President and Vice-President was entirely sound and -unimpeachable. They were inaugurated on the 5th day of March, 1877, -without any attempt at resistance or disturbance from any quarter.</div> -<br> -<a name="side239"></a> -<div>During the counting of the electoral vote it was suspected that the -friends of Mr. Hayes were giving some assurances to the Southerners in - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Mr. Hayes's<br> -Southern policy.</b></small> -</div> - -Congress in regard to what the policy of his Administration would be -concerning the "State" governments in the South. The unwillingness of -the Southern Democrats to join with their party associates of the North -in any revolutionary projects was attributed partly to this. While -there is no evidence that Mr. Hayes ever pledged himself to the -Southerners in regard to anything, still it is probably true that his -views concerning the unwisdom of the employment of the military power -of the United States in upholding the negro-Republican "State" -governments in the South were imparted to them by his friends. At any -rate, he announced in his inaugural address that he considered the -re-establishment of local self-government in these "States" to be one -of the prime objects of his Administration, and he speedily withdrew -the support of the military power of the United States from the three -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page296"><small><small>[p. 296]</small></small></a></span> -negro-Republican "State" governments, and left them to their own resources.</div> -<br> -<a name="side240"></a> -<div>The result was that, although the Republican candidates for Governor -and for the members of the legislature in these three "States" received - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The result of<br> -his policy.</b></small> -</div> - -about the same vote as the Republican presidential electors, and in -January of 1877 actually assumed power, the Democratic candidates -ousted them from the offices, and in sufficient number from the -legislative seats, and established at last Democratic white rule in all -the "States" of the South. In Florida the Republican, M. L. Stearns, -gave way to the Democrat, George F. Drew, in the gubernatorial office; -in South Carolina D. H. Chamberlain gave way to Wade Hampton, and in -Louisiana, S. B. Packard gave way to Francis T. Nicholls.</div> -<br> -<div>Order and peace were quickly established everywhere, and the plundered -and impoverished South could at last take hope and feel courage to make -a new effort to recover some degree of prosperity and some measure of -domestic content. For ten years the dark night of domination by the -negro and adventurer had rested upon the unhappy section, until it had -been reduced to the very abomination of desolation. Broken in health -and fortune, sick at heart, conscious of the terrible degradation which -had been imposed upon them, and politically ostracized, the better part -of the white population of the South had staggered and groped through -the hideous experiences of this period, and such of them as had not -perished during the awful passage had now at last been relieved of the -frightful scourge, and half dazed, as if just recovering from a -terrible nightmare, found themselves again in the places of power and -responsibility. But they brought with them, as their dominant passion, -undying hatred of the Republican party as the author of all their woes, -and as their <span class="pagenum"><a name="page297"><small><small>[p. 297]</small></small></a></span> -dominant policy, the stern and unbending resolve to -stand together as one man against every movement which had even the -slightest tendency toward a restoration of the hated conditions from -which they had escaped. No sane mind can wonder at "the solid South," -or at the Democratic South. Life, property, happiness, honor, -civilization, everything which makes existence endurable demanded that -the decent white men of the South should stand shoulder to shoulder in -defending their families, their homes and their communities from any -return of the vile plague under which they had suffered so long and so -cruelly; and human instinct determined that this should be done in -connection with that party which was hostile to the Republican party. -The differences which lead to a fair fight and the wounds which are -received in it are easily healed, but indignities heaped upon a fallen -foe create a bitterness of heart that lasts so long as life endures.</div> -<br> -<a name="side241"></a> -<div>Slavery was a great wrong, and secession was an error and a terrible -blunder, but Reconstruction was a punishment so far in excess of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Reconciliation between<br> -the North and the South.</b></small> -</div> - -crime that it extinguished every sense of culpability upon the part of -those whom it was sought to convict and convert. More than a quarter of -a century has now passed since the blunder-crime of Reconstruction -played its baleful part in alienating the two sections of the country. -Until four years ago little progress had been made in reconciling them. -It is said now that the recent war with Spain, in which men from the -North and men from the South marched under the same banner to battle -and to victory, has buried the hatchet forever between them. But they -had done this many times before, and yet it did not prevent the attempt -to destroy the Union. It cannot be in this alone that the South feels -increased security against the doctrines and the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page298"><small><small>[p. 298]</small></small></a></span>policies and -interferences of the Republican party with regard to the negro -question, the great question which has made and kept the South solidly -Democratic. It is something far more significant and substantial than -this. It is to some the pleasing, though to others startling, fact, -that the Republican party, in its work of imposing the sovereignty of -the United States upon eight millions of Asiatics, has changed its -views in regard to the political relation of races and has at last -virtually accepted the ideas of the South upon that subject. The white -men of the South need now have no further fear that the Republican -party, or Republican Administrations, will ever again give themselves -over to the vain imagination of the political equality of man. It is -this change of mind and heart on the part of the North in regard to -this vital question of Southern "State" polity which has caused the now -much-talked-of reconciliation.</div> -<br> -<br><a name="chap14"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page299"><small><small>[p. 299]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<h3>CHAPTER XIV</h3> -<center>INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1867 AND 1877</center> - -<blockquote><a href="#side242">The Purchase of Alaska</a>—<a href="#side243">The -Contention of the House of Representatives -in Regard to its Power over Treaties</a>—<a href="#side244">The Senate's Position and the -Compromise</a>—<a href="#side245">Irritation of the American People against Great -Britain</a>—<a href="#side246">The Johnson-Clarendon -Treaty</a>—<a href="#side247">President Grant's Statements in -His First Annual Message and in His Second Annual Address</a>—<a href="#side248">Sir John -Rose's Mission to the United States—The Joint High Commission</a>—<a href="#side249">The -Treaty of Washington</a>—<a href="#side250">The Alabama Claims and the Geneva -Convention</a>—<a href="#side251">Triumph of the Diplomacy of the United -States</a>—<a href="#side252">Organization -of the Tribunal and Filing of the Cases</a>—<a href="#side253">The Controversy between Mr. -Fish and Lord Granville</a>—<a href="#side254">The Filing of the Counter Cases and the -Argument</a>—<a href="#side255">Obstacles—Decision of the Tribunal in Regard to National and -Indirect Damages</a>—<a href="#side256">The Decision of the Tribunal in the Case of the -<i>Florida</i></a>—<a href="#side257">The Decision in the Case of the -<i>Alabama</i></a>—<a href="#side258">The Decision in -the Case of the <i>Shenandoah</i>, and other Vessels</a>—<a href="#side259">International -Principles Settled by the Geneva Tribunal</a>—<a href="#side260">The Northwest Boundary -Question</a>—<a href="#side261">The Fisheries -Question</a>—<a href="#side262">The Halifax Commission and Award</a>—<a href="#side263">The -Burlingame Treaty with China</a>—<a href="#side264">The Attempt to Annex the Dominican -Republic to the United States</a>—<a href="#side265">The -Treaty</a>—<a href="#side266">The Treaty before the -Senate</a>—<a href="#side267">Its -Rejection</a>—<a href="#side268">The President's Attempt to Renew -Negotiations</a>—<a href="#side269">The Committee of -Inquiry</a>—<a href="#side270">The Report of the -Committee</a>—<a href="#side271">The Abandonment of the Scheme</a>.</blockquote> -<br> - -<div>The two chief products of American diplomacy in the decade between 1867 -and 1877 were the purchase of Alaska, and the treaty of Washington with -Great Britain.</div> -<br> -<a name="side242"></a> -<div>The purchase of Alaska, the northwest corner of the North American -continent, together with the islands -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page300"><small><small>[p. 300]</small></small></a></span>adjacent thereto, a vast - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The purchase<br> -of Alaska.</b></small> -</div> - -region of some five hundred thousand square miles in extent, inhabited -chiefly by a few savage tribes, was effected by a treaty, negotiated by -Mr. Seward and the Russian diplomatist, Baron Stoeckl, and ratified by -the Senate of the United States on the 30th of March, 1867.</div> -<br> -<div>The proposition came from the side of Russia, and it appeared that -Russia was more eager to sell than the United States was to buy. The - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The reasons<br> -for and against<br> -the purchase.</b></small> -</div> - -price agreed on was seven millions two hundred thousand dollars in -gold, and most people in the United States thought, at the time, that -this great sum was being paid for nothing but a barren area of snow and -ice. The country was declared to be utterly worthless by some of the -best informed men in Congress, and a man of no less ability and -influence than Mr. Shellabarger opposed the purchase on the ground that -it involved an extension of territory dangerous to the existence of the Republic.</div> -<br> -<div>On the other hand, such men as General Banks and Mr. Stevens contended -that from the point of view of a business transaction alone it was -worth the money; and Mr. Higby, of California, told his colleagues that -they were mistaken in regard to the climate of the region. The -consideration, however, which seems to have had most weight was -gratitude toward Russia, whose government had manifested the most -friendly feeling for the Union in the struggle against the giant -rebellion, and had even threatened interference in behalf of the Union -against interference in behalf of the Confederacy by any other European -state. That acute observer of political opinion, Mr. Blaine, affirmed -that a like offer from any other European government would most -probably have been declined.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page301"><small><small>[p. 301]</small></small></a></span> -<div>It is, however, almost certain that Mr. Seward had another very -profound reason for making the purchase, one which he could not very - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>A real political<br> -reason for<br> -the purchase.</b></small> -</div> - -well proclaim from the housetops, especially as the feeling on his -part, and on the part of the Government and of the people of the North, -was most kindly toward Russia. It was this: The United States would in -this way and at a comparatively small cost rid herself forever of any -danger of Russian colonization on the North American continent, and of -the danger of any complications between Russia and Great Britain upon -this continent. This was a most important political consideration, one -which much overbalanced the price paid for the territory and the cost -of its administration.</div> -<br> -<a name="side243"></a> -<div>When the bill for making the appropriation to pay for Alaska came -before the House of Representatives, that body raised the question of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The contention of the<br> -House of Representatives<br> -in regard to its power<br> -over treaties involving<br> -the payment of money<br> -by the United States.</b></small> -</div> - -the power of the House over treaties involving the payment of money by -the United States, by asserting in the preamble of the bill that its -consent was necessary to the validity of such treaties. It did so on -the ground that as an independent legislative body it could refuse any -appropriation at its own discretion, and that as all foreign countries -were bound to know this from the wording of the Constitution, no -foreign country could consider a treaty with the United States, -involving financial obligations by the United States, as completed -until the House of Representatives should have voted the appropriation -of the amount stipulated in the agreement.</div> -<br> -<a name="side244"></a> -<div>The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doctrine, and rejected -the bill with the preamble containing it as it came from the House of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Senate's position<br> -and the compromise.</b></small> -</div> - -Representatives. <span class="pagenum"><a name="page302"><small><small>[p. 302]</small></small></a></span> -The bill then went to a conference committee of -the two Houses, and this committee invented a preamble which read: -"Whereas the President has entered into a treaty with the Emperor of -Russia, and the Senate thereafter gave its advice and consent to said -treaty, and whereas said stipulations cannot be carried into full force -and effect, except by legislation to which the consent of both Houses -of Congress is necessary; therefore be it resolved," etc. Both Houses -adopted the bill in this form and it became law July 27th, 1868.</div> -<br> -<div>The contention of the House was good political science, but it is still -doubtful whether it is the constitutional law of the United States or -not. The more recent constitutions of even the European states, such as -those of Germany and France, make the consent of both houses of the -legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties involving the -appropriation of money, or the assumption of any financial obligation. -This is as it should be; and the Constitution of the United States -ought to be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle.</div> -<br> -<a name="side245"></a> -<div>We have, in the preceding volume of this series, followed the history -of the relations of the United States with Great Britain down to the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Irritation of the<br> -American people<br> -against Great Britain.</b></small> -</div> - -close of the rebellion, and have referred to the general irritation on -the part of the loyal people of the United States against the British -government for its attitude in regard to the acts of its subjects in -furnishing warships and munitions to the Confederates. There were many -who favored turning the great military power with which the United -States emerged from the Civil War against Great Britain, and forcing a -settlement of those difficulties by the trial of arms; but Seward -remained in the direction of the foreign affairs of the Union, and he -had had enough of war. Moreover, he -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page303"><small><small>[p. 303]</small></small></a></span>foresaw a change of -government in Great Britain, and with it he hoped for a change of -sentiment on the part of the new government on the international - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Change of Ministry<br> -and Parliamentary<br> -majority in 1867.</b></small> -</div> - -question. This event happened in consequence of the parliamentary -election of 1867. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr. Gladstone's -cabinet was first Lord Stanley, and then the Earl of Clarendon, both of -them very different in character from Lord John Russell. From the -outset each of them manifested a sincere desire to reach an amicable -settlement of all differences with the United States. The trouble at -this juncture seems to have been the extravagance of the claims of the -United States. Mr. Adams, whose patience had become much worn, talked -about private damages, national damages and an apology. The British -Ministers thought this too preposterous to be seriously meant.</div> -<br> -<a name="side246"></a> -<div>Before, however, the discussion had fairly begun Mr. Adams returned to -the United States, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson was sent out to the British - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Johnson-Clarendon treaty.</b></small> -</div> - -Court. Mr. Johnson yielded much of the ground assumed by Mr. Adams in -reference to claims for national injury, and in January of 1869 -concluded an agreement with the Earl of Clarendon for submitting to -arbitration the claims for direct damage to property rights.</div> -<br> -<a name="side247"></a> -<div>The Senate of the United States promptly rejected the treaty with much -feeling, because it did not contain proper provision, in its view, for -the reparation of wrongs to the Nation. The feeling among the people of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>President Grant's<br> -statement in his<br> -first Annual Message.