4% 
 
 / 
 
'?* p 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 DAVIS 
 
UNION - DISUNION - REUNION. 
 
 THREE DECADES 
 
 OF 
 
 FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 1855 
 
 T0 
 
 PERSONAL AND HISTORICAL MEMORIES OF EVENTS PRECEDING, 
 DURING, AND SINCE 
 
 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, 
 
 INVOLVING SLAVERY AND SECESSION, EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUC 
 TION, WITH SKETCHES OF PROMINENT ACTORS 
 DURING THESE PERIODS. 
 
 BY 
 
 SAMUEL S. Cox. 
 
 MEMBER OF CONGRESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR YEARS. 
 
 AUTHOR OF " BUCKEYE ABROAD," " WHY WE LAUGH," "WINTER SUNBEAMS,'* 
 " ARCTIC SUNBEAMS," " ORIENT SUNBEAMS," ETC. 
 
 ILLUSTRATED 
 
 WITH THIRTY-SIX PORTRAITS ENGRAVED ON STEEL 
 EXPRESSLY FOR THIS WORK. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, R. I. : J. A. & R. A. REID, PUBLISHERS. 
 
 1885. 
 
Press of 
 J. A. & R. A. REID, PUBLISHERS, 
 
 Providence, R. I. 
 
 Steel Plates by the 
 
 HOMER-LEE BANK NOTE Co., 
 
 New-York. 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1885, 
 
 BY SAMUEL S. COX. 
 
 All Rights Reserved. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IT is said by a translator of Thucydides, that the sources from which 
 the ancient historian gathered his narrative are very dissimilar to those at 
 the disposal of the modern historian. The first were meagre and oral, the 
 latter are often overwhelming to the compiler by the very mass of materials. 
 Writers like Thucydides had certain aids, such as statues, buildings, columns 
 from sepulchres, decrees of state, and traditions, but few written data com 
 parable with modern libraries. 
 
 The author of this volume, unlike the ancient recorder, has had no need 
 to draw upon his imagination in order to depict events, or give eloquence to 
 his characters. He has had access to a multitude of books and other re 
 corded evidences bearing upon his theme. He has also been quite near to 
 the contending forces and persons, and in the very midst of many of. the 
 events which he narrates. He has written within reach of the Library of 
 Congress, with its vast stores of material. He has had the same freedom of 
 access to the House Library, and to collections of legislative and executive 
 documents. No fact has been stated upon doubtful authority. All impor 
 tant statements have been made in the language of official reports of the 
 executive departments of the government, of congressional investigating 
 committees, of the witnesses examined before congressional or legislative 
 committees, or of the proceedings of the state conventions and legislatures. 
 In cases of conflicting testimony, the statements of witnesses or parties on 
 each side have been considered or cited. No inference prejudicial to private 
 character or public conduct has been drawn which has not been accom 
 panied by indisputable facts. 
 
 In the preparation of portions of this work the writer has had the assist 
 ance of gentlemen with whom he is more or less associated in and out of 
 Congress, and without whose aid he could not speak with such absolute 
 certainty as to some of its verities. 
 
4 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The title "The Three Decades" indicates the scope of the volume. 
 
 The first decade begins with the organization of the Republican party at 
 Pittsburgh, in the year 1855. This party was partly built upon the ruins of 
 the Know Nothing and Whig parties ; but the genius of the structure was 
 the aggressive and intellectual anti-slavery zealotry which, though for a long 
 time championed by few, had almost as long been a most potential factor in 
 our politics. With this decade begins, practically, the era of sectionalism. 
 It was marked by a sanguinary and prolonged internecine war. The year 
 1865 saw the termination of that war. 
 
 The second decade begins with the period of Reconstruction. 
 
 The third decade begins v%ith that part of the period of Reconstruction 
 when the unconstitutional exercise of the military power at the polls ceased. 
 This was the one good result of the compromises which grew out of the 
 Great Fraud perpetrated by means of the Electoral Commission. 
 
 From 1865 to 1885 there was a twenty years' struggle to restore the early 
 and better order which had existed before the extremes of sectionalism began 
 their baleful and bloody work. 
 
 It has been the unhappy fate of the passing generation to witness the 
 fulfillment of Mr. Webster's prophetic vision. States have been "dissevered, 
 discordant, belligerent." Our land has been "rent with civil feuds" and 
 "drenched in fraternal blood." These eloquent words were uttered in 1830. 
 They presaged the controversy upon slavery and its extension. That con 
 troversy led to the national disaster which he so much feared. 
 
 It is no part of the plan of this work to embrace a full history of that 
 controversy, nor of the subsequent war, and the action of the government. 
 Leaving those events as concluded in the first decade, the second begins with 
 the efforts of President Lincoln to restore the "dissevered" and "discord 
 ant" states to their proper Federal relations. 
 
 The generous policy of Mr. Lincoln was thwarted at its very inception 
 by the majority in Congress. It was almost slain by the hand of an assassin. 
 Another political phase came before its practicability could be tested. There 
 is a prevalent notion that President Johnson adopted, and proposed to carry 
 out, the policy of his predecessor ; but it will be seen that he had a policy of 
 his own, and that the plan of the Republican President was more liberal 
 and comprehensive than that of his Democratic successor. 
 
 It is contemplated to give a condensed history of what was done under 
 each of these Presidential policies, both in Washington and in the states ; 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 and of the overthrow of the provisional governments established under them 
 by the military commanders appointed under the Act of March 2, 1867. 
 
 This Act was the initial measure of Congressional Reconstruction. It 
 was followed by the Act of March 23, of the same year, which gave partic 
 ular directions to the military commanders in the Southern States to cause 
 a registration of the voters therein, and to order the election of delegates to 
 conventions which were to frame constitutions for these states. 
 
 The essential facts of these important proceedings in each of the recon 
 structed states are taken from the legislative journals, and are presented to 
 the reader with an account of the partisan struggles, the legislation, and the 
 official corruption which were precursory to the inauguration of universal 
 liberty and equality in the Southern States. 
 
 The enforcement of the Reconstruction acts by the military commanders 
 involved the subordination of the civil to the military power. All the more 
 striking incidents of this despotic form of government were thus interpolated 
 into our republican constitutional system. This was done despite of heroic 
 protest, and in the latter half of the nineteenth century ! 
 
 The establishment of the Freedman's Bureau for the protection, educa 
 tion, and encouragement of the newly emancipated and enfranchised negroes 
 was a part of the work of Reconstruction. The operations of the Bureau 
 have, therefore, received attention. 
 
 A history of Reconstruction cannot pass over the outrages perpetrated 
 upon the negroes and many of the whites by the "Ku-Klux Klan" and other 
 unlawful combinations. These organizations sprang up after the enfran 
 chisement of the blacks, and the partial disfranchisement of the whites. 
 Many shocking details are given, with careful statements of the number and 
 character of the criminal acts of the u Klan." 
 
 The abuse of power in the Southern States, by governments formed 
 under the leadership of Northern adventurers, has been exposed. Much 
 might be added to this department of the history. 
 
 It may be said here that it has not been the purpose of the author, though 
 a life-long adherent to the Democratic party, to set forth any particular theory 
 of the Constitution. He does not seek to uphold or to advance the interests 
 of any section of the country, or faction of the people. He has no ambi 
 tions to gratify by the distortion or suspension of the truths of history. His 
 aim is to bring out all the material facts under their several heads, in the 
 order of their occurrence. His criticisms consist only of such inferences as 
 seem to be clearly warranted. Of course, in such a presentation, principles 
 
6 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and policies, modes of political thought, and creeds of interpretation will 
 receive some illustration. 
 
 The author is moved to this congenial work because of the erroneous 
 impressions created by a class of literature that is too often partial and malig 
 nant. The new generation find great perplexity in comprehending the issues 
 treated in this work issues that stirred the great Republic to the founda 
 tions of its polity and society. The mode adopted for the solution of these 
 issues by military force and civil power should be studied from a non-partisan 
 point of view, in order to reach just conclusions. 
 
 For nearly a quarter of a century the writer has been no inactive member 
 of the popular branch of the Federal Legislature. For eight years he repre 
 sented the capital district of Ohio. Four of these years preceded, and four 
 were during the civil conflict. At the conclusion of this period of service 
 he removed to the city of New- York. There, for a time, he was aloof from 
 old political associations. He devoted himself to new pursuits, and formed 
 new attachments. After a season he was returned as a Federal Representa 
 tive from the city of New- York. From 1868 to 1885 he passed through the 
 ordeal of a metropolitan member. 
 
 During these unexampled periods it has been the fortune of the writer to 
 mingle with public men of every shade of opinion, men in every variety of 
 public and private employment, and of every quality and grade of character. 
 He has drawn from decrees of state, and even the "columns of the sepul 
 chres," as well as from the controversies of contending parties, the memora 
 bilia for this history. 
 
 In this change from West to East from the capital of the proudest 
 Western state to the great metropolis of the country the author never had 
 occasion to change his first unwavering trust in his political faith. He never 
 ceased to believe what now in 1885 is apparent that the party of consti 
 tutional limitations, strict construction, state sovereignty, and Federal unity 
 would be found indispensable in the end to honest and united government. 
 As this strange, eventful period of history is concluding, that party is re- 
 ascending to political prominence, by the inauguration of its recently-elected 
 chief magistrate, purified by the ordeal fires which only added to it invinci 
 ble strength. 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, March 4, 1885. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 DISREGARD OF NATIONALITY. 
 
 THE CAPITOL AT WASHINGTON THE OLD HALLS OF LEGISLATION 
 
 THE SENATE OF WORTHIES DEDICATION OF THE NEW HOUSE 
 
 MAIDEN SPEECH THEREIN THE USE OF AN OPPOSITION PARTY 
 
 THE PROXIMATE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL CONFLICT ANCIENT 
 
 ROMAN POLICY EXCESSES NORTH AND SOUTH FUTILE EF 
 FORTS FOR ADJUSTMENT THE THEORY OF SECESSION CONSE 
 QUENCES OF SECESSION THE WISDOM OF CIVISM, . . PAGES 25-34 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PARTY CREEDS AND MODES. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION NEW ENGLAND SLAVE TRADE 
 
 THE COTTON GIN AND THE MULE-JENNY COTTON AND SLAVERY 
 
 SOUTHERN ANTI-SLAVERY FIRST FREE SOIL VOTE SLAVERY 
 
 IN THE TERRITORIES THE LOUISIANA AND FLORIDA PURCHASES 
 
 THE MISSOURI QUESTION THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS THE 
 
 KANSAS STRUGGLE THE WHIG PARTY DISBANDS RISE OF THE 
 
 REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ABOLITIONISTS JOHN C. CALHOUN, 
 
 PAGES 35-54 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. 
 
 ITS ORDEAL AS TO SLAVERY EXTENSION KANSAS AND THE TERRI 
 TORIAL QUESTIONS QUADRILATERAL CONTEST FOR THE PRESI 
 DENCY THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION THE DOUGLAS MAJOR 
 ITY THE TWO-THIRDS RULE THE SOUTHERN DELEGATES 
 
 WITHDRAW MR. LINCOLN ELECTED THE SPECTRE OF WAR, 
 
 PAGES 55-6l 
 
8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 
 
 ITS CHARACTERISTICS, OPINIONS, AND VOTES CONGRESSIONAL ACTION 
 
 LEADING TO DISUNION THE SENATE LEADERS EFFORTS TO 
 
 STAY SECESSION EXTREMISTS DEFEAT THE COMPROMISE 
 
 CRITTENDEN'S LAST APPEAL JEFFERSON DAVIS NOT ANXIOUS TO 
 
 SECEDE THE EXTREMISTS IN THE HOUSE THE UNION PHALANX 
 
 CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM, PAGES 62-85 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE IMPENDING CONFLICT. 
 
 THE THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS WHAT BECAME OF THE MEMBERS 
 
 HOW THEY ACTED IN THE WAR NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CON 
 GRESSMEN EMBATTLED A PARLIAMENT WITHOUT PRECEDENT 
 
 WHY THE BATTLE OF BELMONT WAS FOUGHT A CHAPTER OF 
 
 WAR, ADVENTURE, AND NECROLOGY ELY'S " ONWARD TO RICH 
 MOND*' JUDGE REAGAN'S REPULSE OF THE ENEMY THE SEN 
 ATORS AND MEMBERS IN THE FIELD THEY FOUGHT AS THEY 
 
 VOTED INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN FIRST GUNS OF 
 
 THE WAR, . PAGES 86-100 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF SECESSION. 
 
 MR. CALHOUN'S EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE HE FAVORED NULLI 
 FICATION BUT NOT SECESSION JEFFERSON'S VIEWS THE KEN 
 TUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS 
 
 MR. MADISON'S INTERPRETATION MASSACHUSETTS SHOULDER TO 
 
 SHOULDER WITH SOUTH CAROLINA ON STATE RESISTANCE THE 
 
 PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS OF THE NORTH SOUTH CAROLINA 
 
 LEADING SECESSION MOVEMENTS ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS* 
 
 GREAT SPEECH FOR THE UNION JEFFERSON DAVIS* PROPOSITION 
 
 ACTION OF TEXAS THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY IN MONT 
 GOMERY FEDERAL AND CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTIONS PRO 
 TESTS AGAINST SECESSION DE FACTO IF NOT DE JURE GOVERN 
 MENTS IN THE SOUTH A LINE OF HOSTILITY BETWEEN TWO 
 
 GREAT COMMUNITIES THE CRITTENDEN RESOLUTIONS SECES 
 SION AND SLAVERY SUBORDINATE TO THE LINCOLN POLICY FOR 
 THE UNION THE ANOMALOUS SECESSION OF WEST VIRGINIA FROM 
 
 OLD VIRGINIA VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO THE INSURGENCY ALL 
 
 MERGED IN LINCOLN*S POLICY THE FINALE OF SLAVERY AND OF 
 
 ITS INCIDENT, SECESSION, PAGES IO i_i2 5 
 
CONTENTS. 9 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE UNION. 
 
 THE MEXICAN WAR FINANCES THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR FINANCES 
 
 STATE AND CONTINENTAL BILLS OF CREDIT EARLY REVENUE 
 
 RESOURCES CUSTOMS, EXCISES AND DIRECT TAXES THE CIVIL 
 
 WAR FINANCES THE CIVIL WAR DEBT THE ISSUES OF BONDS 
 
 AND TREASURY NOTES UNITED STATES NOTES LEGAL TENDER 
 
 NOTES DUTIES ON IMPORTS UNDER THE MORRILL TARIFFS THE 
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SYSTEM THE PLAN FOR A NATIONAL PAPER 
 
 CURRENCY ITS ORIGIN AND CONSTITUTIONALITY AMERICAN 
 
 ABILITY TO SUSTAIN TAXATION, PAGES 126-144 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE LEADING MOVEMENTS OF THE WAR 1861-1862. 
 
 WHAT ARE ACTS OF WAR? SEIZURE OF FEDERAL FORTS AND PROP 
 ERTY SUMTER AND ITS FATE DIPLOMACY AND ITS FAILURE 
 
 JUDGE CAMPBELL AND MR. SEWARD THE EXCITEMENT NORTH 
 
 AND SOUTH BLOOD SPRINKLING IMPULSES JERRY CLEMENS 
 
 AND HIS STORY PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION EXTRA 
 
 SESSION, 1 86 1 PREPARATIONS FOR HOSTILITIES BLOCKADE 
 
 RESPONSE TO CALL FOR TROOPS BALTIMORE IN A FERMENT 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS AROUSED THE MOUNTAIN UNIONISTS BORDER 
 
 STATES SECESSIONISTS ELLSWORTH'S DEATH THE ARMY ABOUT 
 
 WASHINGTON THE ADVANCE TO RICHMOND BULL RUN, ITS 
 
 HUMORS AND TRAGEDIES BALL'S BLUFF AND ITS DISASTER 
 
 MISSOURI CAMPAIGN LYON's HEROISM GENERAL BAKER AND 
 
 STONE PASHA THE OUTRAGE UPON THE LATTER EXPEDITIONS 
 
 TO SOUTH AND NORTH CAROLINA THEIR SUCCESSES BATTLE IN 
 
 HAMPTON ROADS THE MARVEL OF HISTORY, . . . PAGES 145-172 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF THE WAR 1862. 
 
 CONOJJESTS ON SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA COASTS MISSOURI RE 
 LIEVED GENERAL SAMUEL R. CURTIS- AT PEA RIDGE HIS SPLEN 
 DID SERVICES AND VICTORIES BATTLES IN KENTUCKY FALL OF 
 
 FORTS HENRY AND DONELSON FLOYD AS A GENERAL AND A FAIL 
 URE TENNESSEE OPENED NASHVILLE OCCUPIED, AND ANDREW 
 
 JOHNSON GOVERNOR SHILOH AND ITS RESULTS OPERATIONS 
 
 IN TENNESSEE HALLECK SUBORDINATES GRANT VIRGINIA CAM 
 PAIGN MCCLELLAN IN COMMAND HIS DIFFICULTIES IN FRONT 
 
 EMBARRASSMENTS AT WASHINGTON CHANGE OF BASE TO THE 
 
 JAMES RIVER NORFOLK OCCUPIED THE AUTHOR'S PERSONAL 
 
 OBSERVATIONS HON. JOHN S. MILLSON AT HOME THE BIG RAM 
 
 4 'VIRGINIA" BLOWN UP FITZ JOHN PORTER'S MOVEMENTS MC 
 CLELLAN, MCDOWELL, POPE, BANKS, FREMONT, SUMNER, JOSEPH 
 E. JOHNSTON, LONGSTREET, JACKSON, EWELL, THE HILLS, AND 
 
 1 
 
10 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 OTHER GIANTS IN THE FIELD MANCEUVRES AND DISASTERS 
 
 GREAT SLAUGHTER MALVERN HILL BATTLE RICHMOND NOT 
 
 TAKEN McCLELLAN REMOVED SECOND BULL RUN MARCH 
 
 INTO MARYLAND WASHINGTON THREATENED McCLELLAN RE 
 CALLED ANTIETAM SURRENDER OF HARPER'S FERRY BATTLE 
 
 OF CHATTANOOGA KIRBY SMITH IN KENTUCKY FRANKFORT 
 
 TAKEN AND CINCINNATI THREATENED THE SOJJIRREL CAMPAIGN 
 
 AND A RACE FOR CONGRESS BRAGG FORAGING IN KENTUCKY 
 
 VAN DORN AND CORINTH ROSECRANS AND BRAGG AT STONE 
 
 RIVER GENERAL STUART'S CAVALRY INVADE PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 GREAT BATTLE AT FREDERICKSBURG BURNSIDE DEFEATED 
 
 FARRAGUT AND BUTLER ON THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI NEW OR 
 LEANS CAPTURED, PAGES l73~I93 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE END OF THE WAR. 
 
 VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN OF 1863 OTHER MOVEMENTS OF GRANT 
 
 BANKS AT PORT HUDSON BURNSIDE SENT WEST HE ARRESTS 
 
 VALLANDIGHAM HIS WONDERFUL STRATEGY IN CAPTURING THE 
 
 DEMOCRATIC ORATOR THE TRIAL THE AUTHOR'S EVIDENCE 
 
 HOOKER DEFEATED IN VIRGINIA LOSS OF STONEWALL JACKSON 
 
 POPULAR CLAMOR FOR A MOVEMENT VINDICTIVENESS OF THE 
 
 RADICALS AND STANTON MEADE IN COMMAND LEE MOVES 
 
 NORTH A BOLD DESIGN ON THE CAPITAL AND NORTHERN CITIES 
 
 GETTYSBURG A WATERLOO OTHER BATTLES IN TENNESSEE 
 
 ATLANTA FALLS SHERMAN MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA THE 
 
 CAMPAIGN OF l864~'65 THE TENDENCY TO CONCENTRATE ALL 
 
 FORCE FOR THE GRAND DENOUEMENT RICHMOND FALLS APPO- 
 
 MATTOX RESOURCES AND COST OF THE WAR THEIR IMMENSITY 
 
 AND THE COMPENSATION, PAGES 194-218 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 PERSONAL LIBERTY ABUSED AND VINDICATED. 
 
 A WAR FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNION RADICAL OPPOSITION 
 
 PERSECUTIONS BY ANTI-SLAVERY RADICALS GENERAL GRANT'S 
 
 LETTER OF 1 86 1 HIS DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE WITH 
 
 SLAVERY A WAR OF SUBJUGATION THE EXTREMES SOUTH AND 
 
 NORTH PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW IN l86l ARBITRARY 
 
 ARRESTS IN 1862 AND AFTERWARDS HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENDED 
 
 OUTRAGEOUS ORDERS OF SECRETARIES STANTON AND SEWARD 
 
 ARRESTS MARSHALS, SPIES, AND COMMISSIONS STANTON DICTA 
 TOR GRAND EFFORT OF DANIEL W. VOORHEES IN CONGRESS 
 
 DARK HOURS FOR THE REPUBLIC CAPITAL FATTENING ON CON 
 TRACTS AND SPOILS, AND LEAGUED WITH FANATICS GOVERNOR 
 
 SEWARD IN HOME AFFAIRS PERSONAL LIBERTY DISCUSSED 
 
 BINNEY'S PAMPHLETS AND THE RESPONSES THE MILLIGAN CASE 
 
CONTENTS. 1 1 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT AS A BREAKWATER MLLLIGAN SENTENCED 
 
 TO DEATH VALLANDIGHAM'S CASE PARALLEL HIS PROTEST 
 
 THE TRUMBULL LAW GRAND ARRAY OF COUNSEL IN MILLIGAN 
 
 CASE LOGIC OF THE DECISION THE MRS. SURRATT TRAGEDY 
 
 VIOLATIVE OF THE DECISION GENERAL BUTLER DENOUNCES IT 
 
 MILITARY ARRESTS IN CONGRESS GALLANT FIGHT OF HENRY 
 
 WINTER DAVIS FOR PERSONAL LIBERTY HE SUCCEEDS LIBERTY 
 
 DEATHLESS MAGNA CHARTA DAVIS ITS CHAMPION SKETCH 
 
 OF HIS LIFE AND SERVICES THE OLIVE-BRANCH NOT OFFERED 
 
 YET LESSONS OF HISTORY SPURNED THE WAR LIKELY TO END 
 
 WITH PRACTICAL DISUNION THE SECOND DECADE BEGINS WITH 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION OF DISMANTLED STATES HOPE FOR THE 
 
 PEOPLE BEAUTY FOR ASHES, PAGES 219-240 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 PROSCRIPTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE MODES NON-INTERCOURSE THEORY 
 
 AND PRACTICE WAS SECESSION WAR OR NOT IT WAS A PRAC 
 TICAL FACT DILEMMA AS TO " PIRATES " AND PRISONERS OF 
 
 WAR LINCOLN'S SOLUTION ANOMALOUS RIGORS, NORTH AND 
 
 SOUTH HIGHER LAW NEWLY APPLIED AESOP'S SATYR AFTER 
 
 THE WAR FOLLY OF NON- ACTION SOUTH TWO DECADES OF 
 
 TROUBLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVERTED RADICAL PROSCRIPTIONS 
 
 UNCONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS CONFISCA 
 TION ACTS ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS BELLIGERENT 
 
 STATUS VIOLATED TEST OATHS LOYALTY CUMMINGS AND 
 
 PERMOLI CASES IN RE GARLAND JUSTICE FIELD'S DECISIONS 
 
 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A BILL OF ATTAINDER ITS MON 
 STROSITY FORCE BILL AND ITS FATE LIBERTY ECLIPSED 
 
 TEST OATH REPEALED IN 1884 RAPINE BY LAW DEMOCRATIC 
 
 PROTESTS AGAINST OSTRACISM AND TYRANNY, . . PAGES 241-257 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 FOREIGN RELATIONS DURING THE CIVIL WAR. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN RECOGNIZES THE CONFEDERACY BELLIGERENT RIGHTS 
 
 CONCEDED JUDGE BLACK'S CIRCULAR LETTER MR. BUCHANAN'S 
 
 ADMINISTRATION VINDICATING NATIONAL JURISDICTION MR. SEW- 
 
 ARD SPEAKING FOR PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S ADMINISTRATION AP 
 PREHENSIONS A FEATHER IN THE SCALE THE SWITZERLAND 
 
 CASE EARLY TREATIES WITH EUROPE RECOGNIZING OUR IN 
 DEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATES THE SPANISH AMERICAN 
 
 STATES FREEDOM OF THE SEAS MEDIAEVAL RULES OF MARI 
 TIME LAW PIRACY CONTRABAND OF WAR TREATIES AS TO 
 
 CONTRABAND THE MARCY PROPOSITIONS THE PARIS CONFER 
 ENCE OF 1856 AND ITS DECLARATION THE UNITED STATES 
 
 AMENDMENT OF THE DECLARATION THE AUTHOR'S RESOLUTIONS 
 
12 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION- 
 
 PROPOSITION MR. SEWARD'S DILEMMA AND RESPONSE THE CON 
 FEDERATE RIGHTS AS BELLIGERENTS CANADA REBELLION IN 1838 
 
 OUR BLOCKADE MUST BE RESPECTED OUR NAVAL ARMAMENT 
 
 MR. SEWARD AS A STATESMAN, PAGES 258-27. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE TRENT AFFAIR. 
 
 THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS THEIR AUTHORITY AND INSTRUC 
 TIONS THEIR ARRIVAL IN HAVANA INTRODUCTION TO THE CAP 
 TAIN-GENERAL CAPTAIN WILKES DECIDES TO ARREST THEM 
 
 THE TRENT BROUGHT TO RESISTANCE TALKED OF BRITISH 
 
 INDIGNATION AND THREATS CAPTAIN WILKES RELEASES THE 
 
 TRENT HIS MISTAKE THE PRISONERS AT FORT WARREN 
 
 THE QUESTION IN CONGRESS MR. VALLANDIGHAM's PREDICTION 
 
 MR. COX'S REPLY EARL RUSSELL'S NOTE MR. SEWARD's 
 
 REPLY THE ARREST JUSTIFIED BELLIGERENT RIGHTS, AND 
 
 DUTIES OF NEUTRALS A DIPLOMATIC DUEL EARL RUSSELL 
 
 DISARMED NO APOLOGY A DINNER PARTY THE RELEASE OF 
 
 THE PRISONERS AN AMERICAN VICTORY, .... PAGES 275-29 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE CONFEDERATE AND OTHER GOVERNORS. 
 