</b></small> -</div> - -both countries ran so high that the Governments deemed it wise to -cease, for a time, negotiations upon the subject. The new President, -Grant, in his Message of December 6th, 1869, described the situation in -the following language:</div> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page304"><small><small>[p. 304]</small></small></a></span> -<blockquote>"Toward the close of the last Administration a convention was -signed in London for the settlement of all outstanding claims between -Great Britain and the United States, which failed to receive the advice -and consent of the Senate to its ratification. The time and the -circumstances attending the negotiation of that treaty were unfavorable -to its acceptance by the people of the United States, and its -provisions were wholly inadequate for the settlement of the grave -wrongs that had been sustained by this Government, as well as by its -citizens. The injuries resulting to the United States by reason of the -course adopted by Great Britain during our late Civil War in the -increased rates of insurance, in the diminution of exports and imports -and other obstructions to domestic industry and production, in its -effect upon the foreign commerce of the country, in the decrease and -transfer to Great Britain of our commercial marine, in the prolongation -of the war and the increased cost, both in treasure and lives, of its -suppression, could not be adjusted and satisfied as ordinary commercial -claims which continually arise among commercial nations; and yet the -convention treated them as such ordinary claims, from which they differ -more widely in the gravity of their character than in the magnitude of -their amount, great even as is that difference. Not a word was found in -the treaty, and not an inference could be drawn from it, to remove the -sense of the unfriendliness of the course of Great Britain in our -struggle for existence, which had so deeply and universally impressed -itself upon the people of this country. Believing that a convention -thus misconceived in its scope and inadequate in its provisions would -not have produced the hearty, cordial settlement of pending questions, -which alone is consistent with the relations which I desire to have -firmly established <span class="pagenum"><a name="page305"><small><small>[p. 305]</small></small></a></span> -between the United States and Great Britain, I -regarded the action of the Senate in rejecting the treaty to have been -wisely taken in the interests of peace and as a necessary step in the -direction of a perfect and cordial friendship between the two -countries. A sensitive people, conscious of their power, are more at -ease under a great wrong wholly unatoned than under the restraint of a -settlement which satisfies neither their ideas of justice nor their -grave sense of the grievance they have sustained. The rejection of the -treaty was followed by a state of public feeling on both sides which I -thought not favorable to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiations. -I accordingly so instructed the Minister of the United States to Great -Britain, and found that my views in this regard were shared by Her -Majesty's Ministers. I hope that the time may soon arrive when the two -Governments can approach the solution of this momentous question with -an appreciation of what is due to the rights, dignity and honor of -each, and with the determination not only to remove the causes of -complaint in the past, but to lay the foundation of a broad principle -of public law which will prevent future differences and tend to firm -and continued peace and friendship."</blockquote> - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -statement in his<br> -second annual message.</b></small> -</div> - -<div>For another year things drifted, and the views of the two Governments -seemed to be getting wider apart, when President Grant wrote in his -Message of December 5th, 1870:</div> - -<blockquote>"I regret to say that no conclusion has been reached for the adjustment -of the claims against Great Britain growing out of the course adopted -by that Government during the Rebellion. The Cabinet of London, so far -as its views have been expressed, does not appear to be willing to -concede that Her Majesty's Government was guilty of any negligence, or -did or permitted any act during the War -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page306"><small><small>[p. 306]</small></small></a></span>by which the United -States has just cause of complaint. Our firm and unalterable -convictions are directly the reverse. I therefore recommend to Congress -to authorize the appointment of a commission to take proof of the -amount and the ownership of these several claims, on notice to the -representative of Her Majesty at Washington, and that authority be -given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, so that -the Government shall have the ownership of the private claims, as well -as the responsible control of all the demands against Great Britain. It -cannot be necessary to add that whenever Her Majesty's Government shall -entertain a desire for a full and friendly adjustment of these claims -the United States will enter upon their consideration with an earnest -desire for a conclusion consistent with the honor and dignity of both nations."</blockquote> - -<div>This was what is now called "a twist of the lion's tail." It was -something of a twist, although it was accompanied with the offer of the -olive branch, instead of the sword. It was effective, even more -effective for the conciliatory tone of the final paragraph. Moreover, -with the German armies encamped around Paris and throughout France, the -affairs of Continental Europe were too unsettled and precarious for -Great Britain to run the risk of any serious complications with the -United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side248"></a> -<div>Accepting the President's message as an invitation to renew -negotiations, the British Government, at the beginning of the next year - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Sir John Rose's<br> -mission to the<br> -United States.</b></small> -</div> - -(1871), sent Sir John Rose to Washington to sound the President in -regard to the matter. The President greeted his advances with great -cordiality, and on the 26th of the month (January), Sir Edward -Thornton, the British Minister to the United States, formally proposed -to the Hon. Hamilton Fish, the Secretary of State, the appointment of a - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Joint High<br> -Commission.</b></small> -</div> - -Joint High <span class="pagenum"><a name="page307"><small><small>[p. 307]</small></small></a></span> -Commission, to consist of five persons representing -each Government, to sit at Washington, for the purpose of settling the -questions between the two Governments relative to Great Britain's North -American possessions. Mr. Fish immediately expressed the willingness of -his Government to enter upon the negotiation, provided the differences -growing out of the events of the Civil War should be included among the -subjects to be considered. The British Government accepted Mr. Fish's -proviso, and the respective Governments proceeded to appoint the -members of the Commission. President Grant designated Hamilton Fish, -Ebenezer R. Hoar, Justice Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Schenck and George -H. Williams. Her Majesty selected Earl de Grey and Ripon, Sir John -Macdonald, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton and Professor -Mountague Bernard. These eminent gentlemen proceeded immediately upon -their momentous undertaking, and on the 8th of May (1871) concluded the -treaty between the two Governments, known as the Treaty of Washington, -which was duly ratified, and on the 4th of July proclaimed to the world.</div> -<br> -<a name="side249"></a> -<div>The first eleven articles of this agreement relate to the claims for -damages arising from the incidents of the Civil War, known as the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Treaty of<br> -Washington.</b></small> -</div> - -Alabama Claims. This was the subject of transcendent importance in the -Treaty; this was the subject which was, by these articles, referred to -the Court of Arbitration to sit at Geneva.</div> -<br> -<div>They contain, in the first place, an expression of regret for the -escape of the Confederate vessels from British ports and for the -depredations committed by them.</div> -<br> -<div>They provide, secondly, for a tribunal of arbitration, composed of five -members, one of whom should be <span class="pagenum"><a name="page308"><small><small>[p. 308]</small></small></a></span> -named by the President of the -United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, one by the King of Italy, -one by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the Emperor -of Brazil; and, in case either of these last three mentioned should -fail to name an arbitrator, they provide that one should be named by -the King of Sweden and Norway; and finally, that one agent should be -named by each of the high contracting parties to represent it generally -in all matters connected with the arbitration.</div> -<br> -<a name="side250"></a> -<div>They provide, in the third place, that "the Arbitrators shall meet at -Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Alabama claims and<br> -the Geneva convention.</b></small> -</div> - -have been named, and shall proceed impartially carefully to examine and -decide all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the -Governments of the United States and Her Britannic Majesty -respectively," and that "all questions considered by the Tribunal, -including the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the -arbitrators."</div> -<br> -<div>They provide, in the fourth place, that each of the two high -contracting parties should deliver his written or printed case, -together with all the evidence in support of it, to each of the -arbitrators and to the agent of the other party, as soon as possible -after the organization of the Tribunal, and within a period not -exceeding six months from the 17th of June, 1871; that within four -months after the delivery on both sides of the case, each party might -put in a counter case, with additional evidence, in reply to the case -of the other party; that the arbitrators might extend the time, under -certain circumstances, for delivering the counter case; that "within -two months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of -the counter case on both sides," the agent of each party should deliver -to each of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page309"><small><small>[p. 309]</small></small></a></span> -the arbitrators "and to the agent of the other party a -written or printed argument showing the points and referring to the -evidence upon which his Government relies"; and that the arbitrators -might require further argument by counsel, giving to each party an -equal chance to be heard.</div> -<br> -<div>They provide, in the fifth place, that the Tribunal should consider the -case of each vessel separately; that it might, however, award a gross -sum, or that in case it did not award a sum in gross, the high -contracting parties should appoint two members of a board of assessors, -and request the Italian Minister at Washington to appoint a third, -which board should determine the amounts due in the cases in which the -arbitrators had pronounced responsibility.</div> -<br> -<div>They provide, in the sixth place, that in deciding the matters -submitted the arbitrators should be governed by the following rules:</div> - -<blockquote>"A neutral government is bound, first, to use diligence to prevent the -fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any -vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise -or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also -to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of -any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel -having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such -jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either -belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval -operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or -augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. -Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as -to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the -foregoing obligations and duties."</blockquote> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page310"><small><small>[p. 310]</small></small></a></span> -<div>They provide, in the seventh place, that the high contracting -parties would "agree to observe these rules as between themselves in -the future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime -powers, and to invite them to accede to them."</div> -<br> -<div>And they provide, finally, that the result of the proceedings of the -Tribunal and the Board of Assessors, in case such board should be -appointed, should be accepted as a final settlement of all the claims -known as the Alabama Claims, and should be a bar to any further -proceedings in regard to them.</div> -<br> -<a name="side251"></a> -<div>It will be seen that the Government of the United States had in this -Treaty substantially won all of the points for which it had contended. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Triumph of the<br> -diplomacy of the<br> -United States.</b></small> -</div> - -The Queen's Government had apologized. It had agreed that the general -principles of international law in regard to the duties of neutrals -toward belligerents should take precedence over municipal statutes, and -should not be limited by municipal statutes. And it had agreed that the -Tribunal of Arbitration should decide <i>all questions</i> laid before it by -the Governments of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty -respectively.</div> -<br> -<div>It is true that Her Majesty's Government qualified its acceptance of -the rules to be applied in determining its responsibility by inserting -an explanation in the Treaty of the following tenor: "Her Britannic -Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to -declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing -rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in -force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but -that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of -strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of -making satisfactory provision for the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page311"><small><small>[p. 311]</small></small></a></span>future, agrees that, in -deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those -claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had -undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules."</div> -<br> -<div>And it is also true that, while, according to the letter of the Treaty, -the United States Government was left unfettered as to the character of -the claims which it might lay before the Arbitrators, Her Majesty's -Government had been led to expect more moderation in this respect than -the popular sentiment in the United States seemed to indicate.</div> -<br> -<div>The two Governments and the high personages invited by them proceeded -in due time to appoint the Arbitrators. The President of the United - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The arbitrators,<br> -agents and counsel.</b></small> -</div> - -States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Her Majesty named Chief -Justice Alexander Cockburn; the Italian King designated Count Frederic -Sclopis; the President of the Swiss Confederation designated Mr. Jacob -Staempfli, and the Emperor of Brazil named the Baron d'Itajubá.</div> -<br> -<div>The President of the United States also appointed Mr. J. C. Bancroft -Davis as the agent of the United States before the Tribunal, and Mr. -Caleb Cushing, Mr. William M. Evarts and Mr. Morrison R. Waite as counsel.</div> -<br> -<div>Her Majesty's Government also appointed Lord Tenterden as the agent of -Great Britain before the Tribunal, and Sir Roundell Palmer as chief counsel.</div> -<br> -<a name="side252"></a> -<div>On the 15th of December, 1871, the Arbitrators organized the Tribunal -at Geneva with Count Frederic Sclopis in the chair as presiding - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Organization of<br> -the Tribunal and<br> -filing of the cases.</b></small> -</div> - -officer, and with Mr. Alexander Favrot as secretary. The printed case -of each of the high contracting parties was filed immediately by the -agent of each, and the Tribunal ordered the counter cases to be filed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page312"><small><small>[p. 312]</small></small></a></span> -on or before the 15th day of the following April. The Tribunal -then adjourned to June 15th following, unless sooner called together by -the secretary.</div> -<br> -<a name="side253"></a> -<div>The contents of the case of the United States became immediately known -to the British Ministers, but not for some weeks to the British people. -The Ministers were not apparently disturbed in mind about it, although -they discovered at once that it contained claims for national damages -and indirect damages as well as for direct damages to individuals; but -as soon as the newspapers got hold of this fact, they raised a -tremendous hue and cry, and accused those who had prepared the case of -taking an unfair advantage of the wording of the treaty. The Minister -of the United States in London, General Schenck, informed Mr. Fish by -cable of the agitation in London over the subject and of the demand of -the newspapers that the claim for national and indirect damages should -be withdrawn. Mr. Fish replied firmly that "there must be no withdrawal -of any part of the claim presented." At this moment the session of -Parliament opened and the Queen's speech contained a criticism of the -extravagance of the claims of the United States in the case submitted -to the Tribunal. The matter was warmly debated in Parliament, and on - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The controversy<br> -between Mr. Fish<br> -and Lord Granville.</b></small> -</div> - -February 3d the British Foreign Minister, Lord Granville, opened a -diplomatic discussion with Mr. Fish upon the subject. Mr. Fish, -however, held his ground with great courage and ability, insisting that -the claims of every character should be disposed of by the Tribunal in -order to remove them from the domain of further controversy and in -order to establish perfect harmony in the relations of the two countries.</div> -<br> -<a name="side254"></a> -<div>Before this discussion terminated the day arrived for the filing of the -counter cases. They were both <span class="pagenum"><a name="page313"><small><small>[p. 313]</small></small></a></span> -promptly filed with a reservation - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The filing of the<br> -counter cases<br> -and the argument.</b></small> -</div> - -of all rights by each of the high contracting parties. The diplomatic -discussion culminated in an attempt to make a supplemental treaty, -which should provide that the Government of the United States should -withdraw its claims for national losses and indirect losses, on the -condition that no such losses should be claimed by either Government in -the future. But the day arrived for the filing of the arguments before -anything was effected. The agent of the United States filed his -argument on the day fixed, the 15th of June, but the British agent only -filed a statement setting forth the differences between the two -Governments in the interpretation of the Treaty in respect to claims -for national and indirect damages, and the late negotiations and -discussions between the two Governments concerning these differences. -The British agent also expressed the hope that, if time were given, -these negotiations would prove fruitful, and asked the Arbitrators to -adjourn for eight months.</div> -<br> -<a name="side255"></a> -<div>It looked as if the work of the commissioners, who had framed the -Treaty, and of the Arbitrators, who had now given six months of their - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Obstacles.</b></small> -</div> - -time to its execution, would go for naught, and that the Governments -and the people of the two countries would be thrown back into the -relations existing during the years 1869 and 1870, with intensified -feelings of hostility. The Arbitrators realized the seriousness of the -situation and did not yield to the request of the British agent. They -adjourned to the 19th of the month, that is for four days only, in -order to deliberate upon the proposition. When they reassembled on the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Decision of the<br> -Tribunal in regard<br> -to national and<br> -indirect damages.