 ISHAM G. HARRIS, OF TENNESSEE HEADING THE LIST OF FIVE EX 
 ECUTIVES HIS OFFICIAL TRUSTS HIS CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE 
 
 GOVERNOR FROM 1857 TO T ^5 HIS ENERGY AND ABILITY 
 
 HIS EXILE, RETURN, AND PREFERMENT SERVICE AND POSITION 
 
 IN THE SENATE JOHN LETCHER, OF VIRGINIA HIS EARLY LIFE 
 
 HIS SERVICE IN VIRGINIA AND IN CONGRESS WATCH-DOG OF 
 
 THE TREASURY HIS ACTION AS GOVERNOR DURING THE CIVIL 
 
 WAR, AND HIS DEATH SAM : HOUSTON HIS ECCENTRIC LIFE AND 
 
 HIS COURAGEOUS CONDUCT THE BATTLES OF TEXAS INDEPEND 
 ENCE HIS SERVICE TO ANNEXATION GOVERNOR AND SENATOR 
 
 HIS HESITATION AS TO SECESSION JOSEPH E. BROWN, OF 
 
 GEORGIA GEORGIA'S RESOURCES HER WISDOM AT THE END OF 
 
 THE WAR HER FOREMOST GOVERNOR HIS BUSINESS ENERGY 
 
 DURING THE WAR AND AT ITS END HIS CONTESTS WITH THE 
 
 CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT GOVERNOR VANCE'S LETTER TO 
 
 HIM CONSCRIPTION DEFIED HIS CHARACTER HIS CHARITIES 
 
 HIS PRESENT SERVICE ZEBULON B. VANCE, OF NORTH CARO 
 LINA BORN AMONG THE MOUNTAINS REPRESENTATIVE OF 
 
 BUNCOMBE HIS LOVE OF BOOKS THE BASIS OF HIS EDUCATION 
 
 HIS UNCLE'S LIBRARY HIS EXPERIENCES IN CONGRESS AND 
 
 IN WAR HIS EXECUTIVE ABILITY AND INTEGRITY, . PAGES 294-30^ 
 
CONTENTS. 13 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS FOR PEACE, AND THE AMENDMENT ABOLISHING 
 
 SLAVERY. 
 
 THE CONFEDERACY AT THE END OF 1864 GLOOM AT RICHMOND 
 
 THE CALL FOR THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN BY PRESIDENT 
 
 LINCOLN THE ATTEMPTS OF MR. STUART, OF ILLINOIS, AND THE 
 
 AUTHOR TO MAKE PEACE THE ANTI-SLAVERY ZEALOTS DISFAVOR 
 
 ALL PEACE PROPOSITIONS LINCOLN AND SEWARD MAKE OVER 
 TURES OF PEACE ATTEMPT TO CARRY THE THIRTEENTH AMEND 
 MENT BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE THE CONFEDERATE DILEMMA 
 
 COLONIAL VASSALAGE, OR SUBJUGATION SHALL THE SOUTH GO 
 
 TO ENGLAND AND FRANCE? WANING POPULARITY OF JEFFERSON 
 
 DAVIS EVENTS WHICH LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE CONFED 
 ERACY SHERMAN'S MARCH TO THE SEA THE TAKING OF 
 
 SAVANNAH AND FORT FISHER PEACE PROPOSITIONS NORTH AND 
 
 SOUTH DURING THE WAR RESOLUTIONS AND SENTIMENTS 
 
 AGAINST PEACE THE GROWTH OF THE PEACE SENTIMENT FROM 
 
 l86l TO 1865 PEACE BY COMMISSIONERS, AND BY DELEGATES TO 
 
 A NATIONAL CONVENTION THE NIAGARA CORRESPONDENCE BE 
 TWEEN SANDERS AND GREELEY ITS FAILURE LINCOLN'S AU 
 THORITY FOR THE ATTEMPT VISITS OF FRANCIS. P. BLAIR, SR., TO 
 
 RICHMOND THE RESULT THE MONROE DOCTRINE, AND CONFED 
 ERATE EMIGRATION TO MEXICO THE DEBATE ON THE AMEND 
 MENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY THE POWER TO AMEND CONTESTED 
 
 THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT TO ABOLISH, 
 
 IN REPLY TO PENDLETON THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT 
 
 BRIBERY ALLEGED ITS RATIFICATION MR. SEWARD'S COM 
 MENDATION OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO FAVORED THE AMENDMENT 
 
 HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE LINCOLN AND SEWARD THERE 
 
 RESULTLESSNESS OF THE MEETING DEBATES AND RESOLU 
 TIONS ABOUT IT WHAT IT ATTEMPTED CONCLUSION OF THE 
 
 WAR, . PAGES 309-336 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S POLICY OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 THE AMNESTY PROCLAMATION THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE THE 
 
 CONDITIONS OF PARDON THE EXCEPTED CLASSES RECONSTRUC 
 TION BILL IN THE HOUSE MILITARY PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS 
 
 THE QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CON 
 GRESS SENATE AMENDMENTS REJECTED THE BILL PASSES 
 
 CONGRESS IT FAILS TO BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT ITS 
 
 POLICY ADOPTED BY HIM CRITICISMS OF HIS PARTY MR. LIN 
 COLN'S MODERATE VIEWS NEGRO SUFFRAGE PROPOSED EX 
 TREME MEASURES DEVELOPING AUTHOR'S ESTIMATE OF LINCOLN, 
 
 PAGES 337-345 
 
14 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POLICY OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 WHEREIN IT DIFFERED FROM MR. LINCOLN'S THE END OF THE 
 
 BLOCKADE ALL THE PORTS OPEN REVENUE AND POSTAL LAWS 
 
 IN FORCE THE CIVIL PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS THE MILITARY 
 
 AID THEM THE MILITARY NOT TO OBSTRUCT THE VOTERS 
 
 LOYALTY AND WHITE SUFFRAGE THE RULE INTENSE RADICAL 
 
 DISSATISFACTION SENATOR HOWE'S PECULIAR VIEWS OF STATE 
 
 RIGHTS A STATE AS A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT! " IF THE 
 
 STATES ARE ADMITTED" THE RADICAL ARGUMENT AB INCONVENI- 
 
 SNTI REMARKS OF THE AUTHOR THE COMPATIBILITY OF STATE 
 
 AND FEDERAL RIGHTS INDESTRUCTIBLE STATES AND UNION, 
 
 PAGES 346-35^ 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF STATE VITALITY. 
 
 A TEST OF POSITIONS IN DEBATE SENATOR JOHNSON TRIUMPHANTLY 
 
 ANSWERS SENATOR HOWE THE SENATOR IN THE ARENA WITH 
 
 THE LOGICAL RAPIER THE SOCRATIC METHOD OF JOHNSON 
 
 HOWE'S COOL PARRIES AND JOHNSON'S KEENER THRUSTS THE 
 
 SCENE IN THE SENATE COMPARED WITH THE WARREN HASTINGS 
 TRIAL THE IMMORTALITY OF THE STATES SECESSION ORDI 
 NANCES VOID NOT WAR, BUT INSURRECTION THE FEELING 
 
 SOUTH WAS PROBATION NECESSARY? NORTHERN APPREHEN 
 SIONS WAR RESULTS SAFE NEGRO ENFRANCHISEMENT THE 
 
 BALLOT INEVITABLE PARTISANSHIP PILLORIED THE CONSTITU 
 TION AS THE PALLADIUM OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH, . PAGES 354-36^ 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 STATE RECONSTRUCTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 DIALECTICS AND SOPHISTRIES OF THE RADICALS THADDEUS STEVENS 
 
 AS A LEADER A MAN OF IRON HIS TALISMANIC POWER THE 
 
 VICTORS' SPOILS PERPETUATION OF REPUBLICAN RULE THE 
 DEAD STATES THE CONSTITUTION IGNORED THE LAW OF NA 
 TIONS FOR THE SOUTH BELLIGERENT RULES IN PEACE PRIZE 
 
 LAW FOR THE STATES UNION ON CONDITION OF NEGRO SUF 
 FRAGE THE RADICAL FALLACIES THE FEDERAL GANGLION 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CONOJJEST CONFISCATION AND CONFEDERATE 
 
 DEBTS INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE STATES CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION, . PAGES 365-374 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 ATTEMPTS AT STATE REORGANIZATION IN THE SOUTH. 
 
 STATUS OF THE COLORED PEOPLE DEMANDS FOR THEIR ENFRANCHISE 
 MENT THE FIRST RECONSTRUCTION ACT PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S 
 
 VETO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OPINION MARTIAL LAW TO 
 
CONTENTS. 15 
 
 GOVERN THE SOUTH - DISFRANCHISEMENT OF THE INTELLIGENT 
 
 - PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POLICY - ITS OPERATION - REORGANIZA 
 TION IN TENNESSEE - WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW ELECTED GOVER 
 NOR - SECESSION ORDINANCES ANNULLED - CONFEDERATE ACTS 
 AND OBLIGATIONS MADE VOID - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 
 
 - DISUNIONISTS DISFRANCHISED - SLAVERY ABOLISHED - CIVIL 
 RIGHTS GRANTED TO COLORED PEOPLE - THEY ARE NOT TO VOTE, 
 HOLD OFFICE, OR SIT ON JURIES - CONGRESS APPROVES OF THIS 
 COURSE - TENNESSEE ADMITTED TO FEDERAL RELATIONS, JULY 
 24, l866 - UNION SENTIMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA - PRESIDENT 
 JOHNSON'S ATTEMPT TO REHABILITATE THAT STATE GOVERNOR 
 VANCE'S ADVICE PROVISIONAL GOVERNOR HOLDEN APPOINTED 
 
 - HEARTY REPEAL OF THE SECESSION ORDINANCE - CONVENTION 
 AND LEGISLATIVE WORK - IT DOES NOT SATISFY CONGRESS - 
 NORTH CAROLINA TO REMAIN A CONQUERED PROVINCE, PAGES 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 TEMPORARY REORGANIZATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI AND HER GOVERNORS - JUDGE SHARKEY - PRESIDENT 
 JOHNSON'S TERSE ORDER LEGISLATION IN DETAIL GEORGIA 
 RECONSTRUCTED - HER TERRIBLE CONDITION IN 1865 - ACTION 
 OF HER PEOPLE - TEXAS RECONSTRUCTED - GOVERNOR HAMILTON 
 AND HIS PROCLAMATIONS - ALABAMA - VANDALISM THERE - 
 GOVERNOR PARSONS' DESCRIPTION OF IT HIS SERVICES ALA 
 
 BAMA CONVENTION - QUARREL OVER THE EPISCOPAL PRAYERS - 
 MEDDLESOME MILITARY ORDER - SOUTH CAROLINA - BRECKEN- 
 RIDGE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHIVALRY - GOVERNORS MAGRATH, 
 PERRY, AND ORR - OBSTACLES OVERCOME, .... PAGES 389-416 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 TEMPORARY REORGANIZATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 
 
 CONTINUED. 
 
 FLORIDA DEPENDENT ON OTHER STATES - HER CONFEDERATE GOVER 
 NOR, JOHN MILTON - HIS SUCCESSOR, GOVERNOR WALKER - FLOR 
 IDA ADOPTS THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT - LEGISLATION AS TO 
 NEGROES, FIRE ARMS, MARRIAGE, CONTRACTS, AND VAGRANCY - 
 VIRGINIA ATTEMPTS TO RECONSTRUCT - GENERAL BUTLER'S AC 
 TION - GENERAL WEITZEL AND PRESIDENT LINCOLN AT RICH 
 MOND - PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S ORDER - PIERPONT's GOVERNMENT 
 
 - ATTEMPTED REPEAL OF WEST VIRGINIA SECESSION - CONGRESS 
 INDIFFERENT - INDORSEMENT OF JOHNSON'S POLICY - LOUISIANA 
 
 - GENERAL BUTLER AND THE COLORED PEOPLE - HIS VERSATILE 
 AND VALUABLE QUALITIES - ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE COURTS - 
 REGISTRY, VOTERS, AND GOVERNMENT - GENERAL BANKS AND HIS 
 EFFORTS - GOVERNOR HAHN AND HIS PELICANS - GOVERNOR 
 WARMOTH AND HIS RADICALS - ONE-TENTH VOTING POLICY - 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON INTERVENES - BLOODY RIOTS OF 1864 - 
 
 WARMOTH GOVERNOR - NEW CONSTITUTION IN 1 868 - WAR- 
 
l6 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 MOTH'S LETTER ITS STATEMENTS DENIED OTHER RIOTS UN 
 TIL l868 LOUISIANA RECLAIMED CONFISCATION AND RASCAL 
 ITY WINTER DAVIS' BILL ARKANSAS HER EARLY MOVE 
 MENTS RADICALS IN CHARGE LEGISLATIVE CRUDITIES CON 
 VENTION OF l866 LABOR OJJESTIONS SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS 
 
 BOTH TYRANNICAL THE POLAND COMMITTEE GARLAND SAVES 
 
 THE STATE SKETCH OF GOVERNOR, SENATOR, AND ATTORNEY- 
 GENERAL GARLAND, PAGES 417-441 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. 
 
 ACT CREATING IT ITS PURPOSES AND SCOPE SUPPLEMENTARY ACT 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S VETO OVERRULED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE 
 
 PROPOSED LAW LARGE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BUREAU THE 
 
 COMMISSIONER AND HIS SUBORDINATES CHARGES PREFERRED 
 
 AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 BY FERNANDO WOOD OF NEW- YORK INVESTIGATION BY A COM 
 MITTEE OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORTS 
 
 ERECTION OF THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY THE BARRY FARM 
 
 DISASTROUS ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A COLORED COLONY ON IT 
 
 FAILURE OF THE FREEDMEN'S BANK DISASTROUS CLOSE TO THE 
 
 WHOLE SCHEME, PAGES 442-450 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 KU-KLUX OUTRAGES. 
 
 RESISTANCE TO RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES INTIMIDATION AND 
 
 TERRORISM IN THE SOUTH PREVALENCE OF LAWLESSNESS 
 
 SECRET SOCIETIES THE KU-KLUX KLAN VIRGINIA AN EXCEP 
 TION GENERAL FORREST'S TESTIMONY STRENGTH OF THE KU- 
 KLUX ORGANIZATION ITS MODE OF OPERATIONS HISTORY OF 
 
 OUTRAGES IN NORTH CAROLINA THE KIRK-BERGEN REBELLION 
 
 DISREGARD OF WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IMPEACHMENT OF 
 
 GOVERNOR HOLDEN PARTISAN AND INCOMPETENT JUDGES IN 
 CENDIARY ADDRESS OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLA 
 TURE CAUSES OF THE LAWLESSNESS, PAGES 451-463 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 KU-KLUX OUTRAGES. CONTINUED. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA FRAUD AND VIOLENCE IN ELECTIONS TWO CON 
 TESTED ELECTION CASES GEORGIA GENERAL SWAYNE's RE 
 PORT GENERAL GORDON'S VIEWS NO EXCUSE FOR KU-KLUX 
 
 ORGANIZATIONS OR RAIDS ALABAMA ASSASSINATION OF ALEX 
 ANDER BOYD INTIMIDATION OF STUDENTS THE METHODIST 
 
 CHURCH SOUTH OUTRAGES UPON PREACHERS MISSISSIPPI 
 
 HOSTILITY TO FREE SCHOOLS OUTRAGES ON SCHOOLTEACHERS 
 
 THE MERIDIAN RIOT WHIPPING OF HUGGINS AND McBRIDE 
 
CONTENTS. 17 
 
 THE KU-KLUX START IN TENNESSEE THEIR RAPID SPREAD IN 
 
 OTHER SOUTHERN STATES BAD GOVERNMENT CAUSES SECRET 
 
 ASSOCIATIONS HENCE, THE ILLUMINES THE TUGEND-BUND 
 
 THE CARBONARI THE JACOBIN CLUBS THE NIHILISTS THE 
 
 FENIANS THE LOYAL LEAGUES AND THE KU-KLUX KLANS 
 
 THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL, . PAGES 464-479 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FIRST MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 FIVE MILITARY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH VIRGINIA THE FIRST 
 
 DISTRICT PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION CALL ON THE 
 
 PRESIDENT FOR INFORMATION HIS REPLY MILITARY COM 
 MANDERS GENERAL SCHOFIELD FOR VIRGINIA HIS GENERAL 
 
 ORDETRS^ SUB-DISTRICT COMMANDERS DIVISION OF THE REPUB 
 LICAN PARTY INTO MODERATES AND RADICALS INDICTMENT OF 
 
 HUNNICUTT FOR INCENDIARY LANGUAGE THE BILL OF RIGHTS 
 
 THE VOTE ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION GENERAL STONEMAN IN 
 
 COMMAND OF DISTRICT GENERAL CANBY SUCCEEDS HIM RE 
 MOVALS FROM CIVIL OFFICE ELECTION OF GOVERNOR WALKER 
 
 VIRGINIA RECONSTRUCTED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, 
 
 PAGES 480-493 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE SECOND MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 ISTORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL SICKLES ASSIGNED TO COM 
 MAND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS APPLIED 
 
 REMOVALS OF LOCAL OFFICERS OBJECTIONS FROM THE PRESI 
 DENT STATE U STAY LAWS " ENFORCED BY GENERAL SICKLES 
 
 THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL OF NORTH CAROLINA DISREGARDS 
 
 THE "STAY LAW" HE is SUSTAINED BY THE PRESIDENT 
 
 GENERAL SICKLES RESIGNS THE COMMAND GENERAL CANBY SUC 
 CEEDS HIM HE APPROVES OF SICKLES' COURSE THE REGISTRA 
 TION OF VOTERS IN THE TWO STATES THE WHITE AND COLORED 
 
 VOTES THE CONVENTIONS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONS THE 
 
 LEGISLATURES AND THE LEGISLATION THE STATE OFFICERS 
 
 THE METHODS OF THE " CARPET-BAGGERS " AND THEIR NATIVE 
 
 ASSOCIATES NOT MAKING BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW THE ISSUE 
 
 OF FRAUDULENT BONDS THE TAXATION AND THE DEBTS THE 
 
 PLUNDERERS DISPERSED A JUSTIFIABLE REVOLUTION CONGRES 
 SIONAL CONDITIONS OF REHABILITATION THEIR ACCEPTANCE 
 
 THE LONG PROBATION 1865 TO 1877, PAGES 494-507 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE THIRD MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 OENERAL POPE IN COMMAND REGISTRATION AND CONVENTION IN 
 
 GEORGIA CONFLICT BETWEEN GOVERNOR JENKINS AND GENERAL 
 POPE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION GOVERNOR BUL- 
 
l8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 LOCK INAUGURATED COLORED MEMBERS EXPELLED FROM THE 
 
 LEGISLATURE MILITARY INVESTIGATION THE EXPELLED RE 
 ADMITTED THE AMENDMENTS RATIFIED FINANCIAL CONDI- 
 
 TION FLIGHT OF BULLOCK THE ELECTION LAW OF 1870 
 
 ALABAMA REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS REGISTRATION 
 
 MOB IN MOBILE THE CONVENTION THE PROPOSED CONSTITU 
 TION OBNOXIOUS FAILURE OF RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE 
 
 STATE ADMITTED NOTWITHSTANDING THE LEGISLATURE 
 
 STATE INDEBTEDNESS FLORIDA REGISTRATION CONSTITU 
 TIONAL CONVENTION DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICANS INTO TWO 
 
 FACTIONS UNITY RESTORED, AND A CONSTITUTION VOTED 
 
 A MILITARY OFFICER ACTS AS TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF THE CON 
 VENTION CHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUTION ELECTION OF 
 
 GOVERNOR REED CHARGES OF FRAUD IN THE ELECTION AD 
 MISSION OF THE STATE INTO THE UNION THE LEGISLATURE 
 
 PROPOSED IMPEACHMENT OF GOVERNOR REED JUDICIAL PRO 
 CEEDINGS THE IMPEACHMENT ABANDONED NEW IMPEACH 
 MENT PROPOSED BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, AND FRAUD CHARGED 
 
 AGAINST THE GOVERNOR VOTE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT ACTS 
 
 OF USURPATION LEGISLATIVE LEGERDEMAIN REPUBLICAN CAN 
 DIDATE " COUNTED IN" THE OSBORN RING A THIRD ATTEMPT 
 
 AT IMPEACHMENT ALSO FAILS THE DEMOCRATS REGAIN CON 
 TROL OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CONDITION, . . PAGES 508-524 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FOURTH MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION THE DEMOCRATS ALLOW THE ELECTION 
 
 FOR CONVENTION TO GO BY DEFAULT APPREHENSIONS OF A 
 
 NEGRO OUTBREAK COURT-MARTIALING OF A NEWSPAPER EDITOR 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION LIBERAL COMPENSATION 
 
 TO DELEGATES AND OFFICERS GENERAL AMES APPOINTED PRO 
 VISIONAL GOVERNOR, AND GOVERNOR HUMPHREYS OUSTED AT THE 
 POINT OF THE BAYONET THE CONSTITUTION DEFEATED EX- 
 SENATOR BROWN'S EXPLANATION OF THE VOTE MODERATION IN 
 
 POLITICS OBNOXIOUS FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION ELIMI 
 NATED THE CONSTITUTION RATIFIED CORRESPONDENCE BE 
 TWEEN PRESIDENT GRANT AND JUDGE DENT THE FALL ELECTION 
 
 OF 1869 JAMES L. ALCORN CHOSEN GOVERNOR HE DECLINES 
 
 THE "PROVISIONAL" APPOINTMENT ELECTIONS TO THE UNITED 
 STATES SENATE A COLORED SENATOR ADMISSION OF MISSIS 
 SIPPI TO THE UNION MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE GOV 
 ERNOR ALCORN'S INAUGURAL - A MURDER CASE THE NEW CON 
 STITUTIONTHE ELECTIONS OF 1871 CENSUS AND TAXATION- 
 DEMOCRATIC VICTORY IN 1875 ARKANSAS HIGH-HANDED MILI 
 TARY INTERFERENCE WITH STATE OFFICIALS THE CONSTITU 
 TIONAL CONVENTION ELECTION FRAUDS CHARGES OF FRAUD 
 
 ON ONE SIDE, AND OF INTIMIDATION ON THE OTHER MILITARY 
 
 IULE TERMINATED AND THE STATE RESTORED TO THE UNION 
 FUNDING THE PUBLIC DEBT THE HOLFORD BONDS HOSTILITY 
 BETWEEN GOVERNOR CLAYTON AND LIEUT.-GOV. JOHNSON THE 
 
CONTENTS. 1C, 
 
 FALL ELECTION OF 1872 MORE WHOLESALE FRAUDS THE 
 
 BAXTER-BROOKS CONFLICT ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
 
 1874 THE PARTIES AND THEIR LEADERS EXCHANGING POSITIONS 
 
 PRESIDENT GRANT CHANGES WITH THEM REPORT OF THE 
 
 POLAND INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE STATE FINANCES, 
 
 PAGES 525-542 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FIFTH MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 LOUISIANA GENERAL SHERIDAN'S REMOVAL OF STATE OFFICIALS 
 
 HIS QUARREL WITH, AND REMOVAL OF, GOVERNOR WELLS THE 
 
 PRESIDENT'S ORDER AS TO REGISTRATION DISREGARDED RESULTS 
 
 OF REGISTRATION FORTY THOUSAND WHITES EXCLUDED FROM 
 
 SUFFRAGE REMOVAL AND APPOINTMENT OF NEW ORLEANS 
 
 ALDERMEN AND OTHER OFFICERS GENERAL SHERIDAN SUC 
 CEEDED BY GENERAL HANCOCK HIS SPECIAL ORDER ON ASSUM 
 ING COMMAND RE-INSTATEMENT OF STATE OFFICIALS MEETING 
 
 OF THE STATE CONVENTION THE NEW CONSTITUTION RATIFIED 
 
 BY THE PEOPLE GENERAL HANCOCK'S REMOVAL OF OFFICIALS 
 
 NOT SUSTAINED BY GENERAL GRANT GENERAL HANCOCK RE 
 LIEVED AT HIS OWN REQUEST THE DISFRANCHISING CLAUSE OF 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, 
 
 l868 IMMENSE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES EXPLANATION OF THE 
 
 FACTS THE NEGROES TERRORIZED AND LARGE NUMBERS OF 
 
 THEM KILLED THE LEGISLATURE OF 1869 GOVERNOR WAR- 
 
 MOTH'S MESSAGE MEASURES OF SOCIAL EQUALITY AND OF PUBLIC 
 PLUNDER LOW OPINION OF THE MEMBERS LOBBYING AND BRIB 
 ING BY THE "BEST PEOPLE" THE STATE AUDITOR IMPEACHED 
 
 THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER, 1870 THE REPUBLICANS TRIUMPH 
 ANT REPEAL OF THE DISFRANCHISING CLAUSE QUARREL BE 
 TWEEN THE REPUBLICAN FACTIONS MOVEMENTS AND COUNTER- 
 MOVEMENTS CHARACTER OF GOVERNOR WARMOTH HIS EX 
 POSURE OF LEGISLATIVE PROFLIGACY MUTUAL CHARGES OF 
 
 KNAVERY BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS HOW THEY ALL 
 
 ENRICHED THEMSELVES THE FALL ELECTION OF 1872 TWO RE 
 TURNING BOARDS DECIDING THE RESULTS DIFFERENTLY RIVAL 
 
 LEGISLATURES WARMOTH IMPEACHED PINCHBACK ASSUMES 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, AND IS SUSTAINED BY PRESIDENT GRANT 
 
 THE PACKARD LEGISLATURE, AND ITS METHODS THE McENERY 
 
 LEGISLATURE ORGANIZED AND SUSTAINED TWO GOVERNORS 
 
 KELLOGG AND McENERY INAUGURATED SENATE COMMITTEE OF 
 
 INQUIRY MCENERY SUSTAINED BY THE PEOPLE ARREST OF THE 
 
 MCENERY LEGISLATURE MILITARY RECOGNITION OF THE KEL 
 LOGG GOVERNMENT McENERY GIVES UP THE FIGHT SANGUIN 
 ARY CONFLICTS IN THE PARISHES THE COUSHATTA MASSACRE 
 
 UPRISING IN NEW ORLEANS AGAINST THE KELLOGG GOVERNMENT 
 
 PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT KELLOGG'S GOVERNMENT 
 
 RE-ESTABLISHED BY THE MILITARY COMPROMISE EFFECTED BY 
 
 A HOUSE COMMITTEE FINANCIAL STATEMENT TEXAS GEN 
 ERAL SHERIDAN'S REPORT OF THE BAD CONDITION OF AFFAIRS 
 
 GENERAL GRIFFIN'S ORDER REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNOR AND 
 
20 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 OTHER STATE OFFICIALS GENERAL SHERIDAN'S REPORT HIS 
 
 REFLECTIONS ON PRESIDENT JOHNSON THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 CONVENTION STATISTICS OF CRIME THE CONSTITUTIONS OF 
 
 l868 AND 1876 GENERAL REYNOLDS CO-OPERATING WITH THE 
 
 RADICALS FINANCIAL STATEMENT, PAGES 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 SPRING OF 1865 SURRENDER AT APPOMATTOX SECOND INAUGURA 
 TION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN SCENE IN FORD'S THEATRE THE 
 
 ASSASSINATION JOHNSON'S ACCESSION PRELIMINARIES TO IM 
 PEACHMENT GROUNDS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT MAJORITY RE 
 PORT OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PRETEXTS FOR IMPEACHMENT 
 
 DISMISSAL OF STANTON ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BETWEEN GEN. 
 