</b></small> -</div> - -19th the President of the Tribunal announced that the Arbitrators had -decided to inform the two high contracting parties, at that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page314"><small><small>[p. 314]</small></small></a></span> -juncture, that the Arbitrators did not consider the claims for national -and indirect damages to be a good foundation in international law "for -an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations;" -but were unanimously of the opinion that such claims should "be wholly -excluded from the consideration of the Tribunal in making its award, -even if there were no disagreement between the two Governments as to -the competency of the Tribunal to decide them." The President said -further, that the Arbitrators made this announcement in order that the -Government of the United States might consider if it would adopt some -course in reference to these claims, which would relieve the Tribunal -from deciding upon the request of the British agent for an adjournment.</div> -<br> -<div>The President of the United States was duly informed of this -announcement by the Tribunal, and, upon the advice of the learned -counsel for the United States, he instructed the agent of the United -States to make the following reply to the Tribunal:</div> - -<blockquote>"The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, -respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of -the Tribunal for, first, the losses in the transfer of the American -commercial marine to the British flag, second, the enhanced payment of -insurance, and, third, the prolongation of the war and the addition of -a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the -Rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as -determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public -law involved."</blockquote> - -<div>This reply was read to the Tribunal on the 25th of June, and on the -27th the British agent, under instructions from his Government, -withdrew his request for an adjournment and filed his argument.</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page315"><small><small>[p. 315]</small></small></a></span> -<div>It was supposed by the Americans that the whole case on both -sides was now in, and that, unless the Arbitrators should require -further argument or statement in reference to specific points, the -Tribunal would now proceed to make its decisions. But the British -counsel and the British agent immediately petitioned the Tribunal to be -allowed to prepare and present another argument, and to have six weeks' -time in which to do it, and even the member of the Tribunal appointed -by the British Government exerted himself to secure this delay and this -new opportunity for the British agent and his counsel. The Tribunal -felt, however, that it was in possession of the evidence and the -argument necessary for determining the question before it, and refused -the request.</div> -<br> -<div>The Tribunal now adjourned to the 15th of July, in order to give its -members time and opportunity to study the cases. On the 15th, the -arbitrators reassembled and invited the agent and counsel of each of -the high contracting parties to sit with them in their conferences. To -all others, however, the doors were closed. They spent some two days -discussing the order of the procedure which they should follow, and -finally adopted the order proposed by Mr. Staempfli, and also indicated -in the Treaty itself, which was to take up the case of each vessel -separately, and allow each Arbitrator to express a provisional opinion -upon it, which opinion, however, should not be conclusive even on the -Arbitrator himself who gave it.</div> -<br> -<a name="side256"></a> -<div>On the 17th of the month (July), the Tribunal proceeded to take up the -case of the <i>Florida</i> and to hear the opinions of the Arbitrators upon - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The decision of the<br> -Tribunal in the<br> -case of the <i>Florida</i>.</b></small> -</div> - -it. Four of the five Arbitrators were of the opinion that the British -Government had failed to exercise due diligence in the discharge of its -neutral duties toward the United States in this case. Sir Alexander -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page316"><small><small>[p. 316]</small></small></a></span> -Cockburn alone disagreed with this view. The four also held that -the tenders of the <i>Florida</i> should follow the lot of their principal. -The reading of the opinion in the case of the <i>Florida</i> was finished on -the 22d, and the Tribunal adjourned to the 25th.</div> -<br> -<div>Upon the reassembly of the arbitrators, Baron d'Itajubá called on the -British counsel for a statement or an argument on the questions of due -diligence, and of the effect of commissions held by Confederate war -vessels which had entered British ports, and of the legitimacy of coal -supplies to Confederate vessels in British ports. Of course the counsel -of the United States would be permitted to reply.</div> -<br> -<a name="side257"></a> -<div>The Tribunal approved the proposition, and then proceeded to the case -of the <i>Alabama</i>. The Arbitrators agreed unanimously in their views of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The decision in the<br> -case of the <i>Alabama</i>.</b></small> -</div> - -this case, holding the Government of Great Britain guilty of a lack of -due diligence. The case of the tender to the <i>Alabama</i> was viewed in -the same light.</div> -<br> -<a name="side258"></a> -<div>The Tribunal then took up the case of the <i>Shenandoah</i>. The Arbitrators -were unanimously of the opinion in this case that the British - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The decision in the<br> -case of the <i>Shenandoah</i>,<br> -and other vessels.</b></small> -</div> - -Government had not failed in due diligence anterior to the time when -the vessel entered the port of Melbourne. On the other hand, three of -the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, Mr. Adams and Mr. Staempfli, held that -the British Government was responsible for all the acts of this vessel -committed after leaving Melbourne.</div> -<br> -<div>In regard to all the other vessels mentioned in the case of the United -States, excepting only the <i>Retribution</i>, the Arbitrators were -unanimous in the opinion that the British Government had not failed in -due diligence in the discharge of its duties as a neutral, and in -regard <span class="pagenum"><a name="page317"><small><small>[p. 317]</small></small></a></span> -to the <i>Retribution</i> three of the five Arbitrators held -the like opinion. After hearing the additional arguments called for, -the Tribunal closed the doors on the 26th of August, and, without the -presence even of agents or counsel, deliberated upon the momentous -questions submitted to it. On the 9th of September the decision was -adopted. The Tribunal then adjourned to the 14th, upon which day the -decision was to be proclaimed to the world.</div> -<br> -<div>The public session of the Tribunal on the 14th was a solemn and an -imposing affair with nothing to mar the satisfaction of those who -participated in it, except the discourtesy of Sir Alexander Cockburn, -who not only kept the assembly waiting for his appearance long past the -appointed hour, but departed with unseemly haste at the close of the -valedictory pronounced by the president, Count Sclopis.</div> -<br> -<div>The award followed the line of the opinions already recited. It -convicted the British Government of a lack of due diligence in the -discharge of its neutral duties in the cases of the <i>Alabama</i> and the -<i>Florida</i> and their respective tenders, and also in the case of the -<i>Shenandoah</i> from the time she left the port of Melbourne, but -exonerated it in all other cases.</div> -<br> -<div>The award also repeated the decision announced by Count Sclopis, on the -19th of June, excluding the claims for national and indirect damages, -and then fixed the amount due to the United States from Great Britain -in the gross sum of "fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars in -gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States -for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of -the Tribunal." Sir Alexander Cockburn refused to sign the award, and -filed a statement of his reasons for his dissent. The other four -members of the Tribunal signed <span class="pagenum"><a name="page318"><small><small>[p. 318]</small></small></a></span> -it, and as the majority rule had -been provided for in the Treaty, both of the high contracting parties -were duly bound, and so regarded themselves.</div> -<br> -<a name="side259"></a> -<div>As to principles decided by the entire procedure of the commissioners -and of their Governments in the formation of the Treaty, and of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>International<br> -principles settled<br> -by the Geneva<br> -Tribunal.</b></small> -</div> - -Arbitrators in making the award, we may say, first, that all questions -of damages resulting from the lack of due diligence on the part of a -neutral in the fulfilment of the duties of neutrality were regarded as -proper subjects for arbitration, and that the determination of the -question whether the claims presented, or any of them, are a good -foundation for an award of compensation was also regarded as a proper -question for arbitration; second, that due diligence to be exercised by -neutral governments is diligence "in exact proportion to the risks to -which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to -fulfil the obligations of neutrality on their part"; third, that the -fact that a commission was only subsequently given by a belligerent to -a vessel constructed, equipped or armed for the belligerent in the port -of the neutral does not heal the violation of the duties of neutrality -by the neutral in not using due diligence to prevent such construction, -equipment or armament in its ports; fourth, that the privilege of -ex-territoriality accorded to vessels of war can never be appealed to -for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality; fifth, that -no neutral can excuse itself from the due discharge of the duties of -neutrality on account of imperfections in its own laws and government; -and sixth, that the cost to the belligerent of pursuing vessels, which -have been enabled to operate against the belligerent on account of the -dereliction of the neutral, and all indirect loss resulting therefrom, -do not constitute a "good foundation for an -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page319"><small><small>[p. 319]</small></small></a></span>award of compensation -or computation of damages between nations."</div> -<br> -<a name="side260"></a> -<div>Two other questions of great importance were placed in course of -solution by the Treaty of Washington. One was the contention between - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Northwest<br> -boundary question.</b></small> -</div> - -the two high contracting parties concerning the boundary line between -the United States and British Columbia from the point where the -forty-ninth parallel of north latitude intersects the middle of the -channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island to the -Pacific Ocean. The contention on the part of Great Britain was that -this line should run, according to the stipulations of the Treaty of -June 15th, 1846, through the Rosario Straits, and on the part of the -United States that it should run through the Canal de Haro. The high -contracting parties agreed, in the thirty-fourth article of the Treaty -of Washington, to submit this question to the arbitration and award of -His Majesty the German Emperor, whose decision thereon should be final -and without appeal. The German Emperor, William I., accepted this duty; -and on the 21st of October, 1872, announced his award, upholding the -contention of the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side261"></a> -<div>The other question was that which related to the common rights of -fishing to be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the two high - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Fisheries<br> -question.</b></small> -</div> - -contracting parties along the Atlantic coast. The eighteenth article of -the Treaty provided that the inhabitants of the United States should -have for the term of twelve years, in common with the subjects of Her -Britannic Majesty, the right to take sea fish "of every kind, except -shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbors, and -creeks, of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and -the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page320"><small><small>[p. 320]</small></small></a></span> -thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the -shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shores and -islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying -their nets and curing their fish." By article nineteenth the same right -was accorded to British subjects, in common with the citizens of the -United States, along "the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United -States north of the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and on the -shores of the several islands adjacent thereunto, and in the bays, -harbors and creeks of the said sea-coasts and shores of the United -States and of the said islands." Finally, by article twenty-first free -trade between Canada and Prince Edward's Island and the United States -in the produce of their respective sea-fisheries was established.</div> -<br> -<a name="side262"></a> -<div>The contention on the part of Great Britain in regard to this subject -was that the rights and privileges accorded to the citizens of the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Halifax<br> -commission<br> -and award.</b></small> -</div> - -United States by these articles were more valuable than those conceded -to the subjects of Great Britain by the United States, and that a sum -of money should be paid to Great Britain by the United States in offset -thereof. The United States denied the British assumption, and the two -high contracting parties agreed, in the twenty-third article of the -Treaty, to leave this matter to the arbitration and award of three -commissioners, one to be appointed by the President of the United -States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, and a third by the President and -the Queen conjointly, provided they could agree upon a person within -three months from the date when the Treaty should take effect and, if -not, then by the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at the Court of St. James.</div> -<br> -<div>The President named, as the representative of the United States, the -Hon. Ensign H. Kellogg. The Queen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page321"><small><small>[p. 321]</small></small></a></span>appointed, as her -representative, Sir Alexander T. Galt. And the two high contracting -parties not being able to agree upon the third member of the -commission, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to the Queen named Maurice -Delfosse, the Belgian Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States. -Delfosse had been proposed by the British Government to the Government -of the United States as the third commissioner, and the President had -objected to him as being the representative of a country whose -interests were too nearly allied with those of Great Britain. It was -naturally understood by the President that this had disposed of -Delfosse, and the Government at Washington was taken by surprise when -the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at London, Count Beust, made it -manifest that he should name Mr. Delfosse. Mr. Fish, the Secretary of -State, with true diplomatic instinct, immediately accommodated himself, -however, to the situation, and congratulated Delfosse upon his -appointment. Count Beust announced the choice of Delfosse on the 2d of -March, 1877, nearly six years after the Washington Treaty was -negotiated and signed, during which period the fisheries of -Newfoundland were brought under the same agreements as those of Canada, -Prince Edward's Island, and the United States above the thirty-ninth -parallel. The Commission finally met at Halifax in the latter half of -the year 1877 and on November 23d, 1877, made its award, sustaining by -a vote of two to one the contention of Great Britain, and adjudging -that the United States Government should pay the Government of Great -Britain the sum of five millions five hundred thousand dollars in gold.</div> -<br> -<div>The representative of the United States, Mr. Kellogg, dissented from -the decision; and it was felt in the United States that the Government -had been overreached in the matter. Considerable delay in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page322"><small><small>[p. 322]</small></small></a></span> -payment of the amount thus resulted, and some controversy over it with -Great Britain occurred. But finally, on November 21st, 1878, the draft -for the amount was delivered to the British Government by Mr. Welsh, -the Minister of the United States at the Court of St. James.</div> -<br> -<div>Two other events of an international character happened within the -decade between 1867 and 1877 to which brief reference should be made, -viz., the Chinese Treaty of 1868, and the strong and persistent attempt -of President Grant to bring Santo Domingo under the sovereignty of the -United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side263"></a> -<div>In 1861 Anson Burlingame, a citizen of the United States and a resident -of Massachusetts, was sent as Minister of the United States to China. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Burlingame<br> -Treaty with China.</b></small> -</div> - -He was a diplomatist of much skill, and he succeeded in making such a -deep impression upon the Emperor of China that the latter, on his -resignation as Minister of the United States to China in 1867, made him -Envoy Extraordinary from China to the United States and the European -states for the purpose of securing treaties of amity and commerce -between China and the states of the civilized world. He came -immediately to the United States and negotiated with Mr. Seward, the -Secretary of State of the United States, the Treaty of July 28th, 1868, -whereby freedom of emigration and immigration between China and the -United States was established, upon the principle of the "inherent and -inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance" expressly -subscribed to by the United States and China in the Treaty; the -residence of Chinese consuls in the ports of the United States, with -the same privileges and immunities as the British and Russian consuls -enjoyed in said ports, was agreed to; and freedom of religion for -citizens of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page323"><small><small>[p. 323]</small></small></a></span> -the United States in China, and Chinese converts to -the Christian religion in China, and for Chinese subjects in the United -States, was mutually pledged. This Treaty was heralded at the time as -being an immense advance in bringing China into close sympathy with -modern civilization. But very soon the "labor element," as it assumes -to call itself, in the United States, began to find fault with the -liberal provisions upon the subject of emigration and immigration, and -has succeeded in forcing the Government of the United States back from -its ideal position to the old ground of national exclusiveness. The -example set by the United States has been accepted by the Chinese -Government as a justification of its old methods, and as an excuse for -dropping back into them in great measure.</div> -<br> -<a name="side264"></a> -<div>At the moment of General Grant's accession to the presidency there was -civil commotion in the Dominican Republic. Buenaventura Baez was the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The attempt to annex<br> -the Dominican Republic<br> -to the United States.</b></small> -</div> - -legal President of the Republic, but he had lost the support of a very -large proportion of the population, who were following a leader named -Cabral. Cabral and his party were so strong that Baez feared the -overthrow of his government, and sought to avert it by proposing -annexation to the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side265"></a> -<div>In July of 1869, President Grant sent General Orville E. Babcock to -Santo Domingo with written instructions from the Secretary of State, -Mr. Fish, to inquire into the political situation there and into the -value and resources of the country. Babcock, terming himself -aide-de-camp to the President of the United States, succeeded somehow - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Treaty.</b></small> -</div> - -or other in so impressing his importance and authority upon the willing -Baez and his confederates as to move them to sign a treaty for the -annexation of the Dominican Republic to the United States. It appears -that he pledged the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page324"><small><small>[p. 324]</small></small></a></span> -President of the United States to use -privately all his influence with the members of Congress for the -ratification of the Treaty.</div> -<br> -<a name="side266"></a> -<div>On the 10th of January, 1870, President Grant sent this proposed Treaty -to the Senate for ratification. He must have thought that there would - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Treaty<br> -before<br> -the Senate.</b></small> -</div> - -be no difficulty in securing for it the approval of that body, for his -message was only three lines in length and contained no argument. It -was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it soon became -manifest that a serious opposition to ratification was developing -itself. The President now procured from the Dominican representative at -Washington an agreement to an extension of the time for ratification, -and in communicating this to the Senate on May 31st he went into an -argument in support of the proposed treaty. He said, among other -things, that the acquisition of this country would cut off one hundred -millions of dollars' worth of the imports of the United States and -largely increase its exports, and would thus enable the United States -to extinguish its large debt abroad; that it would give the United -States military command of the entrance to the Caribbean Sea and "the -Isthmus transit of commerce"; and that it was necessary in order to -maintain the Monroe Doctrine. He declared that the inhabitants of Santo -Domingo yearned "for the protection of our free institutions and laws, -and our progress and civilization." And he affirmed that he had -information that a European Power was standing ready to offer two -millions of dollars for the possession of Samana Bay alone. It would be -difficult to find another message of a President of the United States -which contained an equal amount of such extravagant nonsense.</div> -<br> -<a name="side267"></a> -<div>The Committee on Foreign Affairs thoroughly sifted the subject, and -recommended that the proposed Treaty -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page325"><small><small>[p. 325]</small></small></a></span>be not ratified, and the - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>Its rejection.</b></small> -</div> - -Senate, despite the influence of the Administration, sustained the -Committee. This action of the Senate occurred on the 30th of June. The -President was surprised, mortified and indignant. He was especially -angry with the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senator -Sumner, and was from that moment determined to oust Sumner from that position.</div> -<br> -<a name="side268"></a> -<div>In his next annual message, that of December 5th, 1870, he took up the -matter again, went over all of his old arguments expressed in even more - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The President's<br> -attempt to renew<br> -negotiations.</b></small> -</div> - -extravagant language than before, and added the prophecy that if the -United States did not take Santo Domingo, European nations would -acquire the Bay of Samana and create there a great commercial city to -which the United States would become tributary without receiving -corresponding benefits, and that then the folly of the rejection of so -great a prize by the United States would be recognized. He then asked -Congress to authorize him to appoint a commission to negotiate a treaty -with the authorities of Santo Domingo for its annexation to the United -States, and suggested that the treaty so negotiated might be ratified -by a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, instead of by the -Senate alone.</div> -<br> -<a name="side269"></a> -<div>These recommendations and suggestions and the language in which they -were expressed were felt to be most exasperating by those Senators and - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The Committee<br> -of Inquiry.</b></small> -</div> - -Representatives who opposed the President's scheme, and the President's -supporters saw quickly that Congress would not sanction any such measure -as he proposed. In place of it, Senator Morton, of Indiana, offered in -the Senate a resolution to empower the President to appoint a -commission, composed of three persons, to go to Santo Domingo and -inquire into the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page326"><small><small>[p. 326]</small></small></a></span> -political situation and the resources of the -country. This resolution finally passed under strong opposition, and -the House of Representatives concurred in it with the proviso, which -the Senate accepted, that the resolution should not be construed as -committing Congress in any manner or degree to the policy of annexing -Santo Domingo to the United States.</div> -<br> -<a name="side270"></a> -<div>The President appointed as commissioners Benjamin F. Wade, Andrew D. - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The report of<br> -the commissioners.</b></small> -</div> - -White and Samuel G. Howe. These gentlemen proceeded to Santo Domingo, -made their inquiries, and furnished the President with a report -sustaining his views and recommendations.</div> -<br> -<a name="side271"></a> -<div>On the 5th of April, 1871, the President submitted this report to -Congress, accompanied by a message which contained a justification of - -<div class="sidenotes"> -<small><b>The abandonment<br> -of the scheme.</b></small> -</div> - -his own conduct in the whole matter, and an attack upon those who -opposed his policy of annexation, especially upon Senator Sumner. It -was a very undignified, not to say puerile, document, and ought never -to have been written, much less sent. It revealed, however, the fact -that the President understood at last that he must abandon his pet -scheme. He did it, however, with a very bad grace, and in his last -annual message he repeated for the third time his old arguments in -favor of his miserable project, "not," he said, "as a recommendation -for a renewal of the subject of annexation," but in vindication of his -conduct in regard to it. It is needless to add that none of his fearful -predictions about European occupation of Santo Domingo, in case the -United States should fail to seize it, and the destruction of the -Monroe Doctrine, have come to pass. On the other hand, the Monroe -Doctrine has attained an almost monstrous growth which at times appears -as likely to threaten as to preserve the peace of the two -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page327"><small><small>[p. 327]</small></small></a></span> -Americas, and the poor little Dominican Republic, which was incapable -of self-government, still exists and seems to be bettering its -condition by its own efforts, while the great European city in the Bay -of Samana, to which the United States was to become tributary, has not -even the substance of a mirage in the waters upon which the vast -marines of the world were to ride in approaching its docks and -landings. Such has been the fulfilment of the prophecy upon which was -based the supposed necessity of expansion beyond the seas!</div> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page328"><small><small>[p. 328]</small></small></a></span> -<br> -<br> -<br><a name="index"></a> -<br> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="page329"><small><small>[p. 329]</small></small></a></span> -<h3>INDEX</h3> -<br> -Abbott, Josiah G., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Adams, Charles Francis, joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - returns from England, <a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> - at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a>, <a href="#page316">316</a><br> -<br> -Adams, John Q., nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Alabama, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - convention and election in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - disfranchisements in, <a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> - voting on constitution, <a href="#page151">151</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - republicans get control in, <a href="#page268">268</a>, <a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> - change in character of government, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -<i>Alabama</i>, the, case of, <a href="#page316">316</a>, <a href="#page317">317</a><br> -<br> -<i>Alabama</i> claims, <a href="#page307">307</a>, <a href="#page308">308</a>, <a href="#page316">316</a>, <a href="#page317">317</a><br> -<br> -Alaska, purchase of, <a href="#page299">299-302</a><br> -<br> -Alexandria, Va., Pierpont government at, <a href="#page13">13</a>, <a href="#page224">224</a><br> -<br> -Alta Vela, matter of claim to, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a><br> -<br> -Ames, Adelbert, resigns as governor of Mississippi, <a href="#page275">275</a><br> -<br> -Anderson, T. C., in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page269">269</a><br> -<br> -Arkansas, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - Lincoln's acts toward, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - presidential reconstruction in, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - congressmen refused seats, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page19">19</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - attitude of Johnson to, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - disfranchisements in, <a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act of June, 1868, as to, <a href="#page198">198</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - change in character of government, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -Ashburn, George W., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Ashley, James M., action on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page29">29</a><br> -<br> -Austin, Tex., convention at, <a href="#page229">229</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Babcock, Orville E., mission to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page323">323</a><br> -<br> -Baez, Buenaventura, in Dominican politics, <a href="#page323">323</a><br> -<br> -Baird, Absalom, New Orleans riot, <a href="#page94">94-97</a><br> -<br> -Baltimore, Md., republican convention at, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - democratic convention at, <a href="#page266">266</a><br> -<br> -Banks, Nathaniel P., appoints election in Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> - views on purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -Bayard, Thomas F., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Bell, John, desertion of the Union cause, <a href="#page221">221</a><br> -<br> -Benton, Thomas H., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Bernard, Mountague, on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Beust, Count, names Delfosse for Halifax commission, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Bingham, John A., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> - offers amendment as to Georgia, <a href="#page242">242</a><br> -<br> -Black, Jeremiah S., counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> - his withdrawal, <a href="#page177">177</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Blaine, James G., proposes amendment to reconstruction bill, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> - in convention of 1876, <a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> - views on purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -Blair, Francis P., nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page211">211</a>;<br> - conduct in the campaign, <a href="#page211">211</a>, <a href="#page212">212</a><br> -<br> -Blair, Montgomery, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Blow, Henry T., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a><br> -<br> -Borie, Adolph E., becomes secretary of the navy, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - resigns, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Botts, John Minor, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Boutwell, George S., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - becomes secretary of the treasury, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Bradley, Joseph P., on electoral commission, <a href="#page289">289</a><br> -<br> -Brodhead, James O., letter from F. P. Blair, <a href="#page211">211</a><br> -<br> -Brown, B. Gratz, joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page265">265</a><br> -<br> -Browning, Orville H., enters cabinet, <a href="#page90">90</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Brownlow, William G., elected governor of Tennessee, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Bullock, Rufus B., share in reconstruction of Georgia, <a href="#page237">237-239</a>, <a href="#page241">241</a>, <a href="#page244">244</a><br> -<br> -Burlingame, Anson, treaty with China, <a href="#page322">322</a><br> -<br> -Butler, Benjamin F., impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - signs letter on Alta Vela claim, <a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> - attack on Johnson, <a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> - proposes bill as to Georgia, <a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> - withdraws his amendment, <a href="#page242">242</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Cabral, in Dominican politics, <a href="#page323">323</a><br> -<br> -Cameron, Simon, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Campbell, James, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Campbell, John A., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Canada, the fisheries question, <a href="#page320">320-322</a><br> -<br> -Canby, Edward R. S., supersedes Sickles, <a href="#page143">143</a><br> -<br> -Carpenter, Matthew H., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Carpenter, testimony as to Ku-Klux, <a href="#page259">259</a><br> -<br> -Cartter, David K., action in case against Thomas, <a href="#page171">171</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page174">174</a><br> -<br> -Cartwright, J. C., Oregon elector of 1876, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Chamberlain, Daniel H., as governor of South Carolina, <a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> - retires from the office, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Chandler, Zachariah, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - manages campaign for Hayes, <a href="#page283">283</a><br> -<br> -Chase, Salmon P., presides at impeachment of Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> - rulings, <a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> - puts final question, <a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> - candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page210">210</a><br> -<br> -Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (5 Peters 1), <a href="#page144">144</a><br> -<br> -Chicago, Ill., democratic convention at, <a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> - republican convention of 1868, <a href="#page207">207</a><br> -<br> -China, the Burlingame treaty, <a href="#page322">322</a><br> -<br> -Cincinnati, O., liberal republican convention at, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - republican convention of 1876, <a href="#page280">280</a><br> -<br> -Civil Rights, state legislation on, <a href="#page45">45-52</a>, <a href="#page62">62</a>;<br> - bill on, in Congress, <a href="#page68">68-70</a>;<br> - the bill criticised, <a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> - bill passed over veto, <a href="#page73">73</a><br> -<br> -Clarendon, Earl of, treaty negotiated with Johnson, <a href="#page303">303</a><br> -<br> -Clements, White vs., <a href="#page237">237</a><br> -<br> -Cleveland, O., radical republican convention at, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - soldier convention at, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -Clifford, Nathan, on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Cochrane, John, nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - withdraws, <a href="#page21">21</a><br> -<br> -Cockburn, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a>, <a href="#page315">315</a>, <a href="#page317">317</a><br> -<br> -Coke, Richard, elected governor of Texas, <a href="#page249">249</a>, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -Colfax, Schuyler, elected Speaker, <a href="#page42">42</a>;<br> - appoints committee on impeachment, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> - character of acceptance, <a href="#page208">208</a><br> -<br> -Columbia, S. C., made head-quarters of second military district, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the House on Elections, Georgia case referred to, <a href="#page223">223</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the House on Impeachment, appointed, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - proceedings, <a href="#page175">175</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> -<br> -Committee of the House on Reconstruction, reports bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - bill passed, <a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> - Covode resolution referred to, <a href="#page171">171</a>;<br> - reports impeachment resolution, <a href="#page173">173</a>;<br> - reports bill as to Georgia, <a href="#page240">240</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the