 LORENZO THOMAS AND THE PRESIDENT IS " SWINGING ROUND 
 
 THE CIRCLE " A MISDEMEANOR ? THE SENATE AS A COURT IN 
 STANCES OF IMPEACHMENT SPLENDID ARRAY OF COUNSEL 
 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL STANBERY THE EXCITEMENT AND VOTE 
 
 MINOR HISTORY OF THE TRIAL DOUBTFUL SENATORS MR. 
 
 WARDEN'S RECITAL SENATOR GRIMES AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON 
 MEET WITH REVERDY JOHNSON SENATOR HENDERSON'S DOUBT 
 FUL VOTE THE AUTHOR'S PART DAY BREAKS FOR THE PRESI 
 DENT, PAGES 578-594 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 AMNESTY. 
 
 THE VICISSITUDES OF THIS OJJESTION CARRIED ONCE IN THE HOUSE 
 
 COLORED VOTES FOR IT GENERAL BUTLER'S BILL OF GRACE 
 
 WITHOUT GRACE, AND PUNITORY PARDON MILITARY REPRESSION 
 
 AND CIVIL OPPRESSION RANCOR CHERISHED HOPES OF RECON 
 CILIATION MOCKED SPURIOUS SPIRIT OF AMNESTY MR. GREE- 
 
 LEY'S NOMINATION ITS CAUSES MR. LINCOLN'S PURPOSE OF 
 
 MERCY MR. ELAINE'S ACTION THE PAGAN POLICIES OF REPUB 
 LICANS EXECUTIVE PARDONS AND THE AMNESTY OF THE CON 
 STITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, PAGES 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 TEST OATHS AND PENALTIES. 
 
 THEIR OPERATION IN THE ONE-TENTH RECONSTRUCTION PLAN OF 
 
 HENRY WINTER DAVIS UNFAIRNESS TO UNIONISTS TEST OATHS 
 
 DESTRUCTIVE OF TRIAL BY JURY EFFORTS AT TEST OATH RE 
 PEAL ^MODIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE REPUBLICANS THE 
 
 AUTHOR'S BILLS POLITICAL OATHS IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND 
 
 THE PURITAN ATTITUDE NOTABLE CHANGE IN ENGLISH SENTI 
 MENT AND LAW THE OBLIGATION OF AN OATH OATH-TAKING 
 
CONTENTS. 21 
 
 AND OATH-BREAKING THE MISSOURI IRON-CLAD MISSOURI PER 
 SECUTION OF SISTERS OF CHARITY THE TEST OATH IN THE 
 
 SUPREME COURT THE GARLAND CASE SENATOR GARLAND'S 
 
 NOBLE STAND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE TEST OATHS, . PAGES 6o2-6l6 
 
 CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND ISSUES UP TO 1876. 
 
 THE CONTEST OF 1864 McCLELLAN AND LINCOLN MILITARY AND 
 
 CIVIC VIRTUES IN ISSUE ARM-IN-ARM CONVENTION 1 868 AND 
 
 ITS ISSUES ; GOVERNOR SEYMOUR HIS SPEECHES AND CONDUCT 
 
 THE PATRIOTISM OF THE DEMOCRACY INCREASE OF OUR AREA 
 
 AND POWER UNDER DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION THE NUMBER 
 
 OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS AND SOLDIERS SEYMOUR DEFEATED 
 
 JUDGE BLACK ON THE CARPET-BAGGER HORACE GREELEY TRIED, 
 
 AS A BRIDGE FOR HONESTY AND AMNESTY GREELEY*S DEFEAT 
 
 ON AN INCREASED VOTE OTHER QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LEGIS 
 LATION CIVIL RIGHTS ECONOMIES CURRENCY BAYONETS 
 
 AT THE POLLS ABRAM S. HEWITT'S SPLENDID CHAMPIONSHIP OF 
 
 FREEDOM VERSUS FORCE ENGLISH STATUTES AND LAW ON THE 
 
 SUFFRAGE ABOLITION OF MILITARY INTERFERENCE WITH ELEC 
 TIONS, PAGES 617-635 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 THE FAMOUS ELECTORAL COMMISSION. 
 
 THE FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS ASSEMBLES THE GATHERING STORM 
 
 DIVISION OF PARTIES OPINIONS ON THE MODE OF COUNTING 
 
 THE ELECTORAL VOTE PERPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEMS COM 
 MITTEES RAISED UNDER KNOTT*S RESOLUTION HOW THEY WERE 
 
 CONSTITUTED THE SECRETS OF THE COMMITTEES NOW FIRST 
 
 DIVULGED THEIR DEBATES AND THE RESULTS SEPARATE AND 
 
 JOINT ACTION CHANCES BY DRAWING CUTS THE SUPREME JUS 
 TICES CALLED IN THE SHREWD DEVICES OF THE REPUBLICANS 
 
 HOW THE SECRETS WERE KEPT VARIOUS DRAFTS OF BILLS 
 
 RUMORS OF WAR PREPARATIONS FOR THE USE OF FEDERAL 
 
 TROOPS FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS AFTER THE SECRET DIS 
 CUSSIONS, PAGES 636-650 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 THE ELECTORAL COUNT OF 1877. 
 
 EVENTFUL DAYS OF HISTORY MEETING OF THE HOUSES TO COUNT 
 
 THE VOTE FLORIDA IS REACHED EXCITEMENT RECESS 
 
 ELECTORAL COMMISSION MEETS THE OLD SENATE ROOM THE 
 
 COMMISSION ORGANIZED THE ATTORNEYS THE JUDGMENT ON 
 
 FLORIDA JUDGE BRADLEY HIS NON-SEqUlTUR ALIUNDE- 
 
 ERMINE TAINTED REPUBLICAN TRIUMPH DEMOCRATIC DE 
 SPONDENCY THE COUNT RESUMED SOUTH CAROLINA LOUIS- 
 
22 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 IANA THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH SPEECHES OF OTHER MEMBERS 
 
 SCATHING INVECTIVES OF JUDGE BLACK AND JOSEPH S. C. 
 
 BLACKBURN OREGON, WISCONSIN, AND VERMONT VOTES THE 
 
 CONCLUSION THE STARS AND STRIPES LOWERED DE FACTO AND 
 
 DEJURE, PAGES 65 1-668 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVIII. 
 
 PRESIDENT HAYES' ADMINISTRATION AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 MR. HAYES' QJJALITIES HIS FORMER POPULARITY OJJESTIONS DUR 
 ING HIS ADMINISTRATION SILVER AND GOLD RESUMPTION OF 
 
 SPECIE PAYMENTS RESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATE GOV 
 ERNMENT IN THE SOUTH REPEAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 
 
 PARTY PLATFORMS GENERAL GRANT GENERAL HANCOCK, AS 
 
 SOLDIER AND CIVILIAN GARFIELD SUCCEEDS HAYES HIS 
 
 CAREER HIS INAUGURATION HIS LEADER IN THE CABINET, 
 
 ELAINE THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD AR 
 THUR'S SUCCESSION THE NOTABLE EVENT OF HIS ADMINISTRA 
 TION PENDLETON'S CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BILL, . PAGES 669-676 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 THE INAUGURATION OF DEMOCRACY AND CLEVELAND. 
 
 THE PROVINCE OF HISTORY WHAT THE SOUTH HAS DONE TO RECU 
 PERATE BLACK AND WHITE NEW ORLEANS EXPOSITION THE 
 
 PLATFORM OF 1884 GOVERNOR CLEVELAND ITS EXPONENT A 
 
 CATO INAUGURATIONS OF l8oi, AND 1885 THE NEW ORDER, 
 
 BORN OF THE GREAT CONFLICT THE FALSEHOOD OF EXTREMES, 
 
 AND THE PERMANENCY OF MODERATION, .... PAGES 677-684 
 
 CHAPTER XL. 
 
 MATERIAL PROGRESS IN THREE DECADES. 
 
 RESULTS OF CENSUSES OBJECT OF CENSUS FROM 1790 THE LEGIS 
 LATION FOR THE TENTH CENSUS, OF l88o ITS COMPLETENESS 
 
 STAR OF EMPIRE AND CENTRE OF POPULATION IN l88o SOCIAL 
 
 STATISTICS CENTENNIAL YEAR OUR INCREASE FROM DECADE 
 
 TO DECADE DETAILS OF ADVANCEMENT FEDERAL TRADE AND 
 
 TARIFF RESTRICTIONS HINDRANCES TO PHYSICAL GROWTH 
 
 ODDITIES OF THE CENSUS THE PUBLIC LANDS PRIMARY OBJECT 
 
 OF THE CENSUS THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION 
 
 RESULT OF THE APPORTIONMENT INCREASE OF THE SOUTH IN 
 
 POLITICAL POWER POPULATION, AND NOT VOTES, THE BASIS 
 
 OUR UNIOJJE SYSTEM THE MUNIMENTS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY 
 
 FOUNDED ON THE CENSUS OF POPULATION OUR LIGHT OF LIB- 
 
 ERTY ' PAGES 685-699 
 
 MAP OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 INDEX > ..".'. 701 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Engraved Title, 
 
 With Portrait of the Author. 
 
 Representative Statesmen. 
 
 Ante-Bellum. 
 
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 
 
 JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, JEREMIAH S. BLACK, 
 
 CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM. 
 
 PAGE 25. 
 
 Confederate Governors. 
 
 ISHAM G. HARRIS, JOHN LETCHER, 
 
 SAMUEL HOUSTON, JOSEPH E. BROWN, 
 
 ZEBULON B. VANCE. 
 
 PAGE 120. 
 
 Military Governors. 
 
 GEN. DANIEL E. SICKLES, GEN. E. O. C. ORD, 
 
 GEN. WINFIELD S. HANCOCK, GEN. GEO. H. THOMAS, 
 
 GEN. GEORGE STONEMAN. 
 
 PAGE 232. 
 
24 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Reconstruction Governors. 
 
 WILLIAM L. SHARKEY, WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW, 
 
 GEORGE S. HOUSTON, AUGUSTUS H. GARLAND, 
 
 WILLIAM W. HOLDEN. 
 PAGE 344. 
 
 Reconstruction Statesmen. 
 
 THOMAS A. HENDRICKS, BENJAMIN H. HILL, 
 
 ANDREW JOHNSON, ALLEN G. THURMAN, 
 
 JAMES A. GARFIELD. 
 PAGE 456. 
 
 Diplomats and Statesmen. 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, JOHN SLIDELL, 
 
 CAPT. CHARLES WILKES, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, 
 
 SALMON P. CHASE. 
 PAGE 552. 
 
 Diplomats and Statesmen. 
 
 THOMAS F. BAYARD, L. Q. C. LAMAR, 
 
 THADDEUS STEVENS, JAMES G. ELAINE, 
 
 GROVER CLEVELAND. 
 PAGE 664. 
 
' 
 
 REPRESENTAT/\ E STATESMEN AT+CLHJ*. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CAPITOL AT WASHINGTON THE OLD HALLS OF LEGISLATION THE SEN 
 ATE OF WORTHIES DEDICATION OF THE NEW HOUSE MAIDEN SPEECH 
 THEREIN THE USE OF AN OPPOSITION PARTY THE PROXIMATE CAUSES 
 OF THE CIVIL CONFLICT ANCIENT ROMAN POLICY EXCESSES NORTH AND 
 SOUTH FUTILE EFFORTS FOR ADJUSTMENT THE THEORY OF SECESSION 
 CONSEQUENCES OF SECESSION THE WISDOM OF CIVISM. 
 
 THE Capitol of the United States is not only superb as an edifice, 
 but, next to St. Peter's in Rome, the most elaborate and elegant 
 structure in the world. Between it and the palace of the Spanish 
 Cortez, the Palace d* Ely see of the Corps Legislatif, in Paris, the 
 German Reichstag-geb&ude, and other edifices in Europe dedicated to par 
 liamentary meetings, no comparison can be made. As between it and the 
 Westminster Palace, where the English Parliament sits, there are few points 
 of comparison. Their different orders of architecture furnish simply points 
 of contrast. Westminster Palace is Gothic-Tudor. The United States Cap 
 itol is Greek of the Corinthian order. The former is built of brown lime 
 stone, the latter of pure white marble. A great feature of the Palace is its 
 tower clock. The Capitol has a lofty iron dome. One registers the time of 
 passing dynasties ; the other is typical of the enduring majesty of the people. 
 The Palace stands on the bank of the Thames flat and subject to overflow! 
 The Capitol has an Acropolis for its situation. It has not the height nor 
 the surroundings of that rocky eminence which gave to Athens its crowning 
 glory ; but it is so set upon a hill that, with its dome capped by the Goddess 
 of Liberty, it makes a grand beacon of attraction for all the country round. 
 
 It is an event in any one's life to enter this Capitol and examine its excel 
 lencies of decoration. It excites one's interest to enter the old Senate and 
 House chambers. The former is now used by the Supreme Court, and the 
 latter is a statuary-gallery where the civic and martial heroes of the states 
 are apotheosized. It is more exciting, however, to enter the legislative halls 
 when the representatives of states and people are in convocation and debate. 
 
26 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Notwithstanding a quarter of a century has passed since the writer first 
 entered the Capitol to take a part in the making of laws, the fascination and 
 exaltation in sympathy with the young member never fails to be aroused 
 again, when he looks down from the gallery upon the representatives of so 
 many diverse interests and so many millions of people. 
 
 It was the fortune of the author to be a member when the lower House 
 of Congress sat in the old hall. The associations of a thousand debates 
 gave voice to its arches and pillars. Every stone and tablet echoed the elder 
 and, as it was said, the better day of oratory and patriotism. In 1864 each 
 state of the Union was invited by Congress to erect in this hall the statues 
 of two of its most illustrious civic or martial heroes. Rhode Island was the 
 first to respond to the invitation. She sent, in 1871, two life-size marble 
 statues ; one of Major-Gen. Nathaniel Greene, in the Continental uniform, 
 the other of Roger Williams. The latter is the artist's ideal of her civic 
 hero, and not an effigy of the man. Connecticut followed, in 1872, with 
 heroic statues, in marble, of Jonathan Trumbull, the original " Brother Jon 
 athan," and Roger Sherman. New- York gave, in 1873, life-size statues, in 
 bronze, of Gen. George Clinton, a Democrat par excellence, and Robert 
 R. Livingston, in his chancellor's robes. In 1876, Massachusetts gave 
 semi-heroic statues, in marble, of John Winthrop, her first governor, and 
 Samuel Adams. Winthrop is represented as landing with the charter of 
 1630, and Adams as making his famous protest. Vermont gave, the same 
 year, a marble heroic statue of Ethan Allen, in the Continental uniform, 
 representing that fiery soldier when demanding the surrender of Ticonderoga 
 " in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." Her 
 civic effigy, contributed in 1880, represents in marble, semi-heroic Jacob 
 Collamer as addressing the Senate on Constitutional law. Maine set up, the 
 same year, a semi-heroic statue, in marble, of her first governor, William 
 King. The other states will soon fill the vacant niches ; and here, while this 
 Union shall endure, will stand the mute but eloquent Senate of American 
 Worthies. Passing through this shrine to the present halls of legislation, 
 what Senator or Representative can fail to breathe in some inspiration of the 
 devotion to Liberty and Justice that is here commemorated ! 
 
 This historic hall, whose vaulted roof still whispers the eloquence of the 
 past, has long been silent to the lofty flights of forensic discussion and de 
 bate for which the days of Clay, and Webster, and Calhoun were famous. 
 It was abandoned twenty-eight years ago by the House of Representatives 
 for the more commodious chamber now occupied by that body. The i6th 
 of December, 1857, is memorable in the annals of Congress. Looking 
 back to that day, the writer can see the members of the House of Repre 
 sentatives take up the line of march out of the old shadowy and murmur 
 ous chamber, into the new hall with its ornate and gilded interior. The 
 scene is intense in a rare dramatic quality. Above shine in vari-colored 
 
USE OF AN OPPOSITION PARTY. 27 
 
 light, the escutcheons of thirty states ; around sit the members upon richly- 
 carved oaken chairs. Already arrayed upon either side are the sections 
 in mutual animosity. The Republicans take the left of the Speaker, the 
 Democrats the right. James C. Orr, of South Carolina, a full roseate-faced 
 gentleman of large build and ringing metallic voice, is in the chair. James 
 C. Allen, of Illinois, sits below him in the clerk's seat. The Rev. Mr. 
 Carothers offers an appropriate and inspiring prayer. He asks the Divine 
 favor upon those in authority ; and then, with trembling tones, he im 
 plores that the hall just dedicated as the place wherein the political and con 
 stitutional rights of our countrymen shall ever be maintained and defended, 
 may be a temple of honor and glory to this land. "May the deliberations 
 therein make our nation the praise of the whole earth, for Christ's sake." 
 A solemn hush succeeds this invocation. The routine of journal reading ; 
 a reference of the Agricultural College bill, upon the request of the then 
 member, now Senator, from Vermont, Justin S. Merrill ; and the presentation 
 of a communication regarding the chaplaincy from the clergy of Washington, 
 are followed by the drawing of seats for the members, who retire to the open 
 space in the hall. A page with bandaged eyes makes the award, and one 
 by one the members are seated. Then, by the courtesy of the chairman of 
 the Printing Committee, Mr. Smith, of Tennessee, a young member from 
 Ohio is allowed to take the floor. He addresses the Speaker with timidity 
 and modesty, amid many interruptions by Humphrey Marshall, of Ken 
 tucky, Mr. Bocock, of Virginia, Judge Hughes, of Indiana, George W. 
 Jones, of Tennessee, and General Quitman, of Mississippi, each of whom 
 bristles with points of order against the points of the orator. But that young 
 member is soon observed by a quiet House. Many listen to him perhaps 
 to judge of the acoustic property of the hall, some because of the nature of 
 the debate ; and then, after a few minutes, all become excited ! Again and 
 again the shrill and high tones of Mr. Speaker Orr are heard above the 
 uproar. He exclaims : " This is a motion to print extra copies of the 
 President's message. Debate on the subject of the message is, therefore, in 
 order upon which the gentleman from Ohio has the floor ! " That gentle 
 man is now the writer. His theme was the Lecompton Constitution. As 
 the questions discussed involved the great issues leading to war or peace, 
 his interest in the mise en sc&ne became less ; but his maiden speech the 
 maiden speech in the new chamber began under influences anything but 
 composing. 
 
 This preliminary etching of the Capitol is intended only to limn the 
 circumstances as they affected the young and ambitious legislator; or, as 
 a prologue to the stirring scenes which greeted his first appearance in the 
 role of orator under such grave conditions. 
 
 The times were then sadly out of joint. The author had a keen antici 
 pation of the consequences of sectionalism. His first debate intensified this 
 
28 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 anticipation. He had warned and worked, from his first entrance into pub 
 lic life, against the passionate zealotry of both sections. He denounced as 
 equally perilous the policy and theory of secession, and the provocations 
 and conduct of the other extreme. He voted to avert the impending struggle 
 by every measure of adjustment. He was secretary of the Border states 
 convention of congressmen which sought to avoid trouble and reconcile the 
 sections. Along with such men as Stephen A. Douglas, Thomas Corwin, 
 Charles Francis Adams, John J. Crittenden, and the giants of those days, he 
 was content to be an humble advocate of every proposition tending to allay 
 the excitement growing out of the fugitive slave law, the extension of slavery 
 into the territories, and kindred questions. When the war came, he aided 
 the Administration by his votes for money and men to maintain the Federal 
 authority. 
 
 The author believed then, as he believes now, that in all representative 
 governments a constitutional opposition is one of the safeguards of liberty ; 
 and that it is a legislator's duty to challenge freely the conduct of the Admin 
 istration in regard to the use of the means committed to it by the people. 
 Because the time of war is the time of danger, it does not follow that 
 criticism by the opposition at such a period may not be consistent with pat 
 riotism. England was saved from disgrace in the Crimean war by a defiant 
 opposition, which was led by the London Times. A government may be 
 magnified by opposing the weakness of its administration. It may be saved 
 and strengthened by a vigorous criticism upon an imbecile party or corrupt 
 policy ; otherwise the very function of government might be palsied by the 
 incapacity or corruption of the functionary. And should we be less heedful 
 how we undignify the office by an undue contempt of the officer, than how 
 we unduly dignify the officer at the expense of the office ? It is a wise say 
 ing that " the best men are not always the best in regard to society." 
 
 In all free countries an opposition is an element of the government. It is 
 as indispensable to the safety of the realm as a free press or a free pulpit. To 
 dispense with it is to endanger, if not to dispense with, liberty. The valiant 
 arm of the soldier owes much of its strength to those who, regardless of the 
 frowns of power or the allurements of patronage, maintain a steadfast front 
 against the corruption, insolence, and tyranny which are always incident to 
 war. A distinguished Southern statesman, James Guthrie, of Kentucky, 
 said to the writer in 1865 : " The Revolution has left deep scars on the Con 
 stitution of the United States, and of the states. But as they were made on 
 the road to restoration and peace, we begin the race of progress with re 
 newed confidence in freedom and justice." The apology for many a political 
 and social scar must be left to the evils and necessities of the time when 
 the cicatrice was formed. But can this justify a representative of the people 
 in remaining an indifferent spectator while the wounds are being inflicted ? 
 When war can be justified, does the freebooter or guerrilla escape demerit 
 
EFFORTS FOR RECONCILIATION. 29 
 
 because he plies his vocation under the pretense of its hostilities? The 
 duty of a patriot before a war, and a fortiori during its continuance, is to 
 proclaim every attendant peril to freedom. In a war like ours for the sus- 
 tentation of a Federal Union, it was a duty to announce and denounce every 
 effort in aid of disunion, whether it came from foe or friend. 
 
 What to superficial observers appears to be unpatriotic opposition, is not 
 seldom patriotic antagonism to arbitrariness in the' proceedings with which 
 war is accompanied. Such an opposition is dictated by regard for the very- 
 object for which the war is prosecuted. The clangor of arms is said to 
 silence the law. This aphorism may be true of monarchical rule, but it 
 ought to have no application in republican governments. It is one of the 
 merits of the Democratic party, that while broken in pieces and stifled in 
 expression, its members never failed to lift their voice for personal and public 
 liberty, above the alarms of war. 
 
 How often was the star of Liberty eclipsed during the progress of our 
 Civil War ! Not merely by the suspension of the habeas corpus in places 
 where war was not flagrant ; not merely by wrongful arrests and imprison 
 ment of citizens who were innocent ; not merely by silencing the Constitu 
 tion in various ways, and restrictions on civil rights ; but by a thousand small 
 modes in the procedure of legislative bodies, the movements of cabinets, 
 the deposition of chiefs, and even in the disposition of armies. 
 
 It is our humiliation that a period of more than twenty years has elapsed 
 since the cessation of hostilities, and yet freedom is not fully restored to 
 every citizen, nor full rehabilitation given to those who acquiesced in the gov 
 ernment. Even the "test oaths, "that odium of history, were not fully re 
 pealed until the first session of the last Congress. Then, the author's bill, 
 which had been pending for many years, became a law. This partial am 
 nesty came in the form of a repeal of the test law. It was that law which 
 absurdly compelled the Representative, who was innocent of rebellion, to 
 take an oath that he was not engaged in the Rebellion ; while the Repre 
 sentative who was so engaged simply took the oath to support the Con 
 stitution. 
 
 During the late war, while others were skeptical in respect of the use of 
 men and means for coercion ; while statesmen like Judge Douglas were pre 
 pared to welcome temporary disunion, or its relative, a Customs-Zolverein or 
 economic fraternity of states, the writer believed that the proper use of 
 means and men would ultimately bring peace with union. But he also held 
 that no peace would be permanent unless it were wedded to the Union in 
 contentment. For this reason he made several efforts to bring together 
 eminent men of both sections who had the confidence of the people, with a 
 view to stop the shedding of blood and to foster reconciliation. In these 
 attempts he maintained no uncertain attitude in regard to the Union. His 
 conduct was not seldom challenged ; but in 1862, in a gerrymandered district 
 
30 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of Ohio, with five thousand adverse majority, and on questions connected 
 with peace and union, he was re-elected to Congress in spite of threats and 
 violence. After the war had ended and new associations gave him a pause 
 for calm reflection, all his passions and interests became subordinated to a 
 clear mental vision. Whatever of acrimony may have remained from the 
 heat of discussion gave place to charity. He had time to observe the after 
 math of the conflict, and to garner the second crop of trials which resulted 
 from the prostration and upbuilding of the devastated states. 
 
 The main part of these memorabilia has to do with the reconstruction of 
 the discordant elements in the Southern States subsequent to the war. There 
 could be no reconstruction of the states themselves, for the states were in 
 destructible. They had the celestial ichor of the Immortals, and could not, 
 except by annihilation, die. In that part of this work the author discusses 
 the military powers and the civil functions of the Federal Government. 
 His pen follows the Ku-Klux into his lodge, and the freedman into his 
 bureau. It lifts the veil from President Lincoln's plan for a peace adminis 
 tration, and President Johnson's vetoes. It opens to observation the clumsy, 
 vindictive, and relentless doctrines and practices of partisan reconstruction. 
 
 The author believes with Montesquieu, that in devising measures for the 
 elevation of down-trodden peoples and states after civil conflict, it is advis 
 able to exceed in lenity rather than severity ; to banish but few rather than 
 many ; and to leave the defeated their estates instead of making a vast num 
 ber of confiscations ; for, as the French publicist said : ' ' Under the pretense 
 of avenging the Republic's cause, the avengers would establish tyranny. "" 
 The author ever held that the Federal duty was not to ' ' destroy the rebel but 
 the rebellion ; that the disposition should be to return as quickly as possible 
 into the usual track of government in which every one is protected by the 
 laws and no one injured." Accepting this wise doctrine, he would make 
 it the touchstone of the Johnsonian policy, of the Thaddeus Stevens theory 
 drawn from Vattel, and of the reconstructions attempted by provisional 
 governors in the temporary municipal organizations of various Southern 
 states. While not depreciating the difficulties of reconstruction, there is 
 reason now to believe that many years of bitter strife might have been 
 avoided, had there been less toleration or encouragement given to spoliation 
 by adventurers in the South, less obnoxious military intrusion under the 
 Federal Government, and a more liberal operation given to this doctrine of 
 amnesty and reconciliation. It was by military tyranny, by social ostracism, 
 by civil arrogance, by all the machinery known to cunning and vengeful 
 spirits, that the representation of the South in Congress was hindered and 
 delayed, and the inducements to orderly government under new conditions 
 of suffrage were postponed. These modes of reconstruction can now be dis 
 cussed without prejudice to justice or truth. 
 