House on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page28">28</a>;<br> - Blaine moves reference to, <a href="#page116">116</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the House on the Rebellious States, <a href="#page15">15</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the Senate on Elections, Georgia case referred to, <a href="#page223">223</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the Senate on Finance, bill reported from, <a href="#page277">277</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the Senate on Foreign Relations, Sumner loses chairmanship of, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - opposes Dominican treaty, <a href="#page324">324</a>, <a href="#page325">325</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the Senate on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page26">26-28</a>;<br> - proposes Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page64">64</a>;<br> - reports a civil rights bill, <a href="#page68">68</a>;<br> - action on bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act, <a href="#page233">233</a><br> -<br> -Committee of the Senate on the Rebellious States, <a href="#page15">15</a><br> -<a name="congress"></a><br> -Congress of the United States, power vested in, <a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> - action on State perdurance, <a href="#page5">5</a>;<br> - power over territories, <a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> - relation of its acts to Reconstruction, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - legislation on Reconstruction, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - action as to electoral vote of 1864, <a href="#page21">21</a>, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - twenty-second joint rule, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - attitude to Tennessee, <a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> - meeting of December, 1865, <a href="#page40">40</a>;<br> - Johnson's views of powers of, <a href="#page41">41</a>;<br> - demand of southerners for seats, <a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> - joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>, <a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> - passes civil rights bill, <a href="#page70">70</a>, <a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> - the fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page74">74-79</a>;<br> - proposal of committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page80">80</a>;<br> - reports to, on reconstruction, <a href="#page84">84-86</a>;<br> - passage of Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page87">87-90</a>;<br> - relation to campaign of 1866, <a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> - attacked by Johnson, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - effect of election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - effect of Johnson's message on, <a href="#page105">105</a>;<br> - passes bill for negro suffrage in District of Columbia, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> - bill vetoed, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> - bill passed over veto, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - vetoes sent to, <a href="#page126">126</a>;<br> - encroachment on President's power, <a href="#page128">128</a>;<br> - passes supplemental reconstruction bill, <a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> - opening of fortieth Congress, <a href="#page132">132</a>;<br> - passes bill interpreting Reconstruction Acts, <a href="#page140">140</a>;<br> - passes bill over veto, <a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> - as to powers of, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - attitude of southern whites to acts of, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - additional bill as to reconstructed States, <a href="#page152">152</a>, <a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> - comment on the act, <a href="#page154">154</a>;<br> - message to, of December, 1867, <a href="#page158">158-160</a>;<br> - admission of Southern members, <a href="#page198">198</a>, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - action on proclamation of fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - friction with Johnson, <a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> - annual message to, <a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> - action on fifteenth amendment, <a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> - question as to southern members, <a href="#page223">223</a>, <a href="#page225">225</a>;<br> - admits members from Virginia, <a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> - passes modification of Tenure-of-Office Act, <a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> - readmission of Georgia, <a href="#page235">235-244</a>;<br> - attitude to the South, <a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> - bill to enforce the amendments, <a href="#page253">253-255</a>;<br> - control of elections to, <a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> - statute on the Ku-Klux, <a href="#page257">257</a>, <a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> - legislation on finance, <a href="#page276">276-279</a>;<br> - electoral count of 1877, <a href="#page283">283</a>, <a href="#page284">284</a>;<br> - bill for electoral commission, <a href="#page284">284</a>, <a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> - action as to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page326">326</a>.<br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#house">House of Representatives</a>; -<a href="#senate">Senate</a>; <a href="#statutes">Statutes of the United States</a><br> -<br> -Conkling, Roscoe, on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - in convention of 1876, <a href="#page281">281</a><br> -<br> -Connecticut ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Constitution of the United States, government provided by the, <a href="#page2">2-4</a>;<br> - relation of State government to, <a href="#page5">5</a>, <a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> - powers of Congress over elections, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - eligibility to vice-presidency, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page24">24</a>;<br> - adoption of the thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page26">26-30</a>, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - the fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page73">73-80</a>, <a href="#page82">82</a>, <a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> - fourteenth amendment in the campaign of 1866, <a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> - fourteenth amendment rejected in South, <a href="#page106">106</a>, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - fourteenth amendment with reference to revival of State functions, <a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> - tests of, applied to reconstruction bill, <a href="#page113">113</a>;<br> - in reconstruction bill, <a href="#page120">120</a>, <a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> - interpreted by the Supreme Court, <a href="#page144">144</a>;<br> - fourteenth amendment ratified in Arkansas, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - ratification of fourteenth amendment completed, <a href="#page202">202-205</a>;<br> - action on fifteenth amendment, <a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> - fifteenth amendment ratified by Georgia, <a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> - provision for enforcement of amendments, <a href="#page253">253-255</a><br> -<br> -Covode, John, resolutions on Johnson, <a href="#page171">171</a><br> -<br> -Cowan, Edgar, action on the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Cox, Jacob D., in Pittsburg convention, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - becomes secretary of the interior, <a href="#page231">231</a><br> -<br> -Creswell, John A. J., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - becomes postmaster-general, <a href="#page231">231</a><br> -<br> -Cronin, E. A., Oregon elector in 1876, <a href="#page290">290</a>, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Curtin, A. G., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Curtis, Benjamin R., counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> - argument, <a href="#page182">182</a>, <a href="#page183">183</a><br> -<br> -Cushing, Caleb, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Custer, George A., in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Davis, David, joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - elected Senator, <a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> - relation to electoral commission, <a href="#page288">288</a><br> -<br> -Davis, Henry Winter, bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page15">15-18</a>;<br> - protest against Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page19">19</a><br> -<br> -Davis, J. C. Bancroft, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Delaware, in election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a><br> -<br> -Delfosse, Maurice, on Halifax commission, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Dennison, William, resignation, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page142">142</a><br> -<br> -District of Columbia, bill for negro suffrage in, <a href="#page107">107</a>;<br> - bill vetoed, <a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> - bill passed over veto, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - bill on colored schools in, <a href="#page216">216</a><br> -<br> -Dix, John A., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Dixon, James, action on the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Doolittle, James R., action on the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> - view of the Stanton case, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Drew, George F., becomes governor of Florida, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Durant, Thomas J., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Durell, E. H., in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page270">270</a>, <a href="#page271">271</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Edmunds, George F., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Electoral Commission, creation, <a href="#page284">284</a>, <a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> - membership, <a href="#page286">286-289</a>;<br> - proceedings, <a href="#page290">290-293</a><br> -<br> -Emory, W. H., relations with Johnson, <a href="#page175">175</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a><br> -<br> -English, James E., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Evarts, William M., counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> - at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Ewing, Thomas, in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> - nominated as secretary of war, <a href="#page173">173</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Farragut, David D., accompanies Johnson to the West, <a href="#page102">102</a><br> -<br> -Favrot, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Federal government, system of, <a href="#page1">1</a>, <a href="#page2">2</a><br> -<br> -Ferry, Thomas W., announces result of 1876 election, <a href="#page294">294</a><br> -<br> -Fessenden, William P., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - theory of reconstruction, <a href="#page60">60</a>;<br> - opinion on impeachment, <a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> - view of the Stanton case, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Field, Stephen J., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Fish, Hamilton, becomes secretary of state, <a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> - negotiations with Great Britain, <a href="#page306">306</a>, <a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> - controversy with Granville, <a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> - congratulates Delfosse, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Fisheries Question, the, <a href="#page320">320-322</a><br> -<br> -Flanders, Benjamin F., elected to House of Representatives, <a href="#page14">14</a><br> -<br> -Florida, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - convention in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - adopts thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page39">39</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - contest as to election returns of 1876, <a href="#page283">283</a>, <a href="#page289">289</a>;<br> - change of administration, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -<i>Florida</i>, the, case of, <a href="#page315">315-317</a><br> -<br> -Fowler, Joseph S., vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Freedmen's Bureau, created, <a href="#page44">44</a>, <a href="#page45">45</a>;<br> - Grant's opinion of its officers, <a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> - bill of 1866, <a href="#page64">64-67</a>;<br> - bill passed over veto, <a href="#page87">87-90</a>.<br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#statutes">Statutes of the United States</a><br> -<br> -Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Frémont, John C., nominated for presidency, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - withdraws, <a href="#page21">21</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Galt, Alexander T., on Halifax commission, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Garfield, James A., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> - on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Garland, Augustus H., elected governor of Arkansas, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -Geneva Arbitration, <a href="#page307">307</a>, <a href="#page308">308</a>, <a href="#page311">311-318</a><br> -<br> -Georgia, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - convention and election in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - case of Georgia vs. Stanton, <a href="#page146">146</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page148">148</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - controversy in, <a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratification of fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page205">205</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - question in Congress as to representation of, <a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> - question of representation of, <a href="#page235">235-237</a>;<br> - military government in, <a href="#page238">238</a>, <a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> - fifteenth amendment ratified, <a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> - admission delayed, <a href="#page241">241</a>, <a href="#page242">242</a>;<br> - finally restored to federal relations, <a href="#page243">243</a>, <a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> - escape from negro rule, <a href="#page247">247</a>, <a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Gerry, Elbridge, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Gillem, A. C., arrest of McCardle, <a href="#page196">196</a><br> -<br> -Granger, Gordon, in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -Grant, Ulysses S., report on conditions at the South, <a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> - accompanies Johnson to the West, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - acting Secretary of War, <a href="#page143">143</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> - injunction against sought, <a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> - appointed acting secretary of war, <a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> - his action thereon, <a href="#page164">164</a>, <a href="#page165">165</a>;<br> - relations with Johnson, <a href="#page166">166-168</a>;<br> - nominated for presidency, <a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> - character of acceptance, <a href="#page208">208</a>;<br> - attitude to reconstruction, <a href="#page223">223</a>;<br> - proclamation as to Virginia, <a href="#page227">227</a>;<br> - orders as to Mississippi and Texas, <a href="#page229">229</a>, <a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> - policy characterized, <a href="#page230">230</a>, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - attitude to Tenure-of-Office Act, <a href="#page231">231-234</a>;<br> - first annual message, <a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> - suggestion as to Georgia, <a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> - message of March, 1871, <a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> - proclamation of March, 1871, <a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> - proclamation of May, 1871, <a href="#page259">259</a>, <a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> - proclamations of April and November, 1871, <a href="#page260">260</a>, <a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> - relations with Sumner, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - nominated for second term, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - elected, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - veto of inflation bill, <a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> - messages on relations with Great Britain, <a href="#page303">303-306</a>;<br> - policy as to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page323">323-326</a><br> -<br> -Granville, Lord, controversy with Fish, <a href="#page312">312</a><br> -<br> -Great Britain, change in ministry, <a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> - Grant's messages on relations with, <a href="#page304">304-306</a>;<br> - the Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page307">307-318</a>;<br> - the British Columbia boundary, <a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> - the fisheries question, <a href="#page320">320-322</a><br> -<br> -Greeley, Horace, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - nominated for presidency, <a href="#page265">265</a>, <a href="#page266">266</a>;<br> - defeated, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Green, Ashbel, counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Grey and Ripon, Earl de, on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Grider, Henry, on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a><br> -<br> -Grimes, James W., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - view of the Stanton case, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Groesbeck, William S., counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page177">177</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Habeas Corpus, writ of, privileges suspended in District of Columbia, <a href="#page39">39</a><br> -<br> -Hahn, Michael, elected to House of Representatives, <a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> - elected Governor of Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a><br> -<br> -Halifax, N. S., fisheries commission at, <a href="#page320">320</a>, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Hamlin, Hannibal, count of electoral votes, <a href="#page24">24</a><br> -<br> -Hampton, Wade, in convention of 1868, <a href="#page211">211</a>;<br> - becomes governor of South Carolina, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Hancock, Winfield Scott, supersedes Sheridan, <a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> - in convention of 1868, <a href="#page210">210</a><br> -<br> -Harlan, James, resignation, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page142">142</a><br> -<br> -Harris, Ira, on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a><br> -<br> -Hawley, Joseph R., in republican convention of 1866, <a href="#page207">207</a><br> -<br> -Hayes, Rutherford B., significance of his election, <a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> - nominated for presidency, <a href="#page281">281</a>, <a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> - the campaign, <a href="#page283">283</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - election formally declared, <a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> - policy toward the South, <a href="#page295">295</a>, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Henderson, John B., introduces amendment abolishing slavery, <a href="#page26">26</a>, <a href="#page27">27</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Hendricks, Thomas A., candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page210">210</a>;<br> - nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page282">282</a><br> -<br> -Herron, Francis J., in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page269">269</a>, <a href="#page270">270</a><br> -<br> -Higby, William, views on purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -Hill, Benjamin H., enters Senate from Georgia, <a href="#page244">244</a><br> -<br> -Hoadly, George, joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Hoar, Ebenezer R., becomes attorney-general, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Hoar, George F., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Hood, John B., near Nashville, <a href="#page23">23</a><br> -<a name="house"></a><br> -House of Representatives of the United States, admits members from Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> - refuses seats to members from Arkansas, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - action on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page28">28-30</a>;<br> - elects Colfax Speaker, <a href="#page42">42</a>;<br> - the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page42">42-44</a>;<br> - speech by Stevens, <a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> - passes civil rights bill, <a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> - representation in, <a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> - election of 1866, <a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> - effect of election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - attempt to impeach Johnson, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - bill on reconstruction before the, <a href="#page112">112-118</a>;<br> - resolution on confiscation act, <a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> - tenure-of-office bill in, <a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> - bill on reconstructed States, <a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> - action on dismissal of Stanton, <a href="#page171">171</a>;<br> - proceedings of impeachment against Johnson, <a href="#page173">173</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - passes bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act, <a href="#page232">232</a>, <a href="#page233">233</a>;<br> - democrats secure control of, <a href="#page253">253</a>, <a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> - jurisdiction over treaties, <a href="#page301">301</a>, <a href="#page302">302</a>.<br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#congress">Congress of the United States</a>; <a href="#statutes">Statutes of the United States</a><br> -<br> -Houston, George S., elected governor of Alabama, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -Howard, Jacob M., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - illness delays vote on impeachment, <a href="#page190">190</a><br> -<br> -Howe, Samuel G., commissioner to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page326">326</a><br> -<br> -Hunt, Ward, <a href="#page289">289</a><br> -<br> -Hunton, Eppa, on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Illinois, ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - Davis elected Senator from, <a href="#page287">287</a><br> -<br> -Indiana, election of 1886 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Iowa, election of 1866 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -d'Itajubá, Baron, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a>, <a href="#page316">316</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Jenkins, Charles J., institutes suit against Stanton, <a href="#page145">145</a>;<br> - removed by Meade, <a href="#page155">155</a><br> -<br> -Johnson, Andrew, elected vice-president, <a href="#page21">21</a>;<br> - calls Tennessee convention, <a href="#page23">23</a>;<br> - proclamation of Feb. 25, 1865, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - becomes president, <a href="#page30">30</a>;<br> - plan and acts as to reconstruction, <a href="#page31">31-41</a>;<br> - proclamation of May 29, 1865, <a href="#page33">33</a>, <a href="#page34">34</a>;<br> - identity of his plan with Lincoln's, <a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> - proclaims federal law in force in Virginia, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - proclamations as to civil government, <a href="#page39">39</a>;<br> - message of Dec., 1865, <a href="#page40">40</a>;<br> - relation to congressional views of reconstruction, <a href="#page61">61</a>;<br> - sends Grant and Schurz through the South, <a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> - veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page66">66</a>, <a href="#page67">67</a>;<br> - speech of Feb. 22, 1866, <a href="#page67">67</a>;<br> - veto of civil rights bill, <a href="#page70">70</a>, <a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> - effect of it, <a href="#page72">72</a>;<br> - veto overridden, <a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> - as to fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page80">80</a>;<br> - message as to Tennessee, <a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> - veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill overridden, <a href="#page88">88-90</a>;<br> - relations with Stanton, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a>;<br> - changes in cabinet, <a href="#page90">90</a>;<br> - relation to New Orleans riot, <a href="#page95">95</a>, <a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> - endorsed by convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> - criticized by conventions of 1866, <a href="#page101">101</a>, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - takes part in campaign of 1866, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - proclamation declaring war ended, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - message of Dec., 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>, <a href="#page105">105</a>;<br> - vetoes bill as to negro suffrage in District of Columbia, <a href="#page107">107</a>, <a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> - bill passed over his veto, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - first attempt at impeachment, <a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> - vetoes resolution on confiscation act, <a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> - influence of Seward on, <a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> - vetoes reconstruction bill and tenure-of-office bill, <a href="#page126">126</a>;<br> - encroachment on his power, <a href="#page128">128</a>;<br> - veto of supplemental reconstruction bill, <a href="#page132">132</a>, <a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> - orders under the statutes, <a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page138">138</a>;<br> - vetoes bill interpreting reconstruction acts, <a href="#page140">140</a>, <a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> - distrust of Stanton, <a href="#page140">140</a>;<br> - veto overridden, <a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> - suspends Stanton, <a href="#page142">142</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> - Mississippi vs. Johnson, <a href="#page145">145</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> - supersedes Pope with Meade, <a href="#page152">152</a>;<br> - the attempt to impeach, <a href="#page157">157-194</a>;<br> - message on suspension of Stanton, <a href="#page160">160-163</a>;<br> - relations with Grant, <a href="#page164">164-168</a>;<br> - supersedes Stanton with Thomas, <a href="#page169">169</a>, <a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> - Covode resolution, <a href="#page171">171</a>;<br> - action of House on impeachment, <a href="#page173">173</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - vetoes overridden, <a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page199">199</a>, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - proclaims reconstruction completed, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - conduct in campaign of 1868, <a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> - last annual message, <a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> - proclamation of Dec., 1868, <a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> - veto of colored school bill, <a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> - retirement, <a href="#page218">218</a>, <a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> - relations with republicans, <a href="#page219">219-221</a>;<br> - policy compared with Grant's, <a href="#page230">230</a><br> -<br> -Johnson, James, appointed governor of Georgia, <a href="#page37">37</a><br> -<br> -Johnson, Reverdy, on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - report on reconstruction, <a href="#page86">86</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> - offers bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> - negotiates treaty with Clarendon, <a href="#page303">303</a><br> -<br> -Joint Committee on Reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>, <a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> - recommendation on representation, <a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> - proposes bill, <a href="#page80">80</a>;<br> - its bill rejected, <a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> - final report of, <a href="#page84">84-86</a><br> -<br> -Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Julian, George W., on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Kansas ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Kellogg, Ensign H., on Halifax commission, <a href="#page320">320</a>, <a href="#page321">321</a><br> -<br> -Kellogg, William P., in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page270">270-272</a>;<br> - certificate in 1876 election, <a href="#page290">290</a><br> -<br> -Kendall vs. United States (12 Peters 524), <a href="#page144">144</a><br> -<br> -Kentucky, reconstruction in, <a href="#page7">7</a>, <a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> - in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - in election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Kenzie, Lewis M., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Kernan, Francis, in convention of 1868, <a href="#page209">209</a><br> -<br> -Koontz, William H., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a><br> -<br> -Ku-Klux, the, <a href="#page250">250-252</a>, <a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> - act of April, 1871, <a href="#page257">257</a>, <a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> - trials, <a href="#page261">261</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Lawrence, William B., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Lewis, D. P., elected governor of Alabama, <a href="#page268">268</a><br> -<br> -Liberal Republicans, convention of 1872, <a href="#page264">264</a>, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - in campaign of 1872, <a href="#page266">266</a><br> -<br> -Lincoln, Abraham, views and acts as to reconstruction, <a href="#page8">8-30</a>;<br> - his proposed oath of allegiance, <a href="#page10">10</a>;<br> - attitude to the Pierpont government, <a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> - course toward Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a>, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - proclamation of July 8, 1864, <a href="#page18">18</a>, <a href="#page19">19</a>;<br> - message of Dec. 6, 1864, <a href="#page19">19</a>, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - renominated, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - re-elected, <a href="#page21">21</a>;<br> - message of Feb. 8, 1865, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - views of powers of Congress, <a href="#page24">24</a>;<br> - attitude to Brownlow's administration, <a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> - nature of acts as to abolition, <a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> - signs resolution on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page29">29</a>;<br> - assassinated, <a href="#page30">30</a>;<br> - his cabinet retained by Johnson, <a href="#page32">32</a>;<br> - identity of plan of reconstruction with Johnson's, <a href="#page36">36</a><br> -<br> -Lindsay, Robert B., course as governor of Alabama, <a href="#page268">268</a><br> -<br> -Logan, John A., on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - approves letter on Alta Vela claim, <a href="#page177">177</a><br> -<br> -Louisiana, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - Lincoln's acts toward, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - presidential reconstruction in, <a href="#page14">14</a>, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page19">19</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page21">21</a>, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - attitude of Johnson to, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - contest for control of state government, <a href="#page92">92-98</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - disfranchisements in, <a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - corruption in, <a href="#page263">263</a>;<br> - contest for political control in, <a href="#page269">269-272</a>;<br> - contested electoral vote of 1876, <a href="#page283">283</a>, <a href="#page289">289</a>, <a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> - change of administration, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Louisville, Ky., democratic convention at, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Loyal League, the, <a href="#page250">250</a>, <a href="#page252">252</a><br> -<br> -Luther vs. Borden, (7 Howard 1), <a href="#page144">144</a><br> -<br> -Lynch, John, in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page269">269-272</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Macdonald, John, on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -McCardle, William H., case of, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a><br> -<br> -McClellan, George B., nominated for presidency, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - electoral votes, <a href="#page21">21</a><br> -<br> -McClernand, John A., in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -McCrary, George W., suggests electoral commission, <a href="#page284">284</a><br> -<br> -McEnery, John, in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page270">270-272</a>;<br> - certificate in 1876 election, <a href="#page290">290</a><br> -<br> -Maine, election of 1866 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Marvin, William, appointed governor of Florida, <a href="#page37">37</a><br> -<br> -Maryland, in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - in election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Massachusetts ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Matthews, Stanley, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Meade, George G., supersedes Pope, <a href="#page152">152</a>;<br> - report on Alabama election, <a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> - removes Jenkins, <a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> - proclamation of June, 1868, <a href="#page238">238</a>, <a href="#page239">239</a><br> -<br> -Merrick, Richard T., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Michigan ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Miller, J. N. Y., Oregon elector of 1876, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Miller, Samuel F., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Miller enters Senate from Georgia, <a href="#page244">244</a><br> -<br> -Minnesota ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Mississippi, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - convention in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - rejects thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page39">39</a>;<br> - law on vagrancy, etc., <a href="#page46">46-52</a>, <a href="#page62">62</a>;<br> - opinion of this legislation, <a href="#page53">53</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - Mississippi vs. Johnson, <a href="#page145">145</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - disfranchisements in, <a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> - constitution rejected in, <a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> - arrest of McCardle in, <a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> - martial law in, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - no share in election of 1868, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - ratification of constitution, <a href="#page229">229</a>;<br> - restored to federal relations, <a href="#page229">229</a>;<br> - negro rule in, <a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> - political conditions in 1875, <a href="#page274">274</a>, <a href="#page275">275</a><br> -<br> -Mississippi vs. Johnson (4 Wallace 475), <a href="#page145">145</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a><br> -<br> -Missouri, Reconstruction in, <a href="#page7">7</a>, <a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> - in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - liberal republicans in, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Monroe, John T., as mayor of New Orleans, <a href="#page94">94</a><br> -<br> -Montgomery, Ala., made head-quarters of third military district, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> -<br> -Moorhead, James K., approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a><br> -<br> -Morgan, Edwin D., vote on Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page67">67</a><br> -<br> -Morrill, Justin S., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a><br> -<br> -Morse, Alexander P., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Morton, Oliver P., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - in convention of 