 Twenty years have passed away since the conclusion of the stupendous 
 
THE WAR-CLOUD. 31 
 
 war-struggle in our country. Effigies of the soldiers of that war are reared 
 all over our land. They adorn the avenues of the Federal Capital. Every 
 year, with the coming of the flowers of spring arises the grateful fragrance 
 of American hearts toward those who fell in battle for and against our Fed 
 eral system and social order. The popular heart, North and South, has for 
 two decades dwelt proudly upon the deeds of the war. But it is no new 
 thought, it is a saying as old as Roman civilization, that the trophies of war 
 do not survive forever. Charles Sumner recognized the eloquence and phil 
 osophy of that legend when he appealed to the Senate to erase from our 
 battle-flags the names of fratricidal battle-fields. It is an old adage which 
 came from the same seat of authority and wisdom ancient Rome that 
 amid civil tumults the state should build a bridge of gold for the return of 
 its insurgent enemy. This adage proceeds from the self-evident truth that 
 there is nothing so disastrous to society as belligerent dissensions in the 
 state. Yet how prone is mankind to glorify the soldier, to elevate the de 
 fender of its hearths and liberties above the champion of liberty in the forum. 
 Is it true that all the solid elements of courage and virtue glitter in the crown 
 of martial success? If this be true, then the Napoleons would outshine the 
 Washingtons ; the Caesars would create events rather than events create the 
 Csesars. While not depreciating the services of such great captains of our 
 war as Grant, Sherman, McClellan, Sheridan, Meade, Hooker, Thomas, 
 McPherson, Farragut, Dupont, or Porter, it must be remembered that there 
 are other names which shine in our country's annals, upon the martial roll of 
 the Confederate armies. These names are yet upon every Southern lip : Lee, 
 Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, Jackson, Hood, Longstreet, 
 Gordon, and many others. But there is still another historic roll, upon 
 which the names of statesmen are found who lifted their stricken communi 
 ties out of the ashes of defeat and despair. Wade Hampton in South Caro 
 lina, George S. Houston in Alabama, Augustus H. Garland in Arkansas, 
 Andrew Johnson in Tennessee, William L. Sharkey in Mississippi, are types 
 of the men who gave their states a new growth and a blessed fruitage. To 
 such men honors more enduring than blood-stained laurels must be awarded. 
 The author of this volume recognized the Roman lesson when, on the sixth 
 day of January, 1861, as a member from Ohio, he denounced secession and 
 pleaded for compromise. He then warned both North and South of the con 
 sequences of war. He made an appeal for nationality while predicting the 
 social chaos which would follow in the wake of conflict. At that time four 
 states only had seceded from the Federal Union. The rest were threatening to 
 follow. It was in such a peril that the heart spontaneously prayed for nearer 
 communication with the Divine prescience. Prosperity had made us proud, 
 rich, intolerant, and self-sufficient. We were, therefore, prone to be rebellious. 
 We were doing well tempestuously well. Our population was increasing 
 at a wonderful rate. The exchanges of the world were being drawn upon 
 
32 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 our great metropolis. We were then called upon to break down and thrust 
 aside the very means of our ascent, the Constitution itself ! We were called 
 upon to do this by zealots of the North and of the South. Time has passed 
 since then. The exasperations of public sentiment are almost forgotten. 
 But neither at that time, nor since, could the author speak of the South in 
 the tone and temper of many of that day. Even that irascible and froward 
 state, South Carolina, had been a part 'of our national life. Her blood was 
 in our veins ; her Marion, Sumpter, and Pinckney were ours ; so were Eutaw, 
 Cowpens, and Camden. These names and fields of fame could not be sepa 
 rated from the Union any more than the dawn from the sun. If reason 
 should fail, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana would assuredly follow the erratic 
 course of South Carolina. The waves of the Gulf were making accordant 
 music in the revolutionary anthem ; and as the dashings of their surges were 
 but the echoes of the excesses of the North, there was cause to fear the worst 
 in the work of disintegration. Yet many were loath to believe that war 
 would come. They trusted in a certain inventive faculty which had never 
 failed us either in mechanical or political expedients. They thought our 
 politics were plastic to every emergency. The writer discussed at that time 
 several peace propositions, the leading one of which was to impress upon 
 the Southern people the idea that secession, in theory or practice, was incon 
 sistent with good government ; that it would be a standing pretext for revolu 
 tion. Every effort of conciliation should, therefore, be exhausted to check it 
 before resorting to force. He held that the North should do her part fully in 
 recession from unconstitutional aggression, so as to unite the Northern people 
 with the conservative portion of the Southern people in repressing secession. 
 He held that if the South should make a patient endeavor, equal to the great 
 occasion, to secure her rights in the Union, she would succeed ; but if she 
 went on inconsiderately the country would have to incur the fearful hazard of 
 war. He believed that if the South should press the one hard, overmastering 
 question upon the North, and follow it with a seizure of forts and revenue, 
 by cannonading our vessels, and other aggressive acts, without giving an op 
 portunity for conciliation, there would be no power in the conservatism of 
 the North to restrain the people, and no sacrifice would be considered too 
 great an offering for the defense of the Union. The consequences of a disso 
 lution were not then exaggerated. In vain might come the solace that it was 
 not like the breaking up of society ; in vain, the hope that it was not anarchy 
 that the link might fall from the chain and still be perfect, though the 
 chain had lost its link and its strength. The experiment revealed the fallacy 
 of such solaces and hopes. The prophecy of the author as to the impending 
 evils at that time at the beginning of the year 1861 was more than ful 
 filled. He then said : 
 
 14 In the uniformity of commercial regulations, in matters of war and 
 peace, postal arrangements, foreign relations, coinage, copyrights, tariff, and 
 
CONSEQUENCES OF DISUNION. 33 
 
 other Federal and national affairs, this great government may be broken ; but 
 in most of the essential liberties and rights which government is the agent to 
 establish and protect, the seceding state has no revolution, and the remaining 
 states can have none. This arises from that refinement of our polity which 
 makes the states the basis of our instituted order. Greece was broken by 
 the Persian power ; but her municipal institutions remained. Hungary has 
 lost her national crown ; but her home institutions remain. But were these 
 curtailments of nationality voluntary ? South Carolina may preserve her con 
 stituted domestic authority ; but she must be content to glimmer obscurely 
 remote, rather than shine and revolve in a constellated band. She even goes 
 out by the ordinance of a so-called sovereign convention, content to lose, by 
 her isolation, that youthful, vehement, exultant, progressive life, which is our 
 NATIONALITY ! She foregoes the hopes, the boasts, the flags, the music, all 
 the emotions, all the traits, and all the energies, which, when combined in 
 our United States, have won our victories in war and our miracles of national 
 advancement. Her Governor, Colonel Pickens, in his inaugural, regretfully 
 * looks back upon the inheritance South Carolina had in the common glories 
 and triumphant power of this wonderful Confederacy,' and he fails ' to find 
 language to express the feelings of the human heart ' as he turns from the 
 contemplation. The ties of brotherhood, interests, lineage, and history are 
 all to be severed. No longer are we to salute a South Carolinian with the 
 eadem sententia de republica which makes unity and nationality. What 
 a prestige and glory are here dimmed and lost in the contaminated reason 
 of man ! 
 
 " Can we realize it? Is it a masquerade, to last for a night, or a reality to 
 be managed with rough, passionate handling? It is sad and bad enough; 
 but let us not overtax our anxieties about it as yet. It is not the sanguinary 
 regimen of the French revolution ; not the rule of assignats and guillotine ; 
 not the cry of 4 Vivent les Rouges ! A mort les gendarmes ! ' but as yet, 
 I hope I may say, the peaceful attempt to withdraw from the burdens and 
 benefits of the Republic. Thus it is unlike every other revolution. Still it 
 is revolution. It may, according as it is managed, involve consequences more 
 terrific than any revolution since government began. 
 
 "I would, therefore, guard against the least recognition of this right of 
 secession, or of nullification, which is the lesser type of the same disease. 
 It would, I say, destroy all government. It would dissolve the united mass 
 of powers now deposited in the Union into thirty-three separate and conflict 
 ing states ; each with a flag, a tariff, an army, a foreign policy, a diversity 
 of interests, and an idiosyncrasy of ideas. Nay, that would be tolerable ; 
 but it would do more and worse. It would disintegrate states, counties, 
 towns ; tear cities from their places on the map ; disorder finances, taxes, 
 revenue, tariffs ; and convert this fabric, now so fair and firm that it seems 
 built on the earth's base, and pillared with the firmament, into a play-house 
 
34 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of cards, built on a base of stubble. It would thus destroy the established 
 order. And is such order nothing among men having views of permanency ? 
 The North has rights, property, interests, relations in the South, not to be 
 sundered without loss; and the South in the North, vice versa. Is this 
 nothing? Is depreciation of property, depression of business, loss and lack 
 of employment, withdrawal of capital, derangement of currency, increase 
 of taxes, miscarriage of public works and enterprise, destruction of state 
 credit, the loss of that national symmetry, geography, strength, name, honor, 
 unity and glory, which publicists tell us are themselves the creators and 
 guardians of cash, credit, and commerce are these consequences nothing? 
 Surely such a mass of complicated interests the growth of years, clinging, 
 with root and fibre, to the eternal rocks of public stability cannot be up- 
 torn without great struggle and stupendous crime. 
 
 " 1 wish that I could contemplate secession as a peaceful remedy. But I 
 cannot. It must be a forcible disruption. The government is framed so 
 compactly in all its parts, that to tear away one part, you must tear the 
 whole fabric asunder. It cannot be done by consent. There is no authority 
 to give consent. The Cons f itution looks to no catastrophe of the kind. It is 
 a voluntary, violent, and ex parte proceeding. A majority of the states, and 
 a great majority of the people, are hostile to it. In this angry and warlike 
 disruption of the compact, where shall we find our ' more perfect Union,' the 
 establishment of justice, domestic tranquillity, provision for the common de 
 fense, the promotion of the general welfare, and the security of the blessings 
 of liberty to ourselves and posterity? " 
 
 To avert such a terrible catastrophe, which has its only analogy in the agi 
 tations of our earth when shaken by the hand of God, almost any use of 
 power would seem to be defensible. But the wisdom of civism teaches that 
 in dealing with a delicate public sentiment, educated upon certain lines of 
 thought for many years, great strength should not be rudely exercised. If the 
 iron hand be necessary it should be gloved in velvet. Firmness should be 
 allied with kindness. Power should assert its own prerogative, but in the 
 name of law and love. Had these elements of reconciliation inspired the 
 amendments to the Constitution and been blended in the policies of recon 
 struction after the war, as President Lincoln proposed and Andrew Johnson 
 endeavored, our government would not so long have been the prey to those 
 who honeycombed its prosperity and demoralized its administration. And 
 there would not have been the same great necessity for the popular uprising 
 in 1876, which gave to the Democracy its suffrage a suffrage expressly 
 given to that party in behalf of reform and principle, although the power to 
 execute the trust was diverted and ravished from it by fraud and force. Nor 
 would there have been the same controlling necessity for the contest of ten 
 millions of men at the ballot-box in the year 1884, m order to vindicate pop 
 ular sovereignty as illustrated in the refined system of polity by which fifty- 
 five millions of people are held together in common nationality. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PARTY CREEDS AND MODES CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION NEW ENGLAND 
 SLAVE TRADE THE COTTON GIN AND THE MULE-JENNY COTTON AND 
 SLAVERY SOUTHERN ANTI-SLAVERY FIRST FREE SOIL VOTE SLAVERY 
 IN THE TERRITORIES THE LOUISIANA AND FLORIDA PURCHASES THE MIS 
 SOURI QUESTION THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS THE KANSAS STRUGGLE 
 THE WHIG PARTY DISBANDS RISE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THE 
 ABOLITIONISTS - JOHN C. CALHOUN. 
 
 THE distinguishing feature between the great political parties of this 
 country is their different modes of construing the Constitution of 
 the United States. A loose construction of law tends to loose govern 
 ment. Loose government leads to loose morals. On the other hand, 
 strict construction is a constant security against excessive, tyrannical, and dis 
 honest policies and conduct. So nearly are these parties divided, that at the 
 recent vote for the electoral ticket, amounting in the aggregate to 10,036,057 
 votes, 4,842,292 were given for one party, and 4,810,219 for the other. The 
 votes given outside of these two parties, including scattering and defective 
 votes, did not amount to 400,000, or, to be more exact, 385,808. 
 
 If one should fix the dividing line between our people in the matter of 
 politics, it must be drawn between the Democratic party and the Republican 
 party. The issues upon which these parties divide in the most conspicuous 
 manner turn upon the hinges of constitutional construction. The latter party 
 construes the Constitution upon latitudinarian theories, by lax methods. It 
 finds its highest sanction for these theories in the Preamble of that instru 
 ment, which says : 
 
 " WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
 Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the com 
 mon Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of 
 Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITU 
 TION for the United States of America " ; and a further sanction in that part 
 of Article L, Section 8, Clause i, which says that: "The Congress shall 
 have Power To . . . provide for the common Defense and general Wei- 
 
36 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 fare of the United States. " The Democratic party regards these general words 
 as being limited by the expressly enumerated grants of power to Congress, 
 which point out the modes by which the object of the Constitution shall be 
 secured. It holds, for example, that the ''common Defense and general 
 Welfare of the United States " are best secured by confining Congress to the 
 exercise of the powers expressly granted ; and that there is no discretion to 
 enlarge these powers. It holds that the implied powers of Congress can be 
 drawn alone from the express powers, and not from the general words of the 
 Preamble. Some of the latter those last above quoted are found in the 
 first clause of the eighth section of the Constitution. Any other mode of 
 construction must leave Congress at liberty to enact any law at its discretion, 
 on a plausible pretext for promoting the welfare of the people. The journals 
 of Congress in the past three decades are full of the records of attempts at 
 such latitudinarian legislation. These attempts, the Democratic party has 
 invariably opposed. It has opposed them as being unconstitutional. They 
 are subversive of the structure and genius of our government. It holds that 
 the tendency of such legislation is to divest the people of the power over their 
 own domestic affairs. Such power all free people should retain in their own 
 hands. 
 
 To show to the unprejudiced reader of the Constitution the evil results of 
 loose construction, it is only necessary to remind him that in the year 1860 
 the Republican party held that justice was overthrown and domestic tran 
 quillity destroyed by the existence of slavery ; that slavery was a perpetual 
 menace to the general welfare ; and that the strife in regard to slavery had 
 its origin in the action of an aristocratic governing class founded upon that 
 institution. This was the view of its best writer upon the " war powers" of 
 the government the Hon. William Whiting, of Boston. There is no doubt 
 that early in the century slavery became irreconcilable, if not with republican 
 institutions, at least with the sentiment of the North. There is no doubt that 
 its championship during the late war became the chief obstacle to the restora 
 tion of Federal relations. But whether slave-holding communities were a 
 privileged class or not, depended not upon the Preamble but upon the extent 
 of the granted powers of the Constitution. If the extent of these powers 
 depended upon a construction of the Preamble in its wide significance, or 
 upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the rights of 
 man, there would be no doubt that the abolitionists of the North had not 
 only constitutional vindication but immense moral emphasis on their side. 
 
 There is no one so hot in his temper or so extreme in his Southern pro 
 clivities as now to defend the institution of slavery or yearn for its re-estab 
 lishment. The progress of our time has long since forbidden it, even if our 
 war had not riddled slavery to its death with the bullet, and even if the 
 Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution had not buried it beyond all 
 thought of resurrection. 
 
SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES. 37 
 
 The conspicuous upheaval of Europe in modern times, led by France, 
 dethroned slavery in 1794. It was never practically established by that 
 country in any of its colonies. England, in 1833, by an act of Parliament 
 proclaimed universal emancipation. Sweden followed in 1844 ; Denmark in 
 1847. Mexico took the lead of England for emancipation. When she be 
 came independent she decreed emancipation. Spain and Brazil were not 
 backward in pursuing the same course; and the Czar of Russia in 1862 
 emancipated the serf. 
 
 It is no defense of slavery to say that it was harmless bondage two or three 
 hundred years ago, while it was a harsh institution in 1860. It was no 
 better when fixed upon the soil of North America by England and New 
 England, in our infancy, than when, by the strength of the cotton interest, it 
 was aggrandized beyond the anticipation of the founders of our government. 
 
 It does not justify the existence of the institution, to recur to the history 
 of its establishment and propagation in America. Suppose it were fixed upon 
 the South against the will of her people, and in despite of the protest of her 
 leading statesmen ; is that any reason to justify the shackling of many mil 
 lions of our human kind ? Nor would it justify slavery that the African slave- 
 trade continued under the protection of the American flag and Constitution. 
 Nor would it justify slavery to prove, by colonial and later records, that the 
 Pilgrim Fathers and their descendants were inseparably and profitably con 
 nected with this trade. It may be true that one of the Pilgrim vessels, a 
 consort of the Mayflower in 1620, landed the first cargo of slaves in Virginia. 
 It is no doubt true that in 1636 a second cargo was brought into the Ameri 
 can colonies, in the ship Desire, of Marblehead. True, it may be, that this 
 cargo was landed at Salem, and that by order of the General Court of the 
 colony the officers of that ship were compensated for their service in keep 
 ing and distributing those slaves. It is true that in 1641 the Massachu 
 setts General Court passed an act authorizing slavery, not only of negroes and 
 criminals, but of Indians. The commercial history of Massachusetts fur 
 nishes us instructions from owners to commanders of slave ships. The 
 slaves were purchased with New England rum. The officers of the ships 
 were paid in rum and slaves ; and by a refinement of elegance, if any old slaves 
 were taken they were " to be close shaved and oiled before going on shore to 
 approve their appearance." The Rev. George Whitfield, through the in 
 strumentality of certain men of New England, took slaves to Georgia against 
 the protest of Governor Winthrop and the trustees of the colony. Up to 
 177*5 the Legislature of Virginia had at twenty-three different times passed 
 acts prohibiting the importation of slaves into that colony ; but through the 
 influence of Massachusetts slave-traders, the king would not allow the en 
 forcement of these acts. Suppose these facts to be historic, what do they im 
 ply? It is well known that Mr. Jefferson, in his draft of the Declaration of 
 Independence, made that action of the king one of the " repeated injuries and 
 
38 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 usurpations" designed to reduce the colonies " under absolute despotism." 
 It is also known that a special committee, of which a Massachusetts member 
 was chairman, struck out this protest. In 1780 Massachusetts adopted a 
 Constitution which contained the Jeffersonian declaration that liberty was an 
 inalienable right. A distinguished Democrat of that state, Theodore Sedg- 
 wick, raised the point, which after eight years of litigation was sustained by 
 the court, that slavery was thereby abolished. 
 
 It is unnecessary to recount the various acts of the people of this country 
 whereby they early undertook to evince their hatred of slavery. But when 
 the raising of cotton became profitable, slavery received a new impulse, and 
 from that time became more or less aggressive. 
 
 The year 1770 marks the period when the planters in the South began to 
 turn their attention to cotton-raising. The value of negro slave labor was 
 not then so much appreciated as in later years. This fact will explain the 
 absence of the word " slavery" from the Constitution when it was originally 
 adopted. It was then expected that the institution would soon die out. In 
 colonial times there was an idea that the upland cotton of America could not 
 be profitably used in textile manufactures. As late as 1787? no cotton was 
 exported from North America. That year, Great Britain imported 32,800,- 
 ooo pounds from the West Indies, the French, Dutch, and Portuguese 
 colonies, and the Turkish dominions. In 1792 the United States exported 
 only 138,328 pounds. For many years following, little or no cotton was 
 consumed in our manufactures. American cotton was not as clean as that 
 baled elsewhere. Labor could be better employed than in giving it the 
 necessary manipulation. But in the year 1795 Eli Whitney, of Massachu 
 setts, invented the cotton-gin. The effect on cotton production was remark 
 able. In the year 1807 we exported 55,018,449 pounds of this staple. In 
 1831 the export was 619,000 bales to Great Britain, 1*27,000 to France, and 
 27,000 to other countries. In 1845 our crop amounted to 2,100,537 bales. 
 In the year 1775 tnat ingenious English weaver, Samuel Crompton, com 
 bined the drawing-roller of Arkwright with the jenny of Hargreave, and 
 produced that beautiful, complex machine, to which he gave the appropriate 
 name of the mule-jenny. About the same period the celebrated Scotchman, 
 Watt, was engaged in successfully applying his steam-engine to the opera 
 tion of moving factory machinery. These three men an Englishman, a 
 Scotchman, and an American, made cotton-raising one of the leading in 
 dustries of the world. Their inventions greatly benefited mankind ; but 
 they also increased the value of negro slaves to an extent never thought of 
 by the framers of the Constitution. With a steady and ever-advancing 
 market for American cotton, was it strange that pecuniary interests in the 
 South should strive for the maintenance of slavery? Is it strange that 
 pecuniary interests now demand concessions to the cotton-factories of New 
 England, in which the labor system is as hard on the operatives as ever 
 
PURITAN PRACTICES. 39 
 
 slavery was in the South ? It is easy to be a philanthropist when pecun 
 iary interests are not involved. Yet, notwithstanding the strong induce 
 ments to the spread of slavery in fields where no other form of labor was 
 possible, it must be said to the credit of the American people, that they 
 were among the first opponents to the slave-trade. The destruction of that 
 trade was in great measure due to their persistent efforts. The writer of 
 this volume, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, even during 
 the anxieties of the Civil War, took part in assaulting the slave-trade upon 
 the African coast, by international and Federal action. The first debate he 
 ever had in Congress was with Joshua R. Giddings, the celebrated Abol 
 itionist of Ohio, who contended that when the Democratic party came into 
 power with Mr. Buchanan, it was committed to the slave-trade ; although by 
 this, as he explained afterwards, he did not mean the slave-trade from Africa, 
 but the inter-state slave-trade. 
 
 Slavery in the British-American colonies was not a peculiar institution 
 of the South. It was introduced into all the colonies. It was cherished 
 and sustained by the local laws of each of them. It was not repelled from 
 the cold North by any sentiment among the people. It is to climatic influ 
 ences, rather than to a love of liberty, that the Northern states owe their 
 early riddance of the institution. Northern people are apt to believe that 
 their ancestors, like themselves, regarded the enslaving a fellow-being as a 
 crime in the sight of Heaven. But their own colonial statutes furnish evi 
 dence that even the Puritans of New England were not averse to slavery. 
 The " Forefathers" had virtues which are still celebrated as those of a race 
 chosen by the Almighty. They were a peculiar people, and yet they were 
 slave-holders. They had their "slave-codes." Their codes might have 
 served as models for the ultra slave-holding southwestern communities of 
 thirty years ago. Colonial New- York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were 
 little, if any, more troubled than their New England neighbors in respect to 
 the morality of the " institution." The slave-codes of the colonies are evi 
 dence that the great mass of the people sustained slavery. In New Eng 
 land, in the days when slavery was sanctioned by rigid laws, no one was 
 allowed to vote who was not a member of the established Puritan, or Con 
 gregational church. And in the oth^r Northern states the right of suffrage 
 was far from being universal. 
 
 In those good old days it was the " saints " and the better sort of people 
 the elect and the electors and not the sinners and base fellows, who 
 practiced slave-holding and prescribed slave-codes. Then, Rum and Reli 
 gion formed a sweeter euphony than in days more recent and eventful. 
 
 Mr. William Goodell, a high anti-slavery authority, in his work entitled 
 Slavery and Anti- Slavery, says of the introduction of slaves : 
 
 " The colonies now known as the Southern or Slave States, on the At 
 lantic Coast, received the principal share of these importations. The mid- 
 
40 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 die and eastern colonies received comparatively few, and these chiefly for 
 domestic servants in the cities, and in the families of professional gentlemen 
 in the interior. As the soil was not adapted to slave culture, and was 
 owned in small farms by a hardy race of agriculturists, inured to habits of 
 labor, the process of cultivation by slaves never obtained, particularly in 
 New England, except to a very limited extent. In New-York, first settled 
 by the Dutch, in New Jersey, and perhaps in some portions of Pennsylva 
 nia, the labor of slaves was introduced to a greater extent than further east. 
 But in the importation of slaves for the Southern colonies, the merchants of 
 the New England sea-ports competed with those of New- York and the 
 South. They appear, indeed, to have outstripped them, and to have 
 almost monopolized, at one time, the immense profits of that lucrative but 
 detestable trade. Boston, Salem, and Newburyport in Massachusetts, and 
 Newport and Bristol in Rhode Island, amassed in the persons of a few 
 of their citizens, vast sums of this rapidly acquired and ill-gotten wealth, 
 which, in many instances, quite as rapidly, and very remarkably, took to 
 itself wings and flew away. In some cases, however, it remained, and formed 
 the basis of the capital of some prominent mercantile houses, almost or 
 quite down to the present time. Citizens, honored with high posts of ofHce 
 in the state and Federal governments, have owed their rank in society, and 
 their political elevation, to the wealth thus acquired ; sometimes thus ac 
 quired by themselves since the colonies became states, and while the traffic 
 was tolerated, as it was, till the year 1808." 
 
 Such is the frank statement of honest William Goodell, the radical aboli 
 tionist and historian. Slavery in early New England was of a mild type. 
 It was confined chiefly to the domestic service. Yet not even in Connecticut 
 was there any recognition of the legality and validity of a slave's marriage. 
 From the same source we derive still more discreditable illustration. A 
 pastor was the owner of a male and a female slave. He had admitted them 
 both to the communion of his Congregational church. He had officially 
 pronounced them husband and wife. Afterwards he separated them forever 
 by the sale of the wife to a distant purchaser, in spite of the entreaties of 
 both wife and husband. Was there no court of law, no church, no ecclesi 
 astical body to interpose or even censure ? None whatever. In " Massachu 
 setts," Mr. Goodell says, "another Congregational pastor, of high reputa 
 tion, is said to have reared up a female slave in his family in a state of almost 
 absolute heathenism, and never attempted to teach her the alphabet." Mr. 
 Goodell states that during the colonial period, and long after independence 
 was declared, " a large portion of the ministers of religion in New England 
 were among the slave-holding class of the community" ; and that " many of 
 the present ministers of New England are the sons, and most of them the 
 successors, of slave-holding ministers." 
 