1876, <a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> - on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> - resolution on Santo Domingo, <a href="#page325">325</a><br> -<br> -Moses, F. J., connection with South Carolina corruption, <a href="#page262">262</a><br> -<br> -Moses, F. J., Jr., judge-elect of South Carolina, <a href="#page274">274</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Nashville, Tenn., convention at, <a href="#page236">236</a><br> -<br> -National Nominating Conventions, radical republican of 1864, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - democratic of 1864, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - republican of 1864, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - of 1866, <a href="#page99">99-102</a>;<br> - republican of 1868, <a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> - democratic of 1868, <a href="#page208">208</a>;<br> - liberal republican of 1872, <a href="#page264">264</a>, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - democratic of 1872, <a href="#page266">266</a>;<br> - republican of 1868, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - republican of 1876, <a href="#page280">280</a>, <a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> - democratic of 1876, <a href="#page282">282</a><br> -<br> -Nebraska ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Nelson, Samuel, on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Nelson, Thomas A. R., counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a><br> -<br> -Nevada ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -New Hampshire ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -New Jersey, ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - withdrawal of ratification, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a><br> -<br> -New Orleans, La., convention at, <a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> - riot at, <a href="#page92">92-98</a>;<br> - head-quarters of fifth military district, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> -<br> -New York, ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a><br> -<br> -New York, N. Y., democratic convention of 1868 at, <a href="#page208">208</a><br> -<br> -New York <i>Tribune</i> prints protest of Wade and Davis, <a href="#page19">19</a><br> -<br> -Niblack, William E., motion in House, <a href="#page43">43</a><br> -<br> -Nicholls, Francis T., becomes governor of Louisiana, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -North Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> - convention in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - recovery from negro rule, <a href="#page249">249</a><br> -<br> -Northcote, Stafford, on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Northwest Ordinance, <a href="#page27">27</a><br> -<br> -Norton, Daniel S., action on the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -<br> -O'Conor, Charles, nominated for presidency, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Odell, W. H., Oregon elector of 1876, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Ohio, election of 1866 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - vote on negro suffrage in, <a href="#page148">148</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - withdrawal of ratification, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page205">205</a>, <a href="#page206">206</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Ord, Edward O. C., in fourth military district, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> -<br> -Oregon, ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - votes for Seymour, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - contested electoral returns of 1876, <a href="#page289">289-291</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Packard, S. B., takes possession of Louisiana capitol, <a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> - retires from office of governor, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Palmer, Roundell, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Parker, John, Oregon elector of 1876, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Parsons, Lewis E., appointed governor of Alabama, <a href="#page37">37</a><br> -<br> -Paschal, George W., in convention of 1886, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -Patterson, David T., vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Payne, Henry B., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Pendleton, George H., nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page21">21</a>;<br> - candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page208">208</a><br> -<br> -Pennsylvania, election of 1866 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Perry, Benjamin F., appointed governor of South Carolina, <a href="#page37">37</a><br> -<br> -Philadelphia, Penn., conventions of 1866 at, <a href="#page99">99</a>, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - republican convention of 1872 at, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Phillips, Wendell, characterized by Johnson, <a href="#page67">67</a><br> -<br> -Pierpont, Francis H., attitude of Lincoln to, <a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> - supported by Johnson, <a href="#page37">37</a>, <a href="#page224">224</a><br> -<br> -Pinchback, P. B. S., in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page269">269</a>, <a href="#page272">272</a><br> -<br> -Pittsburg, Penn., soldier convention at, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -Poland, Luke P., connection with Thomas case, <a href="#page174">174</a><br> -<br> -Pope, John, in third military district, <a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> - injunction sought against, <a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> - election orders, <a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> - recalled, <a href="#page152">152</a><br> -<br> -Preston, William, in convention of 1868, <a href="#page210">210</a><br> -<br> -Pulaski, Tenn., place of origin of Ku-Klux, <a href="#page250">250</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Randall, Alexander W., appointed postmaster-general, <a href="#page90">90</a>;<br> - accompanies Johnson to the West, <a href="#page102">102</a><br> -<br> -Rawlins, John A., becomes secretary of war, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Raymond, Henry J., views on reconstruction, <a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> - vote on fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Reconstruction, theory of, <a href="#page1">1-7</a>;<br> - Lincoln's views and acts as to, <a href="#page8">8-30</a>;<br> - Seward's view of, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - in Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> - the Wade-Davis bill, <a href="#page15">15-18</a>;<br> - relation of party conventions to, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - in Tennessee, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - Johnson's plan as to, <a href="#page31">31-41</a>;<br> - in North Carolina, <a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> - in the several States, <a href="#page37">37</a>, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - views of House on, <a href="#page43">43</a>;<br> - attitude of republicans, <a href="#page44">44</a>;<br> - joint committee on, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - views of Stevens, <a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> - views of Raymond and Shellabarger, <a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> - theory of Sumner, <a href="#page60">60</a>;<br> - reports of congressional committee, <a href="#page84">84-86</a>;<br> - as an issue in the campaign of 1866, <a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> - Johnson's defence of his policy as to, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - bill in the House, <a href="#page112">112-114</a>;<br> - the Blaine amendment, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> - the Sherman bill, <a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> - the bill as finally passed, <a href="#page118">118-122</a>;<br> - vetoed by Johnson, <a href="#page126">126</a>;<br> - republican motives in, <a href="#page127">127</a>;<br> - supplemental bill on, <a href="#page129">129-131</a>;<br> - vetoed, <a href="#page132">132</a>;<br> - acts on, criticised, <a href="#page133">133</a>, <a href="#page134">134</a>;<br> - application of acts on, <a href="#page135">135-137</a>;<br> - congressional interpretation of acts on, <a href="#page138">138</a>;<br> - bill interpreting the statutes on, <a href="#page140">140</a>;<br> - application of statutes on, <a href="#page146">146</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - process of, declared completed, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - attitude of Grant toward, <a href="#page223">223</a>;<br> - end of legislation on, <a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> - reconstruction characterized, <a href="#page297">297</a>.<br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#statutes">Statutes</a><br> -<br> -Republican party, schism threatened in, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - attitude to reconstruction, <a href="#page44">44</a>;<br> - attitude to southern legislation, <a href="#page52">52</a>, <a href="#page54">54</a>;<br> - feeling toward southern congressmen, <a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> - attitude to views of Stevens, Raymond and Shellabarger, <a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> - attitude to presidential reconstruction, <a href="#page60">60</a>, <a href="#page61">61</a>;<br> - position on civil rights, <a href="#page62">62</a>;<br> - attitude to Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> - attitude to Stanton, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a>;<br> - in campaign of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>, <a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> - convention of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - in election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - views on reconstruction, <a href="#page110">110</a>, <a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> - motives in Reconstruction, <a href="#page127">127</a>;<br> - interpretation of Johnson's message, <a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> - action in vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> - effect of McCardle case on, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - convention of 1868, <a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> - criticism of views of, <a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> - relations with Johnson, <a href="#page219">219-221</a>;<br> - control of Grant, <a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> - revolt in the party, <a href="#page264">264</a>, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - convention of 1872, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - get control of Alabama legislature, <a href="#page268">268</a>, <a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> - lose control in Congress, <a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> - financial policy, <a href="#page276">276</a>;<br> - convention of 1876, <a href="#page280">280</a>, <a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> - campaign of 1876, <a href="#page283">283</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - views as to powers of Congress, <a href="#page292">292</a><br> -<br> -<i>Retribution</i>, the, case of, <a href="#page316">316</a><br> -<br> -Rhode Island ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Richmond, Va., made head-quarters of first military district, <a href="#page135">135</a>;<br> - convention at, <a href="#page226">226</a>, <a href="#page227">227</a><br> -<br> -Robeson, George M., becomes secretary of the navy, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Rogers, Andrew J., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a><br> -<br> -Rose, John, mission of, <a href="#page306">306</a><br> -<br> -Ross, Edmund G., vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Rousseau, Lovell H., in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -Russia, purchase of Alaska from, <a href="#page300">300-302</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Safford, M. J., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a><br> -<br> -St. Louis, Mo., Johnson's speech at, <a href="#page102">102</a><br> -<br> -Samana Bay, <a href="#page324">324</a>, <a href="#page327">327</a><br> -<br> -Santo Domingo, Sumner's position as to, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - attempt to annex to United States, <a href="#page323">323-327</a><br> -<br> -Schaffner law, the, <a href="#page249">249</a><br> -<br> -Schell, Augustus, in convention of 1868, <a href="#page209">209</a><br> -<br> -Schenck, Robert C., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> - at London, <a href="#page312">312</a><br> -<br> -Schofield, John M., assigned to first military district, <a href="#page135">135</a>, <a href="#page226">226</a>;<br> - nominated as secretary of war, <a href="#page190">190</a>;<br> - confirmed, <a href="#page192">192</a>;<br> - retained by Grant, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - resigns, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Schriver, General, in Stanton-Thomas incident, <a href="#page169">169</a>, -<a href="#page170">170</a>, <a href="#page172">172</a>, <a href="#page173">173</a><br> -<br> -Schurz, Carl, report on conditions at the South, <a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a><br> -<br> -Sclopis, Frederic, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a>, <a href="#page316">316</a>, <a href="#page317">317</a><br> -<br> -Scott, R. K., views of Ku-Klux, etc., <a href="#page259">259</a><br> -<a name="senate"></a><br> -Senate of the United States, refuses seats to members from Arkansas, <a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> - adopts thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page26">26-28</a>;<br> - the Stevens resolution, <a href="#page43">43</a>, <a href="#page44">44</a>, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - passes Freedmen's Bureau bill, <a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> - passes civil rights bill, <a href="#page70">70</a>, <a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> - effect of election of 1866, <a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> - passes reconstruction bill, <a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> - tenure-of-office bill in, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> - passes resolution on confiscation act, <a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> - bill on reconstructed States, <a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> - action on suspension of Stanton, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> - action on dismissal of Stanton, <a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> - acts as court of impeachment, <a href="#page176">176</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page190">190</a>, <a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> - confirms Schofield, <a href="#page192">192</a>;<br> - resolution on the amnesty proclamation, <a href="#page215">215</a>, <a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> - confirms Grant's nominees, <a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> - admits members from Georgia, <a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> - currency bill in, <a href="#page277">277</a>;<br> - ratifies treaty with Russia, <a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> - rejects Johnson-Clarendon treaty, <a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> - rejects Dominican treaty, <a href="#page324">324</a>, <a href="#page325">325</a>.<br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#congress">Congress of the United States</a>; <a href="#statutes">Statutes of the United States</a><br> -<br> -Seward, William H., views on reconstruction, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - sends thirteenth amendment to states, <a href="#page29">29</a>;<br> - retained by Johnson, <a href="#page32">32</a>;<br> - calculation as to thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page52">52</a>, <a href="#page55">55</a>, <a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> - announces adoption of thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - action on fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page80">80</a>;<br> - accompanies Johnson to the west, <a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> - influence on Johnson, <a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> - proclaims ratification of fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - procedure as to the proclamation, <a href="#page203">203-205</a>;<br> - negotiates purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300-301</a>;<br> - negotiates treaty with China, <a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> - instructions to Babcock, <a href="#page323">323</a><br> -<br> -Seymour, Horatio, nominated for presidency, <a href="#page210">210</a>;<br> - defeated, <a href="#page212">212</a><br> -<br> -Shaffer, J. W., secures letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a><br> -<br> -Sharkey, William L., appointed governor of Mississippi, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - institutes suit against Johnson, <a href="#page145">145</a><br> -<br> -Shellabarger, Samuel, theory of reconstruction, <a href="#page59">59-61</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> - opinion of purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -<i>Shenandoah</i>, the, case of, <a href="#page316">316</a>, <a href="#page317">317</a><br> -<br> -Shepley, George F., military governor of Louisiana, <a href="#page14">14</a><br> -<br> -Sheridan, Philip H., New Orleans riot, <a href="#page94">94</a>, <a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> - in fifth military district, <a href="#page135">135</a>;<br> - superseded by Hancock, <a href="#page143">143</a><br> -<br> -Sherman, John, offers bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> - father-in-law of Ewing, <a href="#page173">173</a>;<br> - reports currency bill, <a href="#page277">277</a><br> -<br> -Sickles, Daniel E., in second military district, <a href="#page135">135</a>;<br> - superseded by Canby, <a href="#page143">143</a><br> -<br> -Sinclair, John G., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Skinner, J. B. L., postmaster-general <i>ad interim</i>, <a href="#page186">186</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a><br> -<br> -Slavery, adoption of the thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page26">26-30</a><br> -<br> -South Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - convention and election in, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - law on vagrancy, <a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - character of convention in, <a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> - ratifies constitution, <a href="#page155">155</a>, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - act on admission of members from, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - reconstruction declared complete, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - request of governor for troops, <a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> - proclamations of president as to, <a href="#page260">260</a>, <a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> - corruption in, <a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> - conditions in 1874, <a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> - contested electoral returns of 1876, <a href="#page283">283</a>, <a href="#page289">289</a>;<br> - change of administration, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Spaulding, J. R., joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a><br> -<br> -Speed, James, resignation, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -Staempfli, Jacob, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a>, <a href="#page315">315</a>, <a href="#page316">316</a><br> -<br> -Stanbery, Henry, appointed attorney-general, <a href="#page90">90</a>;<br> - in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, <a href="#page145">145</a>;<br> - in case of Georgia vs. Stanton, <a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> - arrest of Thomas, <a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> - counsel for Johnson, <a href="#page176">176</a><br> -<br> -Stanley, Lord, secretary for foreign affairs, <a href="#page303">303</a><br> -<br> -Stanton, Edwin M., attitude to Johnson, <a href="#page90">90</a>, <a href="#page91">91</a>;<br> - as to the New Orleans riot, <a href="#page95">95</a>, <a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> - dissents from instructions on reconstruction, <a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> - distrusted by Johnson, <a href="#page140">140</a>;<br> - suspended, <a href="#page142">142</a>, <a href="#page143">143</a>, <a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> - case of Georgia vs. Stanton, <a href="#page146">146</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> - message on suspension of, <a href="#page160">160-162</a>;<br> - action of Senate as to, <a href="#page162">162</a>, <a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> - superseded by Thomas, <a href="#page169">169-172</a>;<br> - removal discussed before Senate, <a href="#page178">178</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a>;<br> - power to remove, <a href="#page185">185</a>;<br> - his violations of law, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - abdication, <a href="#page192">192</a><br> -<a name="statutes"></a><br> -Statutes of the United States, of Aug. 7, 1789, <a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> - of May 8, 1792, <a href="#page186">186</a>, <a href="#page187">187</a>;<br> - of Feb. 13, 1795, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page186">186</a>, <a href="#page187">187</a>;<br> - of July 31, 1861, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - of Feb. 20, 1863, <a href="#page187">187</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> - of Mar. 3, 1865, <a href="#page44">44</a>, <a href="#page64">64</a>, <a href="#page65">65</a>, <a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> - of April 9, 1866, <a href="#page68">68-73</a>;<br> - of July 16, 1866, <a href="#page87">87-90</a>;<br> - of Feb. 5, 1873, <a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> - of Mar. 2, 1867 (on reconstruction), -<a href="#page112">112-121</a>, <a href="#page126">126</a>, -<a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, -<a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page175">175</a>, -<a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, -<a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page215">215</a>, -<a href="#page235">235</a>, <a href="#page239">239</a>, -<a href="#page243">243</a>, <a href="#page245">245</a>, -<a href="#page247">247</a>, <a href="#page250">250-253</a>;<br> - of Mar. 2, 1867 (on tenure-of-office), -<a href="#page122">122-126</a>, <a href="#page160">160-163</a>, -<a href="#page165">165</a>, <a href="#page166">166</a>, -<a href="#page174">174</a>, <a href="#page178">178</a>, -<a href="#page181">181</a>, <a href="#page184">184</a>, -<a href="#page185">185</a>, <a href="#page188">188</a>, -<a href="#page189">189</a>, <a href="#page214">214</a>, <a href="#page231">231-234</a>;<br> - of Mar. 11, 1867, <a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> - of Mar. 23, 1867, <a href="#page129">129-133</a>, -<a href="#page136">136</a>, <a href="#page159">159</a>, -<a href="#page160">160</a>, <a href="#page193">193</a>, -<a href="#page197">197</a>, <a href="#page235">235</a>, -<a href="#page245">245</a>, <a href="#page247">247</a>, -<a href="#page250">250-253</a>;<br> - of June 22, 1868, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - of June 25, 1868, <a href="#page202">202</a>, <a href="#page241">241</a>, <a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> - of June 28, 1868, <a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> - of July 26, 1868, <a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> - of Mar. 18, 1869, <a href="#page276">276</a>, <a href="#page277">277</a>;<br> - of April 10, 1869, <a href="#page229">229</a>;<br> - of Dec. 22, 1869, <a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> - of May 31, 1870, <a href="#page255">255</a>, <a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> - of July 14, 1870, <a href="#page276">276</a>, <a href="#page278">278</a>;<br> - of July 15, 1870, <a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> - of Jan. 20, 1871, <a href="#page276">276</a>;<br> - of Feb. 28, 1871, <a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> - of April 20, 1871, <a href="#page257">257</a>, <a href="#page260">260</a>, <a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> - of May 22, 1872, <a href="#page268">268</a>;<br> - of Jan. 14, 1875, <a href="#page279">279</a>, <a href="#page283">283</a><br> -<br> -Stearns, M. L., retires as governor of Florida, <a href="#page296">296</a><br> -<br> -Stephens, Alexander H., seeks seat in Congress, <a href="#page56">56</a><br> -<br> -Stevens, Thaddeus, proposes substitute thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page28">28</a>;<br> - resolution on representation, <a href="#page42">42-44</a>, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - view of Mississippi legislation, <a href="#page53">53</a>;<br> - on committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - views of reconstruction, <a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> - characterized by Johnson, <a href="#page67">67</a>;<br> - view as to effect of secession, <a href="#page81">81</a>;<br> - introduces bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - refuses to accept the Blaine amendment, <a href="#page115">115</a>, <a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> - on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - approves letter on Alta Vela claims, <a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> - views on purchase of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -Stewart, Alexander T., nominated for secretary of treasury, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - declines, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Stockton, John P., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Stoeckl, Baron, negotiates treaty for sale of Alaska, <a href="#page300">300</a><br> -<br> -Stone, John M., elected governor of Mississippi, <a href="#page276">276</a><br> -<br> -Stoughton, E. W., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Strong, William, on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Sumner, Charles, theory of reconstruction, <a href="#page60">60</a>, <a href="#page61">61</a>;<br> - characterized by Johnson, <a href="#page67">67</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - relations with Grant, <a href="#page264">264</a>, <a href="#page325">325</a><br> -<br> -Supreme Court of the United States, relation of dicta to reconstruction, <a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> - decisions, <a href="#page144">144-146</a>, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page195">195</a>, <a href="#page196">196</a><br> -<br> -Swayne, Noah H., <a href="#page289">289</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Tennessee, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - in Lincoln's message, <a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page21">21</a>, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - Reconstruction in, <a href="#page23">23</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - civil government established in, <a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> - ratifies thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page30">30</a>;<br> - attitude of Johnson to, <a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page82">82</a>, <a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Tenterden, Lord, at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Tenure-of-Office Bill, the, introduced, <a href="#page122">122</a>, <a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> - contents, <a href="#page124">124</a>, <a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> - vetoed, <a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> - case of Stanton, <a href="#page162">162</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> - <i>See</i> <a href="#statutes">Statutes</a><br> -<br> -Terry, Alfred H., modifies Virginia vagrant act, <a href="#page225">225</a>, <a href="#page226">226</a>;<br> - resumes military control in Georgia, <a href="#page239">239</a><br> -<br> -Texas, in Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - war declared ended in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - martial law in, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - no share in election of 1868, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - restored to federal relations, <a href="#page229">229</a>, <a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> - escape from negro rule, <a href="#page247">247-249</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a>;<br> - change in character of government, <a href="#page273">273</a><br> -<br> -Thomas, George H., in third military district, <a href="#page135">135</a>;<br> - transferred, <a href="#page136">136</a><br> -<br> -Thomas, Lorenzo, appointed to supersede Stanton, <a href="#page169">169-173</a>;<br> - his position discussed before Senate, <a href="#page179">179</a>, <a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> - law as to appointment of, <a href="#page186">186</a><br> -<br> -Thornton, Edward, negotiations at Washington, <a href="#page306">306</a>, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Thurman, Allen G., on electoral commission, <a href="#page286">286</a><br> -<br> -Tilden, Samuel J., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> - in convention of 1868, <a href="#page209">209</a>;<br> - nominated for presidency, <a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> - the campaign, <a href="#page283">283</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> -<br> -Townsend, E. D., orders from Stanton, <a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> - in temporary charge of war department, <a href="#page192">192</a><br> -<br> -Trumbull, Lyman, reports thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> - in convention of 1866, <a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> - opinion on impeachment, <a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> - view of the Stanton case, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> - proposal as to Tenure-of-Office Act, <a href="#page233">233</a>;<br> - joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> - candidate for presidential nomination, <a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> - counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Twenty-second joint rule of Congress, <a href="#page24">24</a>, <a href="#page25">25</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Union Leagues, formation of, <a href="#page250">250</a>, <a href="#page252">252</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Vallandigham, Clement L., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Van Winkle, Peter G., view of the Stanton case, <a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> - vote on impeachment, <a href="#page191">191</a><br> -<br> -Vermont, election of 1866 in, <a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> - ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a>;<br> - election of 1872 in, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Vicksburg, Miss., made head-quarters of fourth military district, <a href="#page135">135</a><br> -<br> -Virginia, reconstruction in, <a href="#page7">7</a>;<br> - omission from Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> - electoral vote of 1864 rejected, <a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> - reconstruction in, <a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> - vote on thirteenth amendment, <a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> - in the reconstruction bill, <a href="#page112">112</a>, <a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> - registration in, <a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> - election in, <a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> - disfranchisements in, <a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> - martial law in, <a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> - no share in election of 1868, <a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> - question in Congress as to representation, <a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> - partition of, <a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> - the vagrant act, <a href="#page225">225</a>, <a href="#page226">226</a>;<br> - a military district, <a href="#page226">226</a>, <a href="#page227">227</a>;<br> - restored to federal relations, <a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> - escape from negro rule, <a href="#page247">247</a>, <a href="#page248">248</a><br> -<br> -<br> -Wade, Benjamin F., bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page15">15-18</a>;<br> - protest against Lincoln's proclamation, <a href="#page19">19</a>;<br> - opinion of Johnson, <a href="#page32">32</a>;<br> - commissioner to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page326">326</a><br> -<br> -Waite, Morrison R., <a href="#page289">289</a>;<br> - at Geneva arbitration, <a href="#page311">311</a><br> -<br> -Walker, Robert J., in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, <a href="#page145">145</a><br> -<br> -War Department, Freedmen's Bureau organized in, <a href="#page44">44</a><br> -<br> -Ward, Hamilton, on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a><br> -<br> -Warmoth, Henry C., connection with Louisiana corruption, <a href="#page263">263</a>;<br> - contest for control in Louisiana, <a href="#page269">269-272</a><br> -<br> -Washburne, Elihu B., on joint committee on reconstruction, <a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> - becomes secretary of state, <a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> - resigns, <a href="#page232">232</a><br> -<br> -Washington, treaty of, <a href="#page299">299</a>, <a href="#page307">307-310</a>, <a href="#page319">319</a><br> -<br> -Watts, John W., Oregon elector in 1876, <a href="#page290">290</a>, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -Welles, Gideon, accompanies Johnson to the west, <a href="#page102">102</a><br> -<br> -Wells, David A., joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a><br> -<br> -Wells, J. Madison, in contest for control of Louisiana, <a href="#page93">93</a><br> -<br> -Welsh pays Halifax award, <a href="#page322">322</a><br> -<br> -West Virginia ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Wharton, John, in Louisiana politics, <a href="#page269">269</a>, <a href="#page270">270</a><br> -<br> -Wheeler, William A., nominated for vice-presidency, <a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> - election formally declared, <a href="#page294">294</a><br> -<br> -Wheeling, W. Va., government at, <a href="#page224">224</a><br> -<br> -Whipper, W. J., judge-elect of South Carolina, <a href="#page274">274</a><br> -<br> -Whiskey ring, <a href="#page272">272</a><br> -<br> -White, Andrew D., commissioner to Santo Domingo, <a href="#page326">326</a><br> -<br> -White, Horace, joins liberal republicans, <a href="#page264">264</a><br> -<br> -White vs. Clements, <a href="#page237">237</a><br> -<br> -Whitney, William C., counsel before electoral commission, <a href="#page291">291</a><br> -<br> -William I., Emperor, award as to northwest boundary, <a href="#page319">319</a><br> -<br> -Williams, George H., offers bill on reconstruction, <a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> - introduces tenure-of-office bill, <a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - motions, <a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> - on Joint High Commission, <a href="#page307">307</a><br> -<br> -Wilson, Henry, theory of reconstruction, <a href="#page60">60</a>;<br> - on impeachment committee, <a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> - impeachment manager, <a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> - elected vice-president, <a href="#page267">267</a><br> -<br> -Windom, William, introduces thirteenth amendment in House, <a href="#page28">28</a><br> -<br> -Winthrop, Robert C., in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Wisconsin ratifies fourteenth amendment, <a href="#page203">203</a>, <a href="#page204">204</a><br> -<br> -Wood, Fernando, in convention of 1866, <a href="#page99">99</a><br> -<br> -Wool, John E., in Cleveland convention, <a href="#page101">101</a><br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<br> -<center>THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES</center> -<br> -<hr align="center" width="40"> -<center><i>Seven volumes, 12mo, with maps and plans.</i><br> -<i>Price per volume, $1.00, net.</i></center> -<hr align="center" width="40"> - -<p>THE COLONIAL ERA.—By Rev. G<small>EORGE</small> P. F<small>ISHER</small>, D.D., LL.D., Professor of -Ecclesiastical History in Yale University.</p> - -<p>THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION.—By W<small>ILLIAM</small> M. S<small>LOANE</small>, Ph.D., -Professor of History in Columbia University.</p> - -<p>THE MAKING OF THE NATION.—By General F<small>RANCIS</small> A. W<small>ALKER</small>, LL.D., late -President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</p> - -<p>THE MIDDLE PERIOD.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>. Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of -Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.</p> - -<p>THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>, Ph.D., LL.D., -Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia -University. 2 vols.</p> - -<p>RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>, Ph.D., -LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in -Columbia University.</p> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Reconstruction and the Constitution -1866-1876, by John Willliam Burgess - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RECONSTRUCTION *** - -***** This file should be named 50295-h.htm or 50295-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/2/9/50295/ - -Produced by Ron Swanson - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> - |