 So late as 1831, Mr. Arthur Tappan, the Rev. Simeon S. Jocelyn, and 
 other Connecticut gentlemen proposed to establish a school in New Haven 
 
VIEWS OF THE EARLY STATESMEN. 41 
 
 for the education of colored people ; but so violent was the opposition that 
 they were forced to abandon the enterprise. In 1833, Miss Prudence Cran- 
 dall was prosecuted and imprisoned for teaching a school of colored children 
 at Canterbury, in the same state. 
 
 Such historical facts should have been kept in view while the anti-slavery 
 controversy was in progress. If Northern philanthropists and public men 
 had freely admitted them, their arguments would have had far more weight 
 with Southern men. With such an ancestry and history, the people of New 
 England could ill afford to assume the attitude of the Pharisee, and say to 
 the South, " I am holier than thou." 
 
 But slavery gradually disappeared in New England. It vanished from 
 all the states north of Mason's and Dixon's line. The anti-slavery sentiment 
 which was early developed grew apace, as the evil receded before climatic 
 causes. The growth of intelligence gave strength to the spirit of liberty. 
 After the middle of the eighteenth century it gave new force to the judgment 
 of history against slavery. When the Revolution of 177^ came on, there 
 were few enlightened men, north or south, who did not deplore the evils of 
 slavery. 
 
 It has been said in a preceding page of this chapter that the cultivation 
 of cotton, which rapidly developed during the first half of the present cent 
 ury, had the effect of greatly enhancing the value of slave labor. There 
 was a worse consequence. Southern sentiment changed in regard to the 
 institution. When the chief staples peculiar to the South were rice and 
 indigo, the strong pro-slavery sentiment was confined to South Carolina and 
 Georgia. When cotton, which could be profitably cultivated in all the 
 states south of Virginia and Kentucky, became the great staple of the world's 
 commerce, the area for the employment of slaves became co-extensive with 
 the South. The progressive demand for cotton in Europe and America 
 more than kept pace with its production. It was thought desirable to ac 
 quire new territories adapted to its growth. Hence the Southern people 
 became sensitive on the subject of slavery. Their interests made them more 
 tenacious of their rights, as citizens of independent and co-equal states. 
 They were intensely jealous of the interference from abroad with their 
 domestic affairs. 
 
 The preservation of slavery was not regarded, in the South, as a matter 
 of vital importance during, or for some time after, the Revolutionary era. 
 This is manifest from the positions taken with reference to it by leading pub 
 lic men. Most Southern statesmen regarded it as a great evil. They lamented 
 their inability to remove it. This was the attitude of all the great Vir 
 ginians. The list includes among many others of note, Washington, Jeffer 
 son, Madison, Monroe, Henry, George Mason, Wythe, and John Randolph. 
 The leading men of Maryland did not regard slavery with favor. James Ire- 
 dell, of North Carolina, afterwards a judge of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, Dr. Hugh Williamson, and other eminent men of that state 
 were equally pronounced against slavery. 
 
42 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Under the constitution of North Carolina of 1776, the free people of 
 color were recognized as citizens and voters. The following brief extract 
 from the journals of the Continental Congress shows what so eminent a 
 man as Mr. Jefferson thought of the power to exclude slavery from the ter 
 ritories under the Articles of Confederation, and of the duty of Congress in 
 the premises : 
 
 April 19, 1784. "Congress took into consideration the report of a 
 committee, consisting of Mr. Jefferson [of Virginia], Mr. Chase [of 
 Maryland] , and Mr. Howell [of Rhode Island] , to whom was recommitted 
 their report of a plan for a temporary government of the western territory ; 
 
 " When a motion was made by Mr. Speight [of N. Carolina], seconded 
 by Mr. Read [of S. Carolina], to strike out the following paragraph: 
 
 " 'That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither 
 slavery nor unvoluntary servitude in any of the said states [new states to be 
 formed], otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 have been convicted to have been personally guilty.' 
 
 " And on the question, Shall the words moved to be struck out stand? 
 (in other words, shall the motion be rejected), the yeas and nays being re 
 quired by Mr. Howell, the vote was : 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mr. Foster, Aye. 
 
 Mr. Blanchard, Aye. 
 MASSACHUSETTS, Mr. Gerry, Aye. 
 
 Mr. Partridge, Aye. 
 RHODE ISLAND, Mr. Ellery, Aye. 
 
 Mr. Howell, Aye. 
 CONNECTICUT, Mr. Sherman, Aye. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth, Aye. 
 NEW- YORK, Mr. DeWitt, Aye. 
 
 Mr. Paine, Aye. 
 
 NEW JERSEY, Mr. Dick, Aye. 
 PENNSYLVANIA, Mr. Mifflin, Aye. ) 
 
 Mr. Montgomery, Aye. >Aye. 
 
 Mr. Hand, Aye. ) 
 
 MARYLAND, Mr. McHenry, No. 
 
 Mr. Slone, No. 5 No * 
 
 VIRGINIA, Mr. Jefferson, Aye. } 
 
 Mr. Hardy, No. ( No. 
 
 Mr. Mercer, No. ) 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA, Mr. Williamson, Aye. ) 
 
 Mr. Speight, No. J Divided - 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA, Mr. Read, No. ) 
 
 Mr. Beresford, No. \ No< 
 
THE TERRITORY WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. 43 
 
 " So the question was lost, and the words were struck out." 
 The Articles of Confederation between the thirteen states required the 
 assent of at least seven to every ordinance or law. Measures of importance 
 required the concurrence of nine states. Each state was entitled to one vote, 
 but might send to the Congress from two to seven members ; never less than 
 two, nor more than seven. But it was necessary for them, or a majority of 
 them, to agree among themselves on every question. Thus only could they 
 give an effective vote. If equally divided, their votes counted for nothing, 
 as in the above case in which the two delegates from North Carolina voted, 
 one aye, and the other no. In the case of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson's vote 
 was overcome by that of his two colleagues. As each state was required to 
 have at least two delegates, the single vote of Mr. Dick, of New Jersey, 
 could not be counted. Mr. Chase, of Maryland, seems not to have been 
 present. The Articles fail to state whether the making of ordinances for 
 the government of the territories required more than seven votes, but the 
 great importance of the measure would seem to place it in the category of 
 those requiring nine votes. If only seven were necessary, then the anti- 
 slavery ordinance of Mr. Jefferson was defeated by the accidental absence of 
 a member from New Jersey. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that this anti-slavery ordinance of the great 
 Virginian covered the whole Territory of the United States, down to the 
 southern boundary. That boundary was then the thirty-first parallel of lati 
 tude. It included what was afterwards Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and 
 Mississippi. Louisiana and Florida were then foreign territories. 
 
 If Mr. Jefferson had had for colleagues, Mr. Madison and George Mason, 
 Patrick Henry, or George Wythe, the vote of Virginia would have been 
 in favor of this anti-slavery ordinance. If Dr. Hugh Williamson had had 
 for a colleague, James Iredell, it is probable that the vote of North Carolina 
 would have been on the same side. But would a congressional ordinance 
 for the exclusion of slavery from those southern territories have been 
 effectual? Hardly. Still, the fact that Mr. Jefferson, always a popular fa 
 vorite in the South, presented and voted for the ordinance, shows that slavery 
 was at that day far from being regarded as a vital interest of the South. 
 
 The acquisition of Louisiana, which embraced the whole of the territory 
 west of the Mississippi River, except what is now Texas, and that pur 
 chased or obtained from Mexico, cannot be charged to the spirit of slavery 
 propagandism. The diplomatic correspondence on the subject of the pur 
 chase leaves no doubt on this point. Neither Mr. Jefferson nor any member 
 of his Cabinet, nor Mr. Robert R. Livingston, of New- York, the Minister 
 to France, who carried on the negotiation, nor Mr. Monroe, the special en 
 voy sent out with the last instructions from Washington, had the remotest 
 idea of making such a proposal. When Napoleon made the offer through 
 his Secretary of Foreign Affairs, it was not regarded with favor by Mr. Liv- 
 
44 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ingston, nor Mr. Monroe. They greatly feared that if they so far exceeded 
 their instructions as to enter into a convention on that offer, their act would 
 not be sustained by the President and by Congress. It was only when 
 Napoleon made it an ultimatum, that they agreed to take that vast territory. 
 The price paid was the pitiful sum of fifteen millions of dollars. But it is 
 a precious memento of Democratic sagacity beyond computation. The in 
 structions were to acquire the east bank of the Mississippi down to the Gulf, 
 and as much of Florida as was practicable. Florida lay contiguous to 
 Georgia, to the Alabama and Mississippi Territories, and near to South Car 
 olina. The Florida Indians, or Spanish and English traders among them, 
 were likely to give great annoyance to our southern frontiers. 
 
 Strange to say, the value and importance of the country west of the Mis 
 sissippi was then greatly underrated. It was not until the purchase had been 
 made that our statesmen began to realize that an acquisition of incalculable 
 value and incomparable destiny had been thrust upon them. If the slave- 
 holding interest had been aggressive then, as it was thirty years later, Texas 
 would have been included in the purchase ; but the truth is, that to the most 
 far-seeing statesmen of that day, the time seemed indefinitely remote when 
 the South would need an outlet for the slave population. 
 
 Neither was the acquisition of Florida, sixteen years later, prompted by 
 the spirit of slavery propagandism. When that took place, Mr. Monroe 
 was President, but John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State. It was the 
 Massachusetts statesman who negotiated the purchase. The object was to 
 extend our borders to the Gulf. The control of a country which had be 
 come a source of annoyance would thus be secured. Slavery existed in 
 Florida, under Spanish rule. There was no likelihood that Florida would 
 ever fall into hands unfriendly to the institution ; for England then, no less 
 than France and Spain, had her slave-holding colonies. If the attempt had 
 been made to exclude slavery from Florida when the territory was purchased, 
 the storm of opposition on the part of the South would have exceeded that 
 which followed the similar attempt in regard to Missouri. But nothing of 
 the kind occurred. 
 
 Strong opposition was made by Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, to the 
 admission of Louisiana as a state. He was sustained in this course by his 
 constituents. He contended that it was a flagrant violation of the Constitu 
 tion, because there was no provision for the admission of states formed on 
 territories which were not owned by the Union when the Constitution was 
 framed. The predominant feeling in New England at that time was one of 
 opposition to Southern aggrandizement, rather than to slavery in its moral 
 aspects. New England was violently opposed to the war with Great 
 Britain, and the admission of Louisiana would give strength to the war 
 party in the country. The opponents of admission naturally appealed to 
 the moral sentiments of the people on the question of slavery, but this oppo- 
 
THE FIRST ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION. 45 
 
 sition to slavery was by no means the controlling motive in opposing the 
 admission of Louisiana as a state. 
 
 The first great anti-slavery agitation arose in connection with the meas 
 ures looking to the admission of Missouri as a state of the Union. The 
 American emigrants to that country had gone chiefly from Virginia, Ken 
 tucky, and Tennessee ; many took with them their slaves. They were pre 
 ceded by the French, who early in the eighteenth century had made settle 
 ments at St.* Louis and other points. The French had introduced slavery. 
 When application was made by the people of the territory for admission 
 into the Union as a state, the constitution presented by them contained a 
 clause which recognized the existence of the institution. The anti-slavery 
 sentiment of the North, backed by the political or sectional jealously which 
 had begun to be aroused by diversity gf interests, was inflamed. This at 
 tempt to establish slavery in the vast region beyond the Mississippi was a 
 provocation and an incentive. The South became wildly intolerant of oppo 
 sition. It became keenly alive to the greatness of the issue. Whatever of 
 sentimental opposition to slavery there was in that region was crushed. 
 Even Mr. Jefferson, in his quiet retreat at Monticello, was deeply agitated. 
 He sounded the note of warning. He declared in letters to his friends 
 that the news of the violent opposition to the admission of Missouri fell 
 upon his ears like a fire-bell in the night. Mr. Clay, then comparatively a 
 young man, but never wedded to slavery, resisted the Northern attempt to 
 prohibit the expansion of the institution. 
 
 The support of the claims of slavery to recognition by the Constitution 
 thus became, in the South, the political touchstone. 
 
 It was not so easy to unite the North in opposition to this claim. The 
 opposition proposed to sectionalize, or localize the institution, by prohibit 
 ing it in the territories. A succession of events, of great importance, all 
 tended to this result. This Missouri question was the first of the great dis 
 turbing elements. After a long and bitter controversy upon the admission of 
 that young state, a compromise was agreed upon. The North and the South 
 may be said to have been parties to this compact, though it was repealable 
 like all laws. The state was admitted with its pro-slavery constitution. The 
 same act prohibited slavery in all the territories north and west of it, down 
 to the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. There was no pro 
 vision for the admission or exclusion of slavery south of that line. 
 
 This Missouri question gave rise to the first heated and extended agita 
 tion on the subject of slavery. It laid the foundation for future controver 
 sies. It ultimately led to war. 
 
 The second great agitation on slavery, as a political, moral, and social 
 question, arose in connection with the annexation of Texas. That vast 
 Mexican province was thinly peopled by an ignorant and feeble race. It 
 began to be overrun by planters with their slaves from our Southern States. 
 
46 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 This movement occurred about the close of the first quarter of the present 
 century. In the course of ten years they became its masters. In 1836 they 
 declared independence. They set up a republican form of government, 
 with slavery as an existing institution. From the first, there was a strong 
 feeling in favor of annexation to the United States. This event was brought 
 abouUn the spring of 1845, near the close of John Tyler's administration. 
 To Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, then Secretary of State, is due the chief 
 merit of the acquisition. He hesitated not to avow that annexation was 
 necessary to the preservation of slavery. 
 
 This measure was the great issue between the parties in the Presidential 
 canvass of 1844. It led to the overthrow of the leaders of both the great 
 parties. Both President Van Buren and Mr. Clay, though differing widely 
 upon other questions, agreed upon the question of annexation. 
 
 The former, in a public letter, said he opposed annexation on the ground 
 that Texas had been a province of a country with which we were at peace ; 
 and that annexation would be an act of war, or lead to a declaration of war 
 by Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Clay, in a public letter, said : " I consider the annexation of Texas at 
 this time, without the assent of Mexico, as a measure compromising the na 
 tional character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico, probably with 
 other foreign powers, dangerous to the integrity of the Union, inexpedient 
 in the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any 
 general expression of public opinion." 
 
 This expression of opinion on the part of Mr. Clay was afterwards 
 July i, 1844, qualified by a letter to a Southern friend. It is thought by 
 many that this led to his defeat. He said : "As to the idea of courting the 
 abolitionists, it is perfectly absurd. No man in the United States has been 
 half as much abused by them as I have been. . . . Personally I could 
 have no objection to the annexation of Texas ; but I certainly would be un 
 willing to see the present Union dissolved, or seriously jeoparded, for the 
 sake of acquiring Texas." 
 
 This expression of indifference to the acquisition of slave-holding terri 
 tory lost to Mr. Clay thousands of Northern votes ; while, as he retracted 
 nothing of his original declaration, it gained him none in the South. He 
 was nominated by the convention without opposition, and there can be no 
 doubt that he had more warm personal friends than any man in America. 
 
 Mr. Van Buren, too, was the favorite of his party. A decided majority 
 of the convention were his pronounced friends. They gave him 146 votes, 
 against 120 for all others. But Mr. Hammond, in his valuable political his 
 tory of New-York, charges that many delegates who were instructed to vote 
 for him were his secret political foes, and conspired with his open oppo 
 nents to defeat him by voting with them for the rule which required two- 
 thirds of the votes to effect a nomination. It was charged that Mr. 
 
AGGRESSIVE PRO-SLAVERY POLICY. 47 
 
 Buchanan, and Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, were in the conspiracy. 
 Under that rule.it became apparent, after seven ballots, that Mr. Van Buren 
 could not receive the requisite two-thirds of the ballots ; when his friend, 
 Benjamin F. Butler, of New-York, by his authority, withdrew his name. 
 
 Silas Wright, of New-York, might have been received in Mr. Van 
 Buren's place ; but he peremptorily declined to have his name used, for a 
 two-fold and honorable reason. It might appear like bad faith to his friend, 
 Mr. Van Buren ; while it would mislead the public, inasmuch as he fully 
 subscribed to the views expressed by Mr. Van Buren on the question of an 
 nexation. For like reasons Mr. Wright declined the nomination for the 
 Vice-Presidency. 
 
 Some controversy ensued from these events. 
 
 Mr. Polk was nominated with the understanding that as the friend of 
 General Jackson, he was also the friend of Mr. Van Buren. The Demo 
 crats of Tennessee were understood to be his friends. But when Mr. Polk 
 came into office he appointed to high places the men who had conspired 
 against Mr. Van Buren. At least, this is the statement of Mr. Hammond, 
 who says : 
 
 " After Mr. Folk's election, Mr. Buchanan, who at the convention influ 
 enced the delegation of Pennsylvania against Mr. Van Buren, was ap 
 pointed Secretary of State. Mr. Walker, a most zealous opponent in the 
 convention of Mr. Van Buren, was made Secretary of the Treasury ; Mr. 
 Cave Johnson, the confidential friend of the New-York delegation, received 
 the office of Postmaster-General ; and on General Saunders (the mover of 
 the two-thirds rule) was conferred a foreign mission." 
 
 It has also been stated that Mr. Polk discarded Messrs. Blair and Rives, 
 the friends of Mr. Van Buren, as editors and publishers of the party organ 
 in Washington. An organ was in those days regarded as an indispensable 
 institution to the party in power. Mr. Polk selected Mr. Ritchie of the 
 Richmond Enquirer for that confidential and lucrative post. Mr. Benton, 
 in his Thirty Tears' View, calls attention to this fact. He states that the 
 change was made on the demand of the South Carolina delegation, as a con 
 dition of their support. 
 
 To return from this explanatory digression, the election of Mr. Polk 
 was the triumph of the active, aggressive policy of the Southern friends of 
 slavery extension in the Union, over the passive, evasive course of the Whigs, 
 and of the Northern Democrats. 
 
 James G. Birney became the anti-slavery candidate for the Presidency. 
 He received 62,300 votes in the entire Union. Of these, New- York gave 
 him 15,812. This was enough to have turned the scale in favor of Mr. 
 Clay, and to have made him President. Mr. Van Buren's plurality in New- 
 York was only 5,109. Mr. Folk's plurality over Mr. Clay in the Union was 
 38,175; while the combined votes of Messrs. Clay and Birney exceeded 
 the vote of Mr. Polk by 24,125. 
 
48 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The annexation of Texas led to a war with Mexico. It was followed by 
 the acquisition of vast territories. Further and greater controversies about 
 slavery extension were aroused. 
 
 California was brought into the Union without an enabling act. The 
 people assembled in convention without the authority of Congress. They 
 framed a constitution which prohibited slavery. The state was admitted 
 with this anti-slavery constitution. It involved a desperate struggle with 
 the slave-holding interests. This result was planned, though not consum 
 mated, durmg the administration of General Taylor, a large Louisiana planter. 
 He died July n, 1850, and California was admitted as a state of the Union 
 on September 9th of the same year. 
 
 In view of the ultimate results of these sectional struggles, how frail and 
 pitiable appears our human wisdom ! The South, in the interests of slavery, 
 succeeded in annexing Texas. Other vast Mexican territories were ac 
 quired, over which it was hoped that slavery would be extended and perpet 
 uated. The North, or a large party in the North, resisted the annexation 
 and acquisition of Mexican territory. The resistance came solely from 
 motives of opposition to slavery and its extension. But the triumphant party 
 soon found that a large part of the golden prize was appropriated by their 
 opponents ; and in the end the institution of slavery itself tottered to its fall. 
 
 The deep fracture in the Democratic ranks caused by the defeat of Mr. 
 Van Buren's nomination in 1844 was never healed. It led to the candidacy 
 of Mr. Van Buren on the " Free Soil" ticket, and to the defeat of the party 
 under the leadership of General Cass, in 1848. Mr. Van Buren led a for 
 lorn hope. He had the splendors of his son's rhetoric, which aroused a 
 dormant sentiment. The votes of a majority of the party in the State of 
 New- York were given to him. The vote for General Taylor, the Whig 
 candidate, was 218,603; Mr. Van Buren received 120,510; and General 
 Cass, the regular candidate of the party, only 114,318. In the Union, Mr. 
 Van Buren, who was cordially supported by the anti-slavery party, or that 
 portion of it which voted at all, received 291,263 votes. 
 
 In 1852, the anti-slavery candidate, John P. Hale, received only 156,149. 
 This result shows that the merely personal following of Mr. Van Buren 
 returned to the Democratic fold when he was no longer in the field. 
 
 In 1850, a sort of compromise of the slavery controversy was effected. 
 It was far from being satisfactory to the abolitionists, and the extreme pro- 
 slavery party. It served, however, to remove from prominent view any 
 question calculated to arouse popular feeling. 
 
 It is true that the fugitive-slave act of 1850 was well calculated to keep 
 up and did foster agitation. It produced almost daily causes of irritation 
 and excitement. Anti-slavery sentiment fed upon this food. It became 
 the subject, and furnished the incidents of the most exciting story of the 
 age, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Millions of copies were circulated. It was 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. 49 
 
 translated into every language of Christendom. It awakened a sentiment 
 against slavery, akin in degree and intensity to that which Peter the Her 
 mit aroused against the Moslem occupants of the Holy Land the de- 
 filers of the Holy Sepulchre. 
 
 In December, 1853, Senator Douglas, of Illinois, introduced a bill to 
 organize the vast Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. He desired them to 
 be under one government, and on the basis of the existing Missouri Compro 
 mise. These territories all lay north of 36, 30', and slavery had been pro 
 hibited throughout its extent, by the act which admitted the State of Mis 
 souri into the Union. Mr. Dixon, a Whig Senator from the State of Ken 
 tucky, moved to amend the bill by declaring the repeal of the anti-slavery 
 provision. This startling proposition from a Whig emboldened the South 
 ern Senators and Representatives to take, almost in a body, similar ground. 
 It is within the author's personal knowledge that Mr. Douglas was averse 
 to the Dixon proposition. Reluctantly he amended his bill by adopting 
 Dixon's proposition. He undertook to defend it on a principle. He de 
 cided to divide the territory into two governments. He thought to make 
 one slave, and one free state. He proposed, but events disposed of his 
 scheme. 
 
 In connection with this measure he enunciated his doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty. This doctrine assumed that the citizens of each separate com 
 munity had the right to shape their institutions to suit themselves ; and to ad 
 mit or exclude slavery as they should see fit. It denied that the Constitution 
 by its own vigor, carried slavery to the territories. 
 
 For a time this theory of the Constitution appeared to be acceptable to 
 the South. But it failed to secure the admission of Kansas with slavery, as 
 it had failed in California. The Southern politicians thereupon rebelled 
 against it. The position was boldly assumed by them, that the Constitution 
 established and guaranteed the right of slave-holding in all the territories of 
 the Union ; and that an act of Congress, or an act of a territorial legislature 
 providing for the exclusion of slavery, would be an invasion of the constitu 
 tional rights of the South, a spoliation of property, and an infraction of a 
 settled compact. 
 
 These pretensions of the pro-slavery school of politicians tended greatly to 
 strengthen and augment the anti-slavery party. It divided the old parties 
 The Democracy lost some of its most brilliant defenders. The struggle for the 
 possession of Kansas, between the " Free-soilers " and the pro-slavery party, 
 enlisted the Northern people on one side, and the Southern on the other. 
 There never was such a political conflict. It was the precursor of war. 
 The effect was to intensify the anti-slavery and the pro-slavery sentiment of 
 the country. It did more. It nearly crushed out the Democratic party. It 
 arrayed its members against each other. The conflict in Kansas involved, 
 for a time, physical force rather than reason. 
 
50 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The John Brown raid was a flagrant violation of the rights of Virginia. 
 It seemed at first to injure the anti-slavery cause ; but all sympathy with it 
 was promptly disclaimed by the Republican leaders. Its origin has not 
 been traced beyond the narrow circle of Brown's fanatical associates. No 
 man who was not a fit subject for the mad-house could fairly be suspected 
 of sympathizing with an enterprise which was as preposterous as it was 
 criminal. 
 
 The Whig party may be said to have disbanded soon after the Presiden 
 tial election of 1852. The Northern and Southern wings could no longer 
 harmonize on the slavery question. In their desperate efforts to find new 
 common ground to stand on, and new issues upon which to dispute the as 
 cendency of the Democrats, they selected the narrow and illiberal one of re 
 stricting the rights of foreigners who come to this country to reside. It 
 aimed at the political ostracism of Roman Catholics. But the pre-eminent 
 importance of the slavery controversy overrode these side issues ; and the 
 effect of the American organization was to alienate those who might other 
 wise have co-operated against the rising party of anti-slavery. 
 
 The first serious struggle by the Republicans for power in the Nation 
 was made in 1855. In that year began the famous contest over the Speaker- 
 ship, which, after one hundred and thirty-three ballots, resulted in the elec 
 tion of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts. A bare majority of the 
 House of Representatives was then secured by them. The great success 
 of the new party was the legitimate fruit of the pro-slavery policy. The 
 repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the attempts to force slavery into 
 Kansas against the wishes of the people gave great impulse to the new party. 
 In the following year, 1856, the Republicans made a formidable effort to 
 elect a President. They were defeated under their leader, John C. Fremont, 
 by James Buchanan. They then took the lead of the " Americans," as the 
 great party of opposition to the Democracy. In that election, Mr. Buchanan 
 received 1,838,169 of the popular vote, and 174 electoral votes. Mr. Fre 
 mont received 1,341,264 of the popular vote, and 114 electoral votes. Mr. 
 Fillmore, the American candidate, received 874,534 of the popular vote, 
 and only eight electoral votes. 
 
 While other writers have dwelt elaborately upon the teterrima causa 
 belli, to wit, slavery, and exhaustively traced its influence from its earliest es 
 tablishment in our hemisphere, the author is content to make a less elaborate 
 chapter upon that head. Slavery has been called the trembling needle 
 which pointed the course amidst the tumultuous discussions of our Con 
 gresses until the Civil War began. From Jan. 31, 1831, when William 
 Lloyd Garrison established the Liberator, the discussion was never remiss 
 upon any opportunity by the slavery and anti-slavery zealots. The motto of 
 the abolitionist was immediate and unconditional emancipation. Consider 
 ing the relation of slavery to civilization, this sealed its fate. In 1833 the 
 
THE NORTHERN ABOLITIONISTS. 51 
 
 American Anti-slavery Society made the conflict flagrant. The right of peti 
 tion, the safeguard of the Constitution, and the fugitive-slave law were 
 only incidental and inflammatory topics leading to the one main question. In 
 the North, abolitionists were hunted by mobs ; but they were not hunted so 
 much because they were abolitionists as because the great body of people at 
 that time believed that the agitation of the slavery question would jeopard 
 the Union. The Constitution had been called u a covenant with hell." 
 But slavery could only be legally ostracized and crushed by an amendment 
 of that instrument. This it received at the end of the war, in the mode pre 
 scribed by the framers of the Constitution. The question was finally settled 
 by the defeat of the secession movement, which was designed to maintain 
 slavery in full vigor on this continent. 
 
 When, in 1856, Mr. Seward declared that there was an ; irrepressible 
 conflict " between freedom and slavery, his political opponents charged and 
 believed that his purpose was to bring about the conflict. They regarded 
 him as an unscrupulous demagogue, who was willing to inflame popular 
 passions at the risk of producing cr\fil war, if he could thereby make himself 
 President of the United States. But now, in the light of American history, 
 all candid readers will admit that whatever may have been the motive of 
 that great statesman, he enunciated the truth in trenchant language. For, 
 from the foundation of the government down to the era of the Civil War, 
 the collisions and irritations between our incongruous social forces became 
 more and more frequent and exasperating as the progress of population 
 brought them into closer contact. The increasing facilities of intercourse 
 made it easier for slaves to run away. The Constitution required that the 
 runaways should be u delivered up " to their masters ; and the fugitive-slave 
 acts required that the surrender should be made without a trial by jury. 
 Such proceedings naturally awakened a strong feeling among Northern peo 
 ple in regard to the injustice of slavery, the inconsistency of the system with 
 the principles of civil liberty, and their own responsibility for the existence 
 and enforcement of the unjust laws. The extension of slavery into the terri 
 tories was another great source of irritation and alienation of feeling between 
 Northern and Southern men. It involved the moral responsibility of North 
 ern communities in the sin of spreading the institution over the continent ; 
 while at the same time, slavery extension served to strengthen the political 
 power and influence of slave-holders in the government. As already shown, 
 Texas was annexed, as Mr. Calhoun avowed, for the purpose of strengthen 
 ing slavery. It has been stated by Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, that, down to 
 the year 1861, the South, although inferior in population and wealth to the 
 North, had at all times a large majority of the Federal offices of the higher 
 grades. 
 
 These moral and political considerations naturally tended to arouse a 
 feeling of hostility to the South. Humane people revolted at the injustice 
 
52 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of laws which called upon them to hunt down their poor neighbors who had 
 committed no crime, and which required them to aid in sending fellow- 
 beings into perpetual bondage. Statesmen, and even mere politicians influ 
 enced by no high regard for manhood rights, saw their advantage in 
 strengthening a sentiment which was rapidly developing into a tremendous 
 political force. There were in the North many earnest and able men work 
 ing against slavery with singular disinterestedness and inflexible purpose, in 
 season and out of season, by speech and writing. These, with the devotion 
 of the prophets of old, were untiring in the great cause of arousing the pub 
 lic conscience against the " Sin of Slavery." These men were not always 
 judicious ; they were not just to those who differed from them. They were 
 often extravagant and even fanatical, but they never faltered in their adher 
 ence to the great central truth of human liberty. These men would, at any 
 time, have sacrificed the Union rather than sustain political relations with 
 the South. On the other hand, there were in the South great statesmen, 
 men of large humanity and generous principles, who saw no sin in slavery, 
 who found sanction for it in Holy Writ, -^ho believed in that system of labor 
 as the only one adapted to their soil and climate. These men, like their 
 brethren of the North, would also sever their Federal relations rather than 
 submit to what they regarded as an unjust and fanatical interference with 
 their inalienable rights under the Constitution. Of these men, John C. Cal- 
 houn was both a type and leader, in the long and bitter anti-slavery contest 
 preceding the war. He is much misunderstood in the North. A sketch of 
 that great and good man will close this chapter. 
 
 John Caldwell Calhoun was of Irish Presbyterian stock. He was de 
 scended from a race of Calvinists, distinguished above all others for holding 
 " fast to the faith" that was in them. With men of this stock, to believe 
 was to know. To know was to act. No argument, opposition or persecu 
 tion in any form, could dissuade them from action. Calhoun saw no wrong 
 in slavery. In his eyes the institution was " a good a positive good." 
 
 Calhoun was born in Abbeville, South Carolina, March 18, 1782. His 
 grandfather was James Calhoun. He emigrated from Donegal, Ireland, in 
 J 733? t Pennsylvania. He afterwards moved out on the Kanawha in Vir 
 ginia. In 1756 he settled in South Carolina. James' son, Patrick, married 
 Martha Caldwell, the daughter of an Irish Presbyterian emigrant. She 
 was the mother of John C. Calhoun. 
 
 John spent his youth on his mother's farm. His father died while he was 
 a child. Although his mother was left in moderate circumstances, he had 
 few advantages of early schooling. When he reached the age of eighteen 
 he began a course of systematic study. He prepared for college under the 
 instruction of his brother-in-law, Dr. Waddel, a Presbyterian clergyman. 
 He entered Yale, and at the age of twenty-two graduated with high honors. 
 
 After this, he devoted three years to the study of law. Half of this 
 
JOHN C. CALHOUN. 53 
 
 time he spent at the law-school in Litchfield, Conn. Having completed 
 this course, he returned to Abbeville and engaged in the practice of his pro 
 fession. But the law was not his forte. The great questions of the day 
 attracted his scrutiny. Politics offered a field for his eloquence. They 
 suited his fervid nature and patriotic ambition. Soon he represented his 
 district in the state legislature. In 1811 he was elected as a Representa 
 tive to the Twelfth Congress. The same year he married his cousin Floride. 
 She was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pursue the career 
 on which he had entered, with the assurance of a modest competence. He 
 took an exceptionally high position in the House from the beginning. At 
 his first session Henry Clay then Speaker appointed him to the second 
 place on the Committee on Foreign Relations. That committee had before 
 it the question of the proposed war with Great Britain. The part of the 
 President's message which related to the outrages committed against our 
 commerce and flag by that Power was referred to this Committee. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun wrote the report that was afterwards presented to the 
 House. It was strongly in favor of war, as will be seen by the following 
 extract : 
 
 " The period has arrived when, in the opinion of your committee, it is 
 the sacred duty of Congress to call forth the patriotism of the country." 
 
 There was a boldness in this report, and in his speech in favor of the 
 Resolutions which were afterwards adopted, that was characteristic of the 
 man and of the period. Randolph opposed the report. He opposed all meas 
 ures looking to war. He opposed them with great bitterness. But Cal 
 houn, although in his first session, was a worthy foeman. His was no com 
 promising spirit, ready to yield a part to save the residue. His motto was 
 expressed in his first speech. It was this: " The law of self-preservation 
 is never safe, except under the shield of honor." 
 
 But it is not intended here to review the career of this great American. 
 It is only intended to describe his true status and stature in respect to the 
 two great questions with which his name has been associated, to wit : " Nul 
 lification " and " Secession " ; both inspired by the hope to protect slavery. 
 He was a nullifier, but never a secessionist. He regarded secession as rev 
 olution, no more, no less. There is not one word in his writings or pubfic 
 utterances that can fairly be construed into holding secession to be a consti 
 tutional remedy. He always spoke of that remedy as something outside of 
 the Constitution. He never advocated it. Nullification is a different ques 
 tion. He regarded it as a constitutional remedy. His opinion was that 
 each state of the Union had the power to decide for itself in respect to the 
 constitutionality of any Federal law, and to resist its enforcement within the 
 state, if the people regarded it as unconstitutional. This he believed to be 
 the right of the people within the Union ; and he saw no inconsistency in 
 this doctrine. 
 
54 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun regarded slavery as a natural relation. Of all the questions 
 of the period, it was the abolition movement that gave him the deepest con 
 cern. He firmly believed that in the event of its success, the fate of the 
 Southern people " would be worse than that of the aborigines." To destroy 
 the relation of master and slave would be to restore the fruitful fields of the 
 South to their primeval condition. Calhoun clearly saw the coming conflict. 
 He did not see anything but ruin in emancipation. " To destroy the exist 
 ing relations," said he, " would be to destroy the prosperity of the Southern 
 States, and to place the two races in a state of conflict which must end in 
 the expulsion or extirpation of one or the other." He regarded social and 
 political equality as the necessary incidents of emancipation, and believed 
 that such equality between the races was impossible. How fallible at the 
 best is human judgment ! In Calhoun's life-time, the great mass of the 
 American people were conscientious believers in the incompatibility of the 
 two races. Even Lincoln, at first, looked to the expatriation of the emanci 
 pated slaves, as the only practicable course. Yet, what a change of condi 
 tions ; what an explosion of political and social fallacies, and decay of pre 
 judices has this generation witnessed ! Slavery has been abolished. Each 
 year brings to the South a larger return from its industries. In Calhoun's 
 own state the former slave and master now exercise the political and civil 
 functions of citizenship with equal right. Social equality still remains as 
 impracticable as Calhoun regarded it. It does not exist in any race or peo 
 ple. It never will. Some must ever be the masters. The mass must ever 
 be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. He had less apprehen 
 sion of the destruction of the Union by the assertion of states rights through 
 secession, than of its destruction by consolidation. Any one who has ob 
 served the tendency toward the latter mode of destruction will not be dis 
 posed to disregard its dangers. 
 
 In the commencement of his career, Mr. Calhoun favored what was after 
 wards known as Whig measures, viz., a national bank, a protective tariff, 
 and the development of internal improvements by the general government. 
 About the year 1823 he changed his views in regard to these measures, and 
 in 1828 he characterized the tariff bill of that year as a "bill of abomina- 
 ti<fns." This was the bill that led to the nullification act in South Carolina. 
 He devoted his life to the maintenance of slavery and the preservation of the 
 Union. He died on the last day of March, 1850, almost in the forum. The 
 last words of his last speech in the Senate, uttered in the early part of that 
 month, were these: " Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my 
 ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this agitation, I shall 
 have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free from all responsi 
 bility." Two friends then led him out of the Senate Chamber, and his seat 
 was vacant. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS ITS ORDEAL AS TO SLAVERY EXTENSION 
 KANSAS AND THE TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS QUADRILATERAL CONTEST 
 FOR THE PRESIDENCY THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION THE DOUGLAS 
 MAJORITY THE TWO-THIRDS RULE THE SOUTHERN DELEGATES WITH 
 DRAWMR. LINCOLN ELECTED THE SPECTRE OF WAR. 
 
 THE writer of this volume begins the first of his three decades in 
 1855. But he was not then a member of Congress. It was the 
 refluent wave that followed the excitement growing out of the 
 Kansas question, which carried him into that position with the 
 .administration of Mr. Buchanan. That issue was triangular. It had been 
 somewhat changed in so far as the Northern states were concerned. The 
 Southern party had insisted on the doctrine that the Constitution by its own 
 vigor carried slavery into the territories. This was the Breckenridge, 
 or extreme Southern doctrine. The Southern vote was in its support. 
 But the great bulk of the Northern Democratic vote favored the doctrine 
 of Judge Douglas, familiarly called " Squatter Sovereignty." The Re 
 publican party favored a congressional proviso, like that of Judge Wilmot, 
 forbidding slavery in the territories. 
 
 The travail which gave birth to Kansas as a state was the old agony as 
 to slavery. It was prolonged and it eventuated in civil strife. 
 
 To understand the immediate cause of the war requires a special discus 
 sion of the conduct of the Thirty-fifth Congress. Its Speaker was a liberal 
 South Carolinian, James C. Orr. He afterwards took a large part in the 
 resurrection of his state after the war. The consequences of congres 
 sional action as herein detailed bring us very close to the great struggle 
 which threatened the Union with disseverance, and seemed to set back the 
 hands on the dial-plate of time in our Western Continent. 
 
 Had the Democratic party which came into power with Mr. Buchanan 
 .and the Thirty-fifth Congress united in wisdom to thrust aside the Lecompton 
 
56 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Constitution, there would have been no distraction in its ranks as early as 
 1860. But it is not so sure that the slavery question would not have come 
 in some other form to have kept up the irrepressible conflict. Had they 
 thus united, perhaps the Charleston Convention of 1860 would have agreed. 
 
 In inquiring into the real, if not the proximate causes of the war and the 
 alienation of the sections, we cannot ignore the questions as to Kansas. 
 
 To be sure, Kansas was the occasion, rather than the cause, of conflict. 
 The slavery agitation was the paramount cause. There is something ineffa 
 bly repugnant to the human heart in the relation of master and slave. The 
 idea of one human being owning another human being would thrust itself 
 forward in all these struggles, irrepressibly foremost. Whether in resistance 
 to the constitutional authorities as in the case of fugitives from justice and 
 labor or in the admission of new states, or in the organization of terri 
 tories, the anti-slavery zealot, whether sincere or not, handled a weapon so 
 tenipered with seeming justice, so flashing, as it were, in defense of a 
 higher than human la*v, and wreathed as with the " beauty of the lilies " by 
 the lyric poetry of the time, that the sanctions of authority were as mere 
 houses of cards before his blows. No wonder that with such an impulse 
 the devotees of anti-slavery, in the language of one of their eloquent cham 
 pions, u would rend the Union to destroy slavery, though hedged round by 
 the triple bars of the national compact, and though thirty-three crowned 
 sovereigns, with arms in their hands, stood around it." The pro-slavery 
 men of 1856-7 forgot the growing power of this sentiment, and the increas 
 ing power of the North to enforce it. They desperately struggled to force 
 Kansas into the Union as a slave state, by a stupendous fraud. In the 
 reaction against its perpetration, a fresh agitation was aroused. This new 
 agitation outlasted the interest in the case of Kansas. It absorbed all the 
 energies of debate. The whole country became a Kansas. The first elabo 
 rate speech made by the author in Congress, and, as already noted, the first 
 made in the new hall of the House, on the i6th of December, 1857, was 
 also the first delivered against Lecompton by any one in the lower branch of 
 Congress. It was taken to Judge Douglas on the Sunday preceding the dis 
 cussion, to read him parts of it in manuscript. The Globe of that time will 
 show the debate and the attempt by Southern statesmen, Messrs. Bocock, 
 Quitman, Jones, and others, to cut it off. As a consequence of this speech, 
 the writer lost caste with the Administration. 
 
 The excitement accompanying that discussion has long since subsided. 
 The points of the argument will appear from this extract : 
 
 " I propose now to nail against the door, at the threshold of this Con 
 gress, my theses. When the proper time comes, I will defend them, 
 whether from the assaults of political friend or foe. I would fain be silent, 
 sir, here and now. But silence, which is said to be as ' harmless as a rose's 
 breath/ may be as perilous as the pestilence. This peril comes from the at- 
 
DEMOCRATIC POLICY. 57 
 
 tempt to forego the capital principle of Democratic policy, which I think 
 has been done by the constitutional convention of Kansas. I maintain : 
 i. That the highest refinement and greatest utility of Democratic policy 
 the genius of our institutions is the right of self-government. 2. That this 
 self-government means the will of the majority, legally expressed. 3. That 
 this self-government by majority rule was sacredly guaranteed in the organic 
 act of Kansas. 4. That it was guaranteed upon the question of slavery in 
 terms ; and generally with respect to all the domestic institutions of the peo 
 ple. 5. That domestic institutions include all which are local, not national 
 state, not Federal. The phrase means that and that only that always. 
 6. That the people were to be left perfectly free to establish or abolish slav 
 ery, as well as to form and regulate their other institutions. 7. That this 
 doctrine was recognized in every part of the Confederacy by the Democracy ; 
 fixed in their national platform ; asserted by their speakers and presses ; reit 
 erated by their candidates ; incorporated in messages and instructions ; and 
 formed the feature which distinguished the Democracy from the opposition, 
 who maintained the doctrine of congressional intervention. 8. The Lecomp- 
 ton Constitution, while it is asserted that it is submitted to the people in the 
 essential point, thus recognizing an obligation to submit it in some mode, 
 Cannot, in any event, be rejected by the people of Kansas. The vote must be 
 for its approval, whether the elector votes one way or another. The people 
 may be unwilling to take either of the propositions, and yet they must vote 
 one or the other of them. They have to vote 4 constitution with slavery,' or 
 4 constitution with no slavery ' ; but the constitution they must take." 
 
 These were the points elaborated in that discussion. Differing with Mr. 
 Buchanan, the author was constrained afterwards to differ with Judge Doug 
 las on the Compromise bill reported by a Committee of Conference. He 
 voted for the latter on the ground that it returned for a fair election the fraud 
 ulent constitution to the people, and because there were people enough for 
 a state in Kansas. This action was fully justified by the subsequent action 
 of the people under that bill. Subsequently the writer voted to receive the 
 free State of Kansas ; and, after justifying his former vote, scarcely exagger 
 ated the rancour of the campaign, when he said in the House that : 
 
 " For voting for this Conference bill, even after I was justified by the pop 
 ular vote of Kansas in the summer of 1858, I was compelled to meet from 
 Republicans of Ohio a campaign unexampled for its unprovoked fierceness, its 
 base and baseless charges of personal corruption, its conceit, its ignorance, its 
 impudence, its poltroonery, its billingsgate, its brutality, its moneyed corrup 
 tion, its fanatical folly, its unflagging slang, its drunken saturnalia, and its 
 unblushing libels and pious hypocrisy ! [The writer had not then learned 
 meekness.] At the capital of Ohio, in its most noble and intelligent pre 
 cincts, the people, ashamed of and indignant at the audacious falsehood and 
 brazen clamor from the presses of the state, and from the little penny-a- 
 
 4 
 
58 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 liners and pettifoggers, who echoed the libels of members fresh from this 
 floor in spite of all this, the people doubled my majority of 1856. I had 
 the satisfaction prouder than a temporary victory of seeing the policy I 
 had voted for with the earnest conviction of duty, and with the sustaining 
 advice of such a statesman as Robert J. Walker, vindicated by time, and 
 sustained by its practical operation. As the crowning act of this triumph, 
 I shall vote for the admission of Kansas under this constitution. In doing 
 this, I court all criticism, defy all menace, and truly represent almost every 
 man, woman, and child in my district." 
 
 Inasmuch as that vote for the Conference bill was greatly impugned and 
 as it seemed to be a departure from the original position of Judge Douglas, 
 the writer was solicitous to have the Judge explain their mutual relations to 
 this question. This he did during the campaign of 1860. On the 2Oth of 
 September he spoke to an immense meeting at Columbus, Ohio, in which 
 he thus explained the differences between himself and other Democrats : 
 
 44 1 made the first speech in the Senate against the Lecompton Constitu 
 tion, and without consulting Mr. Cox or any one else, and Mr. Cox made 
 the first speech against it in the House, without consultation or dictation from 
 me. We fought it through on our own responsibility until Lecompton was 
 dead ; and when Lecompton was defeated, its friends got up the English bill 
 to cover its retreat. The Hon. Robert J. Walker, then Governor of Kansas, 
 advised Mr. Cox and myself to go for it, giving assurance that when presented 
 to the people of Kansas, they would kill it, ten to one. Under these circum 
 stances, some of our men felt it their duty to go for the bill. I did not think 
 it a fair submission to the will of the people, and determined to fight it too. 
 Mr. Cox said he had consulted the members of the Ohio delegation, that 
 they all agreed to vote for it. and that under the circumstances he should vote 
 with them. I told him I had no quarrel with those of my friends who dif 
 fered with me honestly on that point, and afterwards I wrote letters in favor 
 of the election of some of those who had voted for the English bill." The 
 Judge concluded by urging his friends in the District to 44 nail the slander 
 by re-electing Mr. Cox." 
 
 Had Judge Douglas yielded his resolution on this subject, and voted for 
 the Conference bill, the territorial question would not have been mooted at 
 the Charleston Convention, with so marked a personal application. His 
 nomination would have been made without division. For a time, at least, 
 secession would have been prevented, and war averted. The contests of 
 that time were much embittered by the Dred Scott case. The decision of 
 the Supreme Court in that case was calculated to divide and disintegrate 
 the old parties and to build up the Republicans. Mr. Douglas and the 
 Northern Democrats sustained that decision ; but they could not venture to 
 sustain the Lecompton Constitution, without inviting certain ruin to the 
 party and defeating his personal aspirations. It was on this question that he 
 
DEMOCRACY AND SLAVERY. 59 
 
 finally broke with the Southern Democracy. Henceforward they regarded 
 him and his followers as little better than " Black Republicans." 
 
 It was under such circumstances of estrangement that the Democratic 
 Convention met at Charleston, in the spring of 1860. Mr. Douglas, like 
 Mr. Van Buren at Baltimore sixteen years before, had a decided majority of 
 friends in the convention, but not a majority of two-thirds. The two-thirds 
 rule was now the standing law of the party. It proved fatal to the hopes of 
 Mr. Douglas. His friends carried the question as to the platform. Their 
 resolutions re-affirmed the platform adopted by the party convention at Cin 
 cinnati in 1856. They added to it a declaration of readiness to acquiesce 
 in the decisions of the Supreme Court. This platform was far from giving 
 satisfaction to the South. Public sentiment in that quarter of the Union 
 had taken a stride far beyond what was deemed satisfactory four years before. 
 The Cincinnati platform referred to and indorsed by the Douglas, or 
 ^Northern majority, merely declared that Congress had no power under the 
 Constitution to interfere with slavery in the states ; and that all efforts of 
 abolitionists or others to induce Congress to interfere with slavery, or to 
 take incipient steps in relation thereto, were calculated to lead to the most 
 dangerous and alarming consequences. The second Resolution at Cincin 
 nati pledged fidelity to the compromise measures of 1850; "and especially 
 the act for reclaiming fugitives from service." 
 
 The Northern delegates could not be induced to recede from the position 
 thus taken. Those of the South, on the other hand, insisted on the follow 
 ing declaration of principles : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Democracy of the United States hold these cardi 
 nal principles on the subject of slavery in the territories. First, That Con 
 gress has no power to abolish slavery in the territories. Second, That the 
 Territorial Legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any territory, nor 
 to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude 
 slavery therefrom, nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property 
 in slaves by any legislation whatever." 
 
 The author attended that convention and heard the argument upon which 
 the distraction ensued. The most conspicuous orator of the South, William 
 L. Yancy, advocated the constitutional right to carry slavery into the territo 
 ries, which he held to be the common property of all the states ; and as 
 slaves were property, that it would be equivalent to the destruction of that 
 property to refuse it the constitutional asgis. Other able men in that conven 
 tion seconded this splendid effort of the Southern Demosthenes. 
 
 He was answered by George E. Pugh, then Senator from Ohio, a rare 
 logician, and an excellent lawyer. The fame of this gifted orator's early 
 efforts in Ohio before the Legislature, and as attorney-general of that state, 
 was enhanced by the conspicuous ability with which he had enforced his 
 views in the Federal Senate. Small in person, keen of eye, with a voice 
 
60 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 full of music, over which he had rare command, he conquered as much by 
 his logical persuasion and defiant manner as by his fervent eloquence. The 
 writer first saw him in Cincinnati, where he was associated with him in the 
 practice of the law as early as 1847. Mr. Pugh had then just returned from 
 the Mexican War, in which, as he said, he had gained no other laurels than 
 those which belonged to the soldier who had gallanted mules up the Rio 
 Grande to Cammargo. 
 
 Next to him came William A. Richardson, of Illinois, who was also in 
 the Charleston Convention, and next to him was Henry B. Payne, the 
 recently-elected Senator from Ohio, as a champion of Judge Douglas and his 
 views of sovereignty. He made a strong impression at Charleston, and en 
 deavored to reconcile the party with a view to avert disunion and war. The 
 history of that convention is public property. It tells how they divided ; how 
 Caleb Cushing, the elegant casuist, ruled upon certain questions as to the 
 casting of the vote of the states either individually or by unit ; how a por 
 tion of them nominated Douglas, and Fitzpatrick of Alabama ; and how 
 another portion, representing the South, nominated John C. Breckenridge, 
 of Kentucky, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon. These are facts well known. 
 
 When the firm determination of the Douglas majority in the Charleston 
 Convention to adhere to their platform became manifest, the delegates from 
 seven of the Southern States withdrew from the convention ; and soon after 
 an adjournment to Baltimore was agreed upon. The anti-Douglas wing 
 agreed to meet at Richmond, in Virginia. The Baltimore Convention, 
 composed mainly of Northern men, nominated Stephen A. Douglas for 
 President, and Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for Vice-President. The 
 Richmond Convention nominated John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, for 
 President, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for Vice-President. 
 
 Another Baltimore Convention nominated John Bell, of Tennessee, for 
 President, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. 
 They styled themselves the " Constitutional Union" party; but consisted 
 only of the remnants of the Whigs and " Americans." 
 
 The Republicans met in convention at Chicago, and nominated Abraham 
 Lincoln for President, and Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, for Vice-President. 
 
 This quadrilateral struggle for power marked the beginning of an event 
 ful era in the history of the country. It resulted in the destruction of the 
 chief basis of the old parties slavery. The emancipated slaves came next 
 in order. The question as to their status has passed away, and questions 
 of finance, commerce, and honest administration alone absorb the public 
 interest. 
 
 The total popular vote cast in 1860 was 4,676,853, of which Mr. Lin 
 coln received 1,866,352; Mr. Douglas received 1,375,157; Mr. Brecken 
 ridge received 845,763 ; and Mr. Bell received 589,581. The total electoral 
 vote was 303; of which Mr. Lincoln received 180; Mr. Breckenridge 
 
FAILURE OF BUCHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION. 6l 
 
 received 72 ; Mr. Bell 39, and Mr. Douglas 12. It thus appears that Mr. 
 Douglas, whose popular vote was nearly equal to the combined votes given 
 to Messrs. Breckenridge and Bell, received just one-sixth of the electoral 
 votes of Mr. Breckenridge, and less than a third of those given to Mr. Bell. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln received the electoral votes of all the free states, except 
 three of New Jersey's seven votes, which were given to Mr. Bell. Mr. 
 Breckenridge received the electoral votes of twelve of the sixteen slave-hold 
 ing states. Three of them, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, voted for 
 Mr. Bell ; and Missouri voted for Mr. Douglas. 
 
 The contest in these conventions was preliminary to that of 1860. It 
 turned upon the administration of James Buchanan and its defiance by 
 Stephen A. Douglas. As that administration was signalized by the unsuc 
 cessful attempt to bring Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Consti 
 tution, and by unsuccessful attempts to enforce the fugitive-slave act, because 
 of the action of Salmon P. Chase, Governor of Ohio, indorsed by the 
 general sentiment of the Republican party of the North ; so it became 
 the shibboleth of the party cries of 1860. In addition, the contest was 
 further embittered, if not energized, upon the question of slavery. 
 
 The election of Mr. Lincoln, which took place in November, 1860, not 
 only settled the issues against the South, but against the friends and doc 
 trine of Judge Douglas. Congress met in December following ; then arose 
 for desperate debate all the varied questions involving human servitude. It 
 was to the composition of these questions that the good men of that time 
 addressed themselves. That Congress was one of marked ability. The 
 South, especially, was ably represented The hidden facts, the inner life, the 
 scenes and incidents which never appear on public record, and seldom 
 appear even in the newspaper, when they shall transpire will give to that 
 Congress the graphic interest of a battle picture. Out of its discussions, 
 devices, and seditions arose the bloody spectre of war ! It is the aim of 
 the writer to illustrate some of the incidents and scenes of that period. 
 There is much of interest as yet unwritten clinging to the actors in that 
 drama a drama whose last act had its tragical denouement in the assassin 
 ation of the kind, and good, and great Chief Magistrate of a newly-resur 
 rected nation. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS - ITS CHARACTERISTICS, OPINIONS, AND VOTES 
 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION LEADING TO DISUNION THE SENATE LEADERS 
 EFFORTS TO STAY SECESSION EXTREMISTS DEFEAT THE COMPROMISE 
 CRITTENDEN'S LAST APPEAL JEFFERSON DAVIS NOT ANXIOUS TO SECEDE 
 THE EXTREMISTS IN THE HOUSE THE UNION PHALANX CLEMENT 
 L. VALLANDIGHAM. 
 
 IT is a common practice, since the great success of the Federal arms in 
 putting down the insurgent states, to look upon the " Lost Cause" as 
 having been altogether in the wrong ; but unless there was great and 
 general provocation to revolt, no such harmonious action in favor of 
 secession could have been taken by the Southern States. It will not be for 
 gotten by those who participated in the discussions of the Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress which preceded and presaged the war, that great attempts were then 
 made by eminent statesmen to stay the progress of secession. Nor were 
 these attempts confined to the Senate and House. They were made in 
 u Peace Conventions," and in other bodies, which had great influence with 
 business boards and state legislatures. Those who thus acted must have had 
 hopeful reason for their attempts to reconcile the sections. The faults were 
 not all on one side. The greatest grievance of the South was not, perhaps, 
 as openly expressed as it might have been. The moral sense of mankind 
 did not sustain the institution of slavery. The breaches of the Constitution 
 in respect to the fugitive-slave law had been frequent and aggravating. That 
 law had been maintained by the decision of the Supreme Court. Its viola 
 tion was a pregnant cause of complaint. On constitutional grounds that 
 law should have been sustained. The action of certain states of the North in 
 obstructing its execution, notably in Wisconsin and Ohio, was defended in 
 and out of Congress on moral, constitutional, and legal grounds. Even 
 such eminent men as Salmon P. Chase, then Governor of Ohio, when the 
 famous Oberlin case of Plumb, Peck, et al. was before the state court upon 
 the writ of habeas corpus, did not hesitate to affirm that personal liberty 
 
PROVOCATION TO SECESSION. 63 
 
 was of greater moment than the Constitution ; that state rights were superior 
 to Federal decrees ; and that no mandate of the Federal government should 
 be obeyed for the return of human beings to bondage. 
 
 It is well known that Mr. Chase advised Mr. Lincoln to let the seceding 
 states go, rather than resort to armed coercion. Indeed, Mr. Chase had 
 preached the state rights theory all his life in justification of state resistance 
 to the enforcement of the fugitive-slave law. From the case of Jones vs. 
 Van Zant, in 1842, to the celebrated Oberlin fugitive-slave rescue cases 
 Ex parte Langston and JSx parte Bushnell, in 1859, reported in the Ninth 
 Ohio State Reports, the Ohio friends of Chase did not hesitate to express, in 
 the most unqualified manner, their determination to nullify any Federal law 
 or act of which they did not approve, in connection with the slavery question. 
 The cases of Langston and Bushnell were prosecuted on a writ of habeas 
 corpus, by the State Attorney-General, C. P. Wolcott, under the direction 
 of Governor Chase, for the release of those parties who had been convicted 
 under the Federal statute, and in a Federal court, for violating the fugitive- 
 slave law. On that occasion Governor Chase openly declared that he would 
 sustain by force, if necessary, the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
 against the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, even if it 
 should result in a collision between the state and the general government. 
 Not at any time in South Carolina, among the most ardent of the Calhoun 
 school, was "nullification" more rife or aggressive than among the Ohio 
 abolitionists. What cared either of these factionists for argument. They 
 believed they were right; and if the Constitution disagreed with their 
 theories, the Constitution must go not their theories. 
 
 The territorial question, already referred to, had no less magnitude in the 
 minds of the Southern people. That grievance took the form of a com 
 plaint that the Constitution was violated by the popular sovereignty, in de 
 claring against slavery in organic laws for the territories, preliminary to their 
 admission as states. When the Thirty-sixth Congress assembled, the mem 
 bers who stood between the factional sections, under the leadership of Judge 
 Douglas, George E. Pugh, Senator Stewart, of Michigan, and others in the 
 Senate, and of William A. Richardson, Thomas L. Harris, and others in the 
 House, found themselves in a small minority. They were between the two 
 fires of implacable opponents. In attempting to emulate the Christian phil 
 osophy of reconciling enmities, many of these peacemakers found them 
 selves driven from their party associations ; and others were quick to respond 
 to the allurements of the vigorous party which was then approaching power. 
 Whatever justification there may have been for the complaints of the Southern 
 statesmen and states against the mal-administration of Federal laws by 
 Northern people and states, there was no such grievance as would justify se 
 cession and the dispartment of the country. There was no difference that 
 would justify either secession or revolution. No revolutions, according to 
 
64 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Sir James Macintosh, are justifiable, howerer well grounded upon griev 
 ances, without a reasonable probability of a successful termination. True, 
 there was in that Congress an exaltation on the part of Southern men which 
 led them to hope, even before Sumpter was fired upon, that the separation 
 which they sought would be accomplished. Had they, even a priori, consid 
 ered the mechanical forces of the North which are now so manifest in the 
 results of the war, they might well have halted upon the dogma of Sir 
 James Macintosh. But among the many fine traits of Southern men was 
 that impetuosity and ardor of sentiment and heart which does not look to 
 consequences when there is conviction in a justifiable cause. In the light of 
 historical philosophy, an unbiased mind can apprehend what a tremendous 
 hold the mere abstract doctrine of secession had upon these men, who antici 
 pated a still larger curtailment of their constitutional rights. When it is re 
 membered that there were real grounds for this apprehension, and w r hen it 
 was argued with so much logic and brilliancy that the rights of the states 
 could be preserved only in a new confederacy, it is not marvelous that the 
 call for secession fired the Southern heart. 
 
 When the time for final action came, the movements in favor of seces 
 sion were made with great formality and solemnity. Ordinances came with 
 all the precision and regularity of legislative order. States withdrew in the 
 presence of excited and awe-struck audiences, after the most dramatic and 
 apparently authorized sanction. The great body of the oratory of that 
 time came from such men as Benjamin, Davis, Curry, Lamar, Pugh of Ala 
 bama, Garnet, and Bocock. It developed all the graces of eloquence. Fail- 
 women from the galleries, warm with Southern blood, gave applause more 
 precious than coronets of gold and jewels to the oratory of their impassioned 
 champions. As one by one the states became unrepresented, not a word 
 was heard, except, perhaps, in debate, of the abstract right to secede. There 
 seemed to be a tacit acknowledgment that secession at present was the 
 best course. No attempt was made to arrest any one. Prominent Repub 
 licans like Lieutenant-Governor Stanton, of Ohio, not to mention his name 
 sake, the Secretary of War, Mr. Greeley, and Mr. Chase, abetted the move 
 ment of secession by opposing any constraint upon the departing sisters. 
 These facts, forerunners of the mighty conflict, seem now inexplicable to 
 many persons, because it is forgotten that from December, 1860, until 
 March, 1861, there was hope of reconciliation. Douglas and Crittenden 
 were still sanguine when they telegraphed to Georgia that the rights of the 
 South and of every state and section would be protected in the Union. 
 
 The first efforts at compromise were by no means confined to the Demo 
 cratic Senators and members. Governor Corwin, Charles Francis Adams, 
 Edward Joy Morris, and others in the House ; Senators Cameron, Baker, 
 Dixon, Foster, Collamer, and others in the Senate, were, at the beginning 
 of the session, and for some time afterwards, regarded as not indifferent to a 
 
CRITTENDEN'S PEACE EFFORTS. 65 
 
 compromise which would at least retain the border states, if it did not stop 
 the movement of the Gulf States. The most experienced and able Southern 
 men believed that the step they were about to take would be bloodless ; 
 that their array in strength and mien of resistance would prevent coercion 
 by arms. Some of them looked upon secession as a mere temporary alien 
 ation. Even so late as the secession of Texas, Judge Reagan, one of its 
 Representatives, after he had left his seat in Congress, took pains to inform 
 the author that he thought the South would be out only for a season. When 
 the excitement subsided, and especially if any guarantees were given for the 
 protection of their rights, he believed the states would return. In this, how 
 signally ability and experience failed to discern the future ! Mankind gener 
 ally reckon the greatness of men by success. If this be the touchstone, the 
 vaunted statesmanship of the South vanishes. But what a company of con 
 spicuous men answered to the roll-call on the 6th of December, 1860, in the 
 Thirty-sixth Congress. 
 
 At the head of the Senate stands John C. Breckenridge, offering his 
 name, so proudly connected with the history of Kentucky, to the task of dis 
 memberment. He was among the last to leave his home to take the sword 
 for the South. He was, after the war, a fugitive upon English soil, pleading 
 with his stricken confederates to do the best by submission to Federal rule. 
 His health had been impaired by his exertions in the field. The writer saw 
 him sometime before his decease. He was sojourning at the Thousand Isles, 
 in New-York. His spirit was peaceful, calm, and exalted, fit companion 
 of a form upon which God had set His seal. He lives not only in the spirit 
 of those whose admiration he engrossed, but in his sons, one of whom is in 
 the present Congress from Arkansas. 
 
 Another son of that great commonwealth is there, John J. Crittenden. 
 How nobly he stands for the Union ! Mr. Crittenden was not demonstra 
 tive, unless, perhaps, among intimate friends or in the family circle. He 
 was a man of great simplicity of character and nobility of soul. He had 
 vast experience in public affairs. He possessed the integrity and fervor of his 
 Welsh and Huguenot descent. He, of all the men of his day, had the best 
 right to be a Confederate. He was born in the old Confederacy, seven days 
 before the Constitution of this country was adopted in general convention. 
 He was a sound scholar. His eloquence was Ciceronian. His legal intel 
 lect was profound. His patriotism was boundless and impulsive. In 1811 
 and 1812, when he was a member of the Kentucky Legislature, he received 
 martial honor from Governor Shelby, who had no toleration for Great Britain. 
 Young Crittenden was his aid-de-camp in the war of 1812-' 14. He took 
 part in the battle of the Thames. From that time onward he must be judged 
 as a Kentuckian who subordinated the most intense state pride to an .un 
 quenchable love of the whole Union. He did not appear in any Federal 
 relation until he was elected to the United States Senate in 1817. More or 
 
66 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 less associated with such men as Webster and Clay, and all the public men 
 connected with the first half century of the country, his is a history that be 
 longs to the conservative element. But never, until sectionalism raised its 
 front in warlike menace, did his great abilities shine forth with their full 
 lustre of rhetoric and fire of will. 
 
 In the Senate of i86o-'6i, Mr. Crittenden gave voice to the Union sen 
 timent of the country. He not only shared the sentiments of such statesmen 
 as John A. Dix, Edward Everett, Elisha Whittlesey, Robert C. Winthrop, 
 and others, but he represented all those patriotic men who united to adopt 
 the Crittenden compromise on the slavery question. These resolutions were 
 in the form of a series of constitutional amendments. They were inspired 
 by the alarming character of the controversy between the sections. They 
 proposed the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, and the extension of 
 the compromise line throughout the territories of the United States to the 
 eastern border of California. Slavery was to be recognized in all the terri 
 tories south of that line, and to be prohibited in all territories north of it- 
 When territories north or south of the line should be formed into states,, 
 they should then be at liberty to exclude or admit slavery as they pleased. 
 In either case, there would be no objection to their admission to the Union. 
 This was the mode proposed by the Crittenden compromise, by which to set 
 tle the great controversy. Incidentally, he proposed to amend the Constitu 
 tion so as to declare that Congress should have no power to abolish slavery 
 in the District of Columbia while slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia. 
 And, inasmuch as the fugitive-slave law was constitutional, he desired a 
 declaration for its faithful execution. He proposed amendments to that end. 
 They seem trifling now. They had reference to the fees of the Circuit 
 Court commissioners, and to the posse comitatus in cases of resistance to 
 *he United States marshals in making arrests under that law. He also in 
 tended, if possible, to make the Constitution unalterable in certain matters. 
 This, in a country subject to the laws of progress, was in flagrant violation 
 of that which was an irrevocable law of advancement ! To this inconsist 
 ency the love of the Union led that best of patriots. This shows how 
 earnest were the men who sought to avoid the " Irrepressible Conflict." 
 
 In the Senate of the United States, on the i8th of December, 1860, Mr. 
 Crittenden spoke to these propositions. He regarded the Constitution as the 
 very essence of life to the Union. He lifted himself to the great occasion in 
 a spirit of conciliation. He did not stop to picture the direful consequences 
 of a failure to settle the question by a division upon the line of the Missouri 
 Compromise. We had lived prosperously and peacefully upon that line. 
 Any sacrifice which could be made, North or South, to maintain that con 
 dition, he regarded glorious as well as just. The Union was permanent. It 
 had been necessary after the Revolution to yield many prejudices, and much 
 state policy, in order to secure independence with Union. He recognized 
 
CRITTENDEN'S APPEAL TO THE SOUTH. 67 
 
 the hand of Providence in helping our ancestors in that trying era. He 
 quoted from Washington, who said: " But for Providence, we could not 
 have accomplished this thing." He spoke as if the muse of history were 
 listening to him. The writer well remembers that speech, and the excessive 
 emotion which it produced. The peroration still rings as a part of the 
 memory of that critical time : 
 
 u Sir, I wish to God it was in my power to preserve this Union by recog 
 nizing and agreeing to give up every conscientious and other opinion. 
 [Then, turning to the Senators from the South.] Are you bent on revolu 
 tion, bent on disunion? God forbid it ! I cannot believe that such madness 
 possesses the American people. I can speak with confidence only of my 
 own state. Old Kentucky will be satisfied with it. She will stand by the 
 Union and die by the Union, if this satisfaction be given ! Nothing shall 
 seduce her. The clamor of no revolution, the seductions or temptations of 
 no revolution, will tempt her to move one step. Disunion and separation 
 would destroy our greatness. Once disunited, we are no longer great. The 
 nations of the earth, who have looked upon you as a formidable power rising 
 to untold and immeasurable greatness in the future, will scoff at you. Your 
 flag, that now claims the respect of the world what will become of it? It 
 is gone, and with it the protection of American citizens and property, to say 
 nothing of the national honor which it displayed to all the world. The pro 
 tection of your rights, the protection of property abroad is gone with the 
 flag, and we are here to conjure and contrive different flags for our different 
 republics, according to the feverish fancies of revolutionary patriots. No, 
 sir ; I want to follow no such flag. I do not despair of the republic. I can 
 not despond. I cannot but believe that we will find some means of recon 
 ciling and adjusting the rights of all parties by concession, if necessary, so 
 as to preserve and give more stability to the country and to these institu 
 tions." 
 
 The failure of the compromise measures is well known. In his farewell 
 address to the Senate in March, 1861, Mr. Crittenden said with genuine 
 humility, that he had not risen with any vain ambition or purpose to play 
 the orator. He seemed to feel that we were a failing state, and that no com 
 promise would be acceptable. Scarcely ever has there been such an appeal as 
 he then made to history, to the present interests, and the future prosperity and 
 glory of the country. He returned to Kentucky, but not to retire to the ease 
 of his home. He came to the next Congress in the first years of the war 
 that in which the writer served with him. In July, at the called session of 
 1861 , Stephen A. Douglas, his greatest competitor, died. John J. Crittenden 
 was the first man to pronounce his eulogy. The writer, in following, and 
 feeling that there was but one left of all the great men of old who had been 
 with Douglas in the Senate, said : 
 
 " Who is left to take the place of Stephen A. Douglas? Alas,. he has no 
 
68 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 successor ! His eclipse is painfully palpable, since it makes more obscure 
 the path by which our alienated brethren may return. Many Union men, 
 friends of Douglas, in the South heard of his death as the death-knell of 
 their hope. Who can take his place? The great men of 1850 who were 
 his mates in the Senate are gone, we trust, to that better union above, where 
 there are no distracting counsels, all all gone ! All ? No, thank Heaven ! 
 Kentucky still spares to us one of kindred patriotism, fashioned in the better 
 mould of an earlier day, the distinguished statesman who has just spoken, 
 Mr. Crittenden, whose praise of Douglas, living, I love to quote, and whose 
 praise of Douglas, dead, to which we have just listened, laudari a vtro 
 laudato, is praise indeed. Crittenden still stands here, lifting on high his 
 whitened head, like a pharos in the sea, to guide our storm-tossed and 
 shattered vessel to its haven of rest. His feet tread closely upon the retreating 
 steps of our statesman West. In the order of nature we cannot have him 
 long. Already his hand is outstretched into the other world to grasp the 
 hand of Douglas ! While he is spared to us let us heed his warning ; let us 
 learn from his lips the lessons of moderation and loyalty of the elder days, 
 and do our best, and do it nobly and fearlessly, for our beloved Republic." 
 Too real, alas ! was this shadow of the coming events. Worn out by the 
 arduous labors of the Thirty-seventh Congress, the great Crittenden went 
 home to his well-beloved state, never to return. He died in July, 1863, 
 this great man died, while the shock of embattled armies was rocking the 
 foundations of the Union. Who can tell how much of its strength in that 
 day was due to John J. Crittenden ? 
 
 In that Congress, foremost in influence for peace or war, for Union or 
 Disunion, is Jefferson Davis ; how then unlike that Davis who in Maine but 
 a few years ago, had spoken burning words for the perpetuity of the Union. 
 He had fought gallantly in Mexico for its extension and honor. Whatever 
 of prejudice his name may have since aroused has been incident to recalling 
 the memories of a beaten cause. At that Congress he was far more poten 
 tial in directing the fateful genius of Southern statesmanship than any other 
 man in the Senate. His own memoirs have been published. There his char 
 acter is analyzed and his motives questioned with pitiless and torturing inqui 
 sition ; still the great body of his countrymen South will cherish his memory, 
 despite all adverse criticism. Whether he ever renounced his secession doc 
 trines, while acting as the Chieftain of the Confederacy, has not been proven. 
 It has been surmised and inferred. The same presiding care which shielded 
 him from a trial for treason, and gave him peaceful retiracy in a southern 
 home, seems still to hover over his old age. Remembering his personal 
 courtesy, his urbane and dignified manners, his silvery oratory, his undaunted 
 courage as a soldier and honesty as a man, the historian of this eventful 
 epoch in which madness ruled in the most sedate counsels cannot fail to 
 recall much to the credit of this leader of the Southern people. He may 
 
JEFFERSON DAVIS NOT FORWARD FOR SECESSION. 69 
 
 not have exercised the wisdom of some who acquiesced promptly and grace 
 fully in the inevitable. Yet with many this trait of enduring consistency is 
 a virtue. But it must be said that he was not forward in secession. His 
 state was not among the foremost to secede. She waited until the 9th of 
 January, 1861, before passing her ordinance, and her Senators lingered until 
 the 2ist before they withdrew. It is generally credited among those who 
 were familiar with Mr. Davis* inclinations, that, even after the ordinance 
 passed, he was anxious to remain. There is indubitable evidence that while 
 in the Committee of Thirteen, he was willing to accept the compromise of 
 Mr. Crittenden, and recede from secession. This Committee and a House 
 Committee of Thirty-three members were then considering " the state of the 
 Union." The compromise failed; because, as Senator Hale said, on the 
 1 8th of December, 1860, the day it was introduced, it was. determined that 
 the controversy should not be settled in Congress. When it failed, the hero 
 of Buena Vista became the Confederate leader. Much as he is underrated 
 by some Southern men who opposed him during the war, he was fitted to 
 be the leader of just such a revolt. Every revolution has a fabulous or 
 actual hero conformable to the local situation, manners, and character of 
 the people who rise. To a rustic people like the Swiss, William Tell, 
 with his cross-bow and the apple ; to an aspiring race like the Americans, 
 Washington, with his sword and the law, are, as Lamartine once said, the 
 symbols standing erect at the cradles of these two distinct Liberties ! Jeffer 
 son Davis, haughty, self-willed, and persistent, full of martial ardor and de 
 fiant eloquence, was the symbol, both in his character and in his situation, 
 of the proud, impulsive, but suppressed ardors and hopes of the Southern 
 mind. His colleague in the Senate, Albert G. Brown, was still more re 
 luctant to sever his connection. He was, before the Charleston Convention, 
 if not openly, at least covertly a co-worker with Douglas and others in 
 striving to preserve the unity of the Democratic party and the country. 
 Governor Brown was a member of the Confederate Congress. He was out 
 spoken in his criticism of the conduct of the Confederate authorities. He 
 had not much heart or faith in the secession movement. He was over 
 shadowed as a Senator by Mr. Davis ; but he was far more approachable, 
 in his relations towards other members. Time has mellowed many of the 
 men who then, to an angry North, seemed so intensely vindictive. Governor 
 Brown, since the war, frequently acted with those who sought reconciliation, 
 and sometimes adversely to his own party. 
 
 But by far the most truculent Senator from the South was Louis T. Wig- 
 fall, of Texas. He was a man of scarred face and fierce aspect, but with rare 
 gifts of oratory. He was bitter at times, as well as classical, in his denuncia 
 tions. Yet much of his strong talk and eccentric conduct was more than 
 compensated for by great and generous qualities of heart. Many years after 
 the war he settled in Baltimore, but he did not long survive his removal 
 
70 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 north. Next to him in truculency, though not in sociality, was Alfred 
 Iverson, of Georgia. He was outspoken and bold for the sudden disrup 
 tion of the Union. Perhaps no other Senator would have used such sig 
 nificant language as he did in the fierce debate which took place on Dec. 3, 
 1860. He charged that the secession of Texas was clogged by the governor 
 of that state Houston and said, with impetuous and vindictive utter 
 ance, that if that official did not yield to public sentiment, "some Texan 
 Brutus will arise to rid his country of the hoary-headed incubus." Other 
 Senators were truculent ; but most of those from the South were sad at 
 the terrible consequences of separation. Not so Senator Iverson. He 
 echoed the speech of the Texan Senator, Wigfall : "Seize the forts and 
 cry, 'To your tents, O Israel.'" The colleague of the latter, Robert 
 Toombs, was far more amenable to reason than his rough manner and 
 boisterous logic indicated. He was a man of commanding person, re 
 minding one of Mirabeau. Bating his broad Africanese dialect, he was 
 fiercely eloquent in the epigrammatic force of his expression. The Vir 
 ginia Senators ranked among the foremost in the movement. Much was 
 expected from the moderation of Robert M. T. Hunter, but he did little 
 to stay the revolution. Little was expected of James M. Mason, and he 
 did less. The former was a calm, phlegmatic reasoner ; the latter had a 
 defiant and autocratic demeanor, that conciliated no one. Both were 
 imbued with the ideas of the ultra Calhoun school. Louisiana was repre 
 sented in the Senate by John Slidell and Judah P. Benjamin. Mr. Slidell 
 was a man of social prominence and wealth. He was as cunning in his 
 methods as he was inveterate in his prejudices. He combined the fox with 
 some other strange elements. The writer heard his savage and sneering 
 threat to destroy the commerce of the North by privateers. As he delivered 
 it, his manner was that of Mephistopheles, in one of his humors over some 
 choice anticipated deviltry. But who shall picture the bland, plausible, and 
 silver-tongued Judah P. Benjamin? His farewell speech was as full of 
 historic reference as of musical and regretful cadences. As he bade adieu 
 to the old Union, he drew from the spectators many plaudits for his rhetoric 
 which he could not evoke for his logic. Next to him in the suavity of his 
 manner, if not in the cogency of his speech, was Clement C. Clay, of Ala 
 bama. He voluntarily surrendered after the war, and is now dead. He had 
 a graceful bearing; and although never very hale in health, was ever ready 
 to assume his r6le in the daring drama. The other Senator from Alabama, 
 Benjamin Fitzpatrick, was a model of senatorial frankness. His name is 
 seldom mentioned since the war. He was nominated in 1860 on the ticket 
 with Douglas at Baltimore. But for the incessant importunity, if not threats, 
 of Southern men who thronged his room to shake his determination, he 
 would have stood by the Northern Democracy in its struggle. 
 
 The other Senators from the South did not then play very prominent 
 
ANDREW JOHNSON FOR UNION. 7 1 
 
 parts on the congressional stage. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, 
 was expected to fight the Union battle, but he failed at the critical time. He 
 had large experience in congressional life, but, just elevated to the Senate, 
 he rather pursued what he believed was the popular doctrine. The Sena 
 tors from Delaware, the elder Bayard and Willard Saulsbury, were able 
 men. The former was a logical thinker, accomplished in constitutional 
 law. He was a believer in the unforced association of the states. He retired 
 from his place disgusted with that public opinion which would not allow free 
 speech as a means to restrain usurpation, and conclude the war. He was suc 
 ceeded by his son, than whom no abler Senator has appeared to contend for 
 public or personal honesty and liberty. The Senators from South Carolina 
 did not appear at the last session of that Congress. Although that state did 
 not pass her ordinance until the xyth of December, her Senators resigned on 
 the preceding loth. Alfred O. P. Nicholson, Senator from Tennessee, was no 
 speaker ; he did not make his mark ; he had been, however, a successful ed 
 itor. The other Senator, Andrew Johnson, made his mark. Although he 
 had fought the battle in Tennessee for Breckenridge against both Bell and 
 Douglas, he came to the closing session as if he were novus homo. He had 
 great will and tenacity of purpose ; his efforts were vigorous and effective in 
 repelling, from a Southern standpoint, the aggressive debate of the secession 
 ists of the Senate. His elocution was more forcible than fine more discur 
 sive than elegant. He hammered away with stalwart strength upon his 
 thought, until he brought it into shape. He rarely failed to produce the im 
 pression he intended. It was seen, then, that he was destined to act a great 
 part in the future. Douglas frequently expressed his regret that Mr. John 
 son had not made his blows tell earlier in the hot conflict of 1860, when 
 Crittenden and himself were championing the interests of all sections, and 
 striving to avert in time the calamities which were pressed by extremists. 
 North and South. The Senators from Maryland, as from Kentucky, like 
 their states, occupied middle ground, and were ever ready and eager to me 
 diate. The same cannot be said for Arkansas. One of her Senators, Mr. 
 Sebastian, was reluctant to follow South Carolina. He did not follow his 
 own state, yet he would not go against her. He stayed at home quietly dur 
 ing the war. He was expelled from the Senate. He died in 1865. The 
 expulsion was revoked, and his full salary up to that time was paid to his 
 family. The other Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Johnson, was nothing loath 
 to secede. He offered himself, after the war, to the authorities, in a char 
 acteristic letter, frank and manly. Of the Missouri Senators, Mr. Polk went 
 South, where his friends did not expect him to go ; and Mr. Green, unex 
 pectedly, remained North in the seclusion of private life. The former had 
 been governor of his state, but was not otherwise greatly distinguished. The 
 latter was a worthy foeman of Douglas in the fierce struggle on the Lecomp- 
 ton question. 
 
72 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Of the Northern Senators who were supposed to be most nearly allied 
 with the South, were William M. Gwin, of California, Joseph Lane, of 
 Oregon, and Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana. The Senators from Florida were 
 never regarded, however they seemed, as favorable to the secession move 
 ment ; though the Representative from Florida, George S. Hawkins, was 
 the first to urge the withdrawal of his state as a reason for his indifference 
 to compromise, and his refusal to serve on the committee. Stephen R. 
 Mallory and David L. Yulee were later somewhat conspicuous in the Con 
 federate movement ; but neither of them exerted any considerable influence 
 at Washington in the direction of disunion during the winter of i86o-'6i. 
 
 The Republican Senators of the Thirty-sixth Congress who were most 
 noted in the parliamentary conflict, were Hamlin, Fessenden, Hale, Clark, 
 Collamcr, Wilson, Sumner, Chandler, Seward, Cameron, Wade, Trumbull, 
 Doolittle, and Baker a galaxy of ability. Against these, as against the 
 other extremists, stood Douglas, Crittenden, Johnson, Pugh, Latham, Fitch, 
 Thompson, Rice, and Powell. How these temperate tribunes labored to 
 save the Nation, only those present at their conferences know. The author 
 was often surprised at the speeches of Douglas and Pugh especially, de 
 signed to mitigate the effect of personal liberty bills, to nullify the fugitive- 
 slave law, and prevent other infractions of the Constitution. They sought 
 to remove from the Southern mind the hatred of the North thus engendered. 
 Few in number, these men did all that they could for peace, even to the last 
 Sabbath evening before the adjournment, when Mr. Crittenden hushed the 
 Senate by the glorious beauty of his last earnest, though ineffectual appeal 
 for conciliation. 
 
 In the House, the elements of disunion might be discerned like geological 
 strata in sections and states. Maryland furnished no member who was a 
 secessionist per se ; although of the delegation Messrs. Kunkel and Hughes 
 seemed to be most sympathetic with the South. The same may be said of 
 Kentucky ; but afterwards Burnett and Symmes became confederate Sena 
 tors. They were both eager for compromise during the winter of 1860, 
 and Burnett even returned to the next Congress in 1861. He had one dis 
 tinguished mark of attention after the war. He was placed under bonds for 
 treason. Virginia had Garnett, De Jarnette, and Edmundson. These men 
 were disposed toward a Southern Confederacy. Bocock, Smith, Jenkins, 
 Leake, and others were determined to go with the state. They did not labor 
 to foster compromise. Pryor was at first with, and at last against, the Union. 
 He was not as eager as he seemed for a separate Confederacy. His career 
 is known, with its vicissitudes. The extremes he once advocated seem now 
 to be as alien to his cautious and heroic nature, as moderation would have 
 been in his earlier ardent years, when he sought no exemption from any 
 attack. Jenkins went out with his state as might have been expected. He 
 fought bravely and died at the head of his cavalry. Rich in a patrimony of 
 
SENTIMENT IN THE BORDER STATES. 73 
 
 splendid farms along the Ohio and Kanawha, surrounded by friends who 
 elected him to Congress when barely of constitutional age, just married to a 
 daughter of the diplomatist Bowlin, of Paraguayan memory, and coming 
 from that part of Virginia where secession was the exception, his fate seemed 
 to be as unnatural as it is sad. Ex-Governor Smith, of Virginia, was per 
 haps the most remarkable man in the delegation. He was a fluent debater,, 
 and ready at repartee. He assisted the writer, during the war, while gov 
 ernor of the state, in the special exchange of prisoners. At one time, the 
 Union prisoners could obtain little or no aid from Congress or the Execu 
 tive, and scarcely a vote on resolutions urging exchange, till too late to save 
 the lives of thousands. Prompt and generous aid came from this inveterate 
 insurgent ; which President Lincoln, when informed of it, reciprocated with 
 the remark that he " would not be outdone by ' Extra Billy ' in extra kind 
 ness." The man among Virginians who labored most for the Union, was 
 John S. Millson, of Norfolk. Boteler began the same work by moving for 
 a Committee of Thirty-three ; but to Millson, more than to any one, we owe 
 the vote of Virginia in favor of the Union given in February, 1861. The 
 author, at his request, franked many thousands of his unanswerable speech 
 to Virginians. It was complained, about that time, that the census had 
 been copied, to flood that state with Millson's speech, and it was true. In 
 this work no one gave to General Millson more effective aid than Sherrard 
 Clemens, of Wheeling, whose eloquence did great execution, whose zeal 
 never flagged, and whose Unionism never wavered. Perhaps one of the 
 saddest of the events of those dies tree, was the duel, or the result of a duel, 
 which Mr. Clemens had with Mr. O. Jennings Wise, of Virginia. It left 
 him shattered by a terrible wound ; but never repentant of the stand he as 
 sumed at this time when the good men paused and some of the best went 
 awry. 
 
 What of the border states, Missouri, Kentucky, and, it may be added, 
 Tennessee? Tennessee was led in the House by Nelson and Maynard, both 
 Union devotees. Nelson appeared subsequently as the attorney of Andrew 
 Johnson on the impeachment case. He was a lame man, of fine elocution, 
 much given to poetic imagery, but not of a strictly legal mind. Mr. May 
 nard was a tall man of peculiar mould, with long, dark, straight hair, of 
 Indian features and sallow complexion, a notable physiognomy. He was 
 a man of prudence and culture, a slow thinker, but a sound one. It seemed 
 strange for a Massachusetts man to have such a magnetic hold upon the 
 people of East Tennessee. The Union sentiment of Missouri was cham 
 pioned by John S. Phelps. He was chairman of the Ways and Means 
 Committee of the Thirty-sixth Congress. He has, since the war, been gov 
 ernor of Missouri. He was a rapid speaker and thinker, but of good con 
 servative sense. The Union sentiment of Kentucky was defended vigorously 
 in the House by Mr. Mallory, a bon vivant of great good humor, and much 
 facility in debate. 
 5 
 
74 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Excepting. Joshua Hill, of Georgia, Houston and Cobb, of Alabama, 
 Gilmer and Vance, of North Carolina, Bouligny, of Louisiana, Hamilton, 
 of Texas, and such men as Branch, of North Carolina, Reuben Davis, of 
 Mississippi, Boyce, of South Carolina, Rust, of Arkansas, and Taylor, of 
 Louisiana, who were distrustful of secession as the cure for Southern ills, 
 though not pronounced in their sentiments, excepting these and a few others 
 not so conspicuous, the whole array of Southern pluck and talent, led by 
 Miles, Gartrell, Pugh of Alabama, Bocock, Garnett, Smith, Pryor, Craw 
 ford, Curry, Hindman, McRae, Barksdale, Lamar, Wright, and Keitt 
 nearly all, except Pugh and Smith, young men was thrown in favor of 
 precipitate action, with little attempt to compromise. Even such men as 
 Winslow, Smith, and Branch, of North Carolina, and Reagan, of Texas, 
 elected as conservatives against the disunion sentiments of their districts, 
 yielded before that chivalric band. The yielding was enforced by a tremen 
 dous pressure brought to bear from their homes, which was inspired by hopes 
 of independence. The wives, daughters, and other female connections of 
 Southern members were in the galleries constantly. They cheered, by their 
 presence and smiles, the fervid efforts of the secession orators. For im 
 petuous debate, there was Lamar, of Mississippi, scholarly and defiant ; for 
 logical humor, Governor McRae, of the same state, successor to General 
 Quitman, one of the happiest of speakers, an original slave-trade secessionist, 
 though educated in Ohio ; for parliamentary skirmishing, there was Bocock, 
 of Virginia ; for vituperative philippic, there was Roger A. Pryor ; for 
 courteous and beautiful elocution, Alexander R. Boteler, of Harper's Ferry ; 
 for swaggering bravado, toned with an elegant phraseology, there was the 
 vain and clever Keitt ; for smooth and trenchant dialectics, there was Porcher 
 Miles, of Charleston, who earned his place in Congress by his care of the 
 sick in the fever-stricken city of Norfolk in 1855 5 f r statesmanlike and 
 vigorous debate, there was Branch, of North Carolina ; for broad wit and 
 hearty blows, there was Gilmer, of North Carolina ; for subtle ratiocination 
 of the Calhoun pattern, there was Pugh, of Alabama, who had all the pith, 
 without the artistic polish, of his colleague Curry ; for offensive and vivacious 
 readiness, there was Hindman, of Arkansas, who of these leaders became 
 the most conspicuous in the war. Branch, Ruffin, Keitt, Jenkins, Barks- 
 dale, and Rust had important commands. All, except the latter, met that 
 death of which they vaunted so much, rather than submit to the Federal 
 authority. In looking over this roll, one cannot but regret that so much of 
 genius, energy, and goodness has been lost to our land. Among the most 
 eloquent of this remarkable body was Nelson, of Tennessee ; the most eccen 
 tric and indomitable genius for politics, was Emerson Etheridge ; and the 
 clearest heads for political economy, metaphysical refinement, and historic 
 research, were William W. Boyce and John S. Millson. 
 
 If we go to the Republican side of the House, we find Corwin, of Ohio, 
 
THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE HOUSE. 75 
 
 incomparable for his fun, his pathos, and his soul-stirring eloquence ; Charles 
 Francis Adams, with no readiness as a speaker, but a profound thinker ; Eli 
 Thayer, of Massachusetts, one of the children of Brown University, with 
 all his vast motive power occasionally getting out of order ; Morrill, of Ver 
 mont, whose skill in tariff calculations never flagged during the excitements 
 of the war ; Roscoe Conkling, with rare gifts of ready and pure elocution ; 
 John Hickman, of Pennsylvania, straightforward and dashing, with a scholar's 
 taste hidden under the toga ; Thaddeus Stevens, the Metternich of Repub 
 licanism ; Galusha A. Grow, quick in the manual and saucy in bravado 
 toward his opponents ; Benjamin Stanton, Sherman, and Bingham, from 
 Ohio. These last three were men of experience in legislation. They be 
 came leaders of a party which never succumbed until 1884. Benjamin 
 Stanton died just after the war. John Sherman has made an indelible mark 
 upon our financial policies, as Secretary of the Treasury, and as Senator. 
 John A. Bingham, gifted with English eloquence, and full of impulsive 
 ardor for Anglo-Saxon liberty, is now spending the autumn of his days as 
 Minister to Japan. Schuyler Colfax was there, but not as presiding officer 
 of the House or Senate. The temptations of the engrossing and specula 
 tive life which follow all great wars cast their eclipse over his fame. As 
 the author pens these lines, the telegraph clicks the mournful message of 
 his demise in a remote state. He arose, like Grow, to prominence by 
 championing with much fluency and energy the pietistic humanitarianism 
 of his party. Mr. Grow became the Speaker of the House ; and was suc 
 ceeded by Mr. Colfax. Mr. Grow still survives, as a quiet Pennsylvanian, 
 of business habits, with more care for railroads and coal than for politics or 
 Cushing's Manual. His hair is whitening for the harvest, but his impetu 
 osity of manner and energy of conviction are the same as when he had his 
 personal rencontre with Keitt, of South Carolina. 
 
 Perhaps the most remarkable man in that Congress was Owen Lovejoy, 
 of Illinois. His brother had been mobbed in Illinois, in the early days of 
 the abolition excitement. This and other incidents, fully inspired him with 
 a wild zealotry against slavery, or rather against slave-holders. He never 
 feared to antagonize any of its adherents. He was, next to Joshua R. Gid- 
 dings, the most aggressive and fully equipped of the anti-slavery orators. 
 It seemed as if he cultivated an ignorance of parliamentary law, in order to 
 say the most indecorous things. He had a rugged vehemence which, if 
 not oratory, was taken for it by those who look more to manner than sub 
 stance. These, with the affable Speaker, Pennington, made up the phalanx 
 upon which the Southern cohort hurled itself in debate. 
 
 Let us recall the scene which took place at the author's desk between 
 Keitt and Grow, the preceding Congress. It is after the hour of midnight. 
 The passions of the time are incarnate in that Congress and at that hour. 
 See the fierce clutch and glaring eye, and the struggle between these heady 
 
76 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 champions ! Now, after nearly three decades, the 'author sees trooping down 
 the aisles of memory, as then there came trooping down the aisles of the 
 House, the belligerent members, with Washburne, of Illinois, and Potter, 
 of Wisconsin, leading the one extreme, and Barksdale and Lamar, of Mis 
 sissippi, leading the other; then comes the melee the struggle, the pale 
 face of the Speaker calling to order, the sergeant-at-arms rushing into the 
 area before the clerk's desk, with the mace as his symbol of authority. Its 
 silver eagle moves up and down on the wave of passion and conflict. Then 
 there is a dead hush of the hot heart, and the glare of defiance across the 
 hall ! As this scene is revivified, looking at it through the red storm of the 
 war, there is epitomized all that has made that war bloody and desperate. 
 
 Then, too, there rise up the forms of those who were then accounted 
 moderate and middle men, like Davis and Holman, of Indiana, McClernand 
 and Logan, of Illinois, Mallory and Stevenson, of Kentucky, Pendleton 
 and Vallandigham, of Ohio, Florence and Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, 
 Sickles and Cochrane, of New-York. They stand like Douglas, Bigler, 
 Latham, Pugh, Johnson, and Crittenden, in the Senate, as a breakwater 
 against the contending tides. 
 
 From these scattered memories of this remarkable Congress, the reader 
 may gather some idea of its force and energy, tact and eloquence, passion 
 and prejudice. 
 
 Some of the great questions which arose were foreshadowed in the Pres 
 ident's Message ; for instance, in regard to the power to coerce a state. But 
 there were other great national topics, among the most important of which 
 were those concerning the acquisition of territory, and the government of 
 territories ; the effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court ; the various 
 amendments of the Constitution to prohibit Congress and the people from 
 impairing the right of property in slaves ; the fugitive-slave law ; the right of 
 transit in free states of persons with slaves ; the nullifying acts of state legis 
 latures ; the abolition of slavery and the internal slave trade ; changes by 
 constitutional amendments in the executive office and veto power ; the restor 
 ation of the equilibrium between the slave and free states ; the voluntary di 
 vision of slave states into two or more states ; the policy of allowing to slave 
 states alone, a vote on all questions of slavery, and making the amendments 
 proposed unamendable ; a grant to the states of power to appoint the Federal 
 officers in their midst ; the peaceable withdrawal of states from the Union 
 and apportionment of the public debt ; dual Senates and dual Executive ; 
 the organization at once of the remaining territories ; the foreign slave trade ; 
 the acquisition of foreign territory by a vote of two-thirds ; questions as to 
 ordinances of secession, and their effect ; the exclusion of Africans from ever 
 becoming citizens ; a constitutional convention ; these and many other ques 
 tions were debated, and referred to the committees of Thirteen in the Senate 
 and Thirty-three in the House. 
 
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR. 77 
 
 These questions lay at the root of our future agonies of war and recon 
 struction. They were the result of anxious cogitation on the problems 
 which threatened to divide the country. They remain upon the record to 
 illustrate the variety and magnitude of the interests springing out of the insti 
 tution of slavery, and the duplex character of our state and Federal govern 
 ments. They were, for the last time, thrust into the legislative tribunal for 
 tranquil solution, before the conflict in the forum of reason should be re 
 placed by 
 
 " the intestine shock 
 
 And furious close of civil butchery." 
 
 The public records show what results were reached by these committees, 
 or rather how resultless were their labors. Mr. Corwin, representing a 
 majority of the House committee, presented his resolutions and bills. Mr. 
 Adams declined to recommend even his own propositions, inasmuch as he 
 believed that the South would accept nothing that he might offer. Wash- 
 burne, of Wisconsin, and Tappan, of New Hampshire, of the same com 
 mittee, offered nothing by way of compromise. The conservative men, with 
 Taylor, Phelps, Rust, Whitely, Winslow, Nelson, Hamilton, and others of 
 the committee, wished to go further than Governor Corwin. They recom 
 mended the Crittenden proposition. The votes on the Corwin measures 
 were strangely incongruous. The vote on the Crittenden proposition was 
 well defined, but it is not so well understood. 
 
 From the frequency of inquiries since the war as to the vote on the Crit 
 tenden proposition, the people are even yet ignorant of the fact that the 
 responsibility of its failure belongs to the Republicans. It may well be 
 stated that all other propositions, whether of the Peace Convention, or the 
 Border State project, or the measures of the committees, were comparatively 
 of no moment; for the Crittenden proposition was the only one, if any, 
 which could have arrested the struggle. It would have received a larger 
 vote than any other. It would have had more effect in moderating the 
 Southern excitement. It has been shown already that Davis, Toombs, and 
 others of the Gulf States would have accepted it. The author talked with 
 Mr. Crittenden frequently on this point. Not only did he confirm the pub 
 lic declarations of Douglas and Pugh, and the speech of Toombs himself, to 
 this effect, but he said it was so understood in committee. At one time, 
 while the committee was in session, Mr. Crittenden said: " Mr. Toombs, 
 will this compromise, as a remedy for all wrongs and apprehensions, be 
 acceptable to you ?" Mr. Toombs with great warmth replied, "Not by 
 a good deal ; but my state will accept it, and I will follow my state." 
 
 It is not an open question, whether it was wise then to offer accommoda 
 tions. It may not be profitable now to ask whether the thousands of old and 
 young men whose bodies were maimed, or whose bones are decaying under 
 the sod of the South, and the heavy load of public debt under which the peo- 
 
78 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 pie sweated and toiled, had compensation in an established order, without 
 negro slavery. Why discuss the long vexed but now settled question as to 
 whether the blacks have been bettered by their precipitate freedom, passing, 
 as so many did, from slavery through suffering to death or freedom ? There 
 is no longer any debate out of the reflection that the negroes might be exter 
 minated. Since the negroes are a part of our social order, it is the part of 
 all citizens to make them useful and intelligent factors in our civilization and 
 advancement. There is no question left concerning them. 
 
 Much has transpired since that remarkable session of i86o-'6i, to disen 
 chant many of their Utopias, and to reveal many an error in the Federal 
 treatment of communities and states. With the knowledge of that day, and 
 amidst the fervors of the hour, what is the real question which history would 
 regard as of the first importance at that time? It is this : Could not this 
 Union have been made permanent by a timely settlement, instead of being 
 cemented by fraternal blood and military rule ? By an equitable adjustment 
 of the territory this was possible. The territories had then an area of i ,200,- 
 ooo square miles. The Crittenden proposition would have given the North 
 900,000 of these square miles, and applied the Chicago doctrines to that area. 
 It would have left the remaining fourth, substantially, to be carved out as free 
 or slave states, at the option of the people when the territories were admitted 
 as states. This proposition the radicals denounced. Notwithstanding the 
 President-elect was then in a minority of a million of the popular vote, they 
 were determined, as Mr. Chase wrote to Portsmouth, Ohio, from the Peace 
 Convention, to use the power while they had it, and to prevent a settlement. 
 It has been stated, in order to rid the Republicans of the odium of not avert 
 ing the war when that was possible, that the Northern members tendered to the 
 South the Crittenden Compromise, which the South rejected. This is untrue. 
 It was tendered by Southern Senators and Northern Democrats to the Re 
 publicans. They, in conjunction with some half a dozen extremist Southern 
 Senators, rejected it. It was voted upon but once in the House, when it 
 received 80 votes against 113. These eighty votes were exclusively Democrats 
 and Southern " Americans," like Gilmer, Vance, and others. Mr. Briggs, of 
 New-York, was the only one not a Democrat who voted for it. He had 
 been an old Whig and never a Republican. The Republican roll, beginning 
 with Adams and ending with Woodruff, was a unit against it. Inter 
 mingled with them was one Southern extremist, General Hindman, who 
 desired no settlement. There were many Southern men who did not vote, 
 believing that unless the Republicans, who were just acceding to power, 
 favored it, its adoption would be a delusion. The plan adopted by the 
 Republican Senators to defeat it, was by amendment and postponement. 
 On the I4th and I5th of January, 1861, they cast all their votes against its 
 being taken up; and on the i6th, when it came up, Mr. Clark, of New 
 Hampshire, moved to strike it out and insert something which he knew 
 
REPUBLICAN REFUSALS OF COMPROMISE. 79 
 
 would neither be successful nor acceptable. The vote on Clark's amendment 
 was 25 to 23 ; every " aye " being a Republican vote, and every " no," except 
 Kennedy and Crittenden (" Americans"), being a Democrat vote. On this 
 occasion, six Southern Senators, including Benjamin and Wigfall, did not 
 vote. They could have defeated Mr. Clark's motion. In reference to this 
 vote we have the testimony of Andrew Johnson, in a speech on the expul 
 sion of Senator Bright, Jan. 31, 1862, to this effect: 
 
 "I sat right behind Mr. Benjamin, and I am not sure that my worthy 
 friend (Mr. Latham) was not close by when he refused to vote ; and I said 
 to him, * Mr. Benjamin, why do you not vote? Why not save this proposi 
 tion, and see if we cannot bring the country to it?' He gave me rather an 
 abrupt answer, and said he would control his own actions without consulting 
 me or anybody else. Said I : 'Vote, and show yourself an honest man.' As 
 soon as the vote was taken, he and others telegraphed South, ' We cannot 
 get any compromise.' " 
 
 Doubtless the six Senators had the same motive for their reticence in 
 voting and readiness in telegraphing. But their conduct did not excuse the 
 body of the Republicans. Now, since the collapse of the Confederacy, many 
 of them are anxious to be excused. These are facts of history. They are 
 not written to justify or condemn. When the result of the vote was an 
 nounced, universal gloom prevailed. The people favored the compromise 
 Petitions signed by thousands of citizens were showered upon Congress, 
 for the passage of the compromise. Had it received a majority only, they 
 would have rallied and sustained those who desired peace and union. 
 
 The climax is reached. One more earnest appeal is made to the Re 
 publicans. Senator Cameron answers it by moving a reconsideration. His 
 motion is called up on the iSth. He votes against his own motion ! It is 
 carried, however, over the votes of the Republicans, although Wigfall votes 
 with them. It is again up on the 2d of March, 1861. The Southern States 
 are nearly all gone ; even then it is lost by one vote only. But on this oc 
 casion all the Democrats are for, and all the Republicans against it. The 
 truth is, there is nothing then but sneers and skepticism from the Republi 
 cans at any settlement. They break down every proposition. They elim 
 inate the elements of conciliation out of the Peace Convention before it 
 assembles. Senators Harlan and Chandler are especially active in preparing 
 that Convention for a failure. If every Southern man and every Northern 
 Democrat had voted for this proposition, it would still require nine Re 
 publicans for the requisite two-thirds. Where are they? Dreaming with 
 Mr. Seward of a sixty-days' struggle, or arranging for the division of the pa 
 tronage of Administration ? The only Southern Senators who seem to be 
 determined against any settlement are Iverson and Wigfall. 
 
 No man will challenge this review of party positions, if he will refer to the 
 Congressional Globe (ist part, Thirty-sixth Congress, p. 270,) for the testi- 
 
8o THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 mony of Douglas and Pugh, and to Mr. Bigler's Bucks County speech, Sept. 17, 
 1863. The latter then said : " When the struggle was at its height in Georgia 
 between Robert Toombs for secession, and Alexander H. Stephens against it, 
 had those men in the Committee of Thirteen, who are now so blameless in 
 their own estimation, given us their votes, or even three of them, Stephens 
 would have defeated Toombs, and secession would have been prostrated. I 
 heard Mr. Toombs say to Mr. Douglas that the result in Georgia was staked 
 on the action of the Committee of Thirteen. If it accepted the Crittenden 
 proposition, Stephens would defeat him ; if not, he would carry the state out 
 by 40,000 majority. The three votes from the Republican side would have 
 carried it at any time ; but union and peace in the balance against the Chi 
 cago platform were sure to be found wanting." Many facts were brought 
 to light during the war, and subsequently, showing that, while President 
 Buchanan was working for the Peace Conference, while Virginia had been 
 gained to its side with her ablest men, there were even then in the Cabinet 
 those who not only encouraged revolt, but foiled by letter and speech the 
 efforts of the Unionists at Washington and Richmond. Those who sought 
 to counteract the schemes of secession were themselves checkmated by ex 
 treme men of the Republican party. Whether, therefore, the public records 
 are consulted or the inquirer goes within the veil and consults those who 
 know the elements then at work in the committees and in social life, one 
 leading fact will always stand stark and bold, namely, that with the aid of a 
 handful of secessionists per se, the whole body of the Republicans were 
 as Andrew Johnson described Senator Clark, when the latter defeated the 
 Crittenden resolution by his amendment "acting out their policy." In 
 the light of subsequent events, that policy was developed. It was the destruc 
 tion of slavery at the peril of war and disunion ; or, as Senator Douglas 
 expressed it, "a disruption of the Union, believing it would draw after it, as 
 an inevitable consequence, civil war, servile insurrections, and finally the 
 utter extermination of slavery in all the Southern States." Whether a great 
 war, with its infinite and harmful consequences, was the proper means to 
 such an end, is not for the writer, but the reader, to determine for himself. 
 The general belief at this time is, that the war has given us in a new 
 order, full compensation for its cost in means and life. Whether this be 
 a correct estimate or not, the historians and philosophers of the future can 
 better judge. 
 
 VALLANDIGHAM. 
 
 Before closing this chapter the writer will indulge in a few remarks on a 
 brave colleague who suffered as much for his patriotism and love of liberty 
 as any member of that Congress. No man has been more thoroughly mis 
 understood and abused than Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio. There 
 never was a man in public life who had a greater devotion to the Constitu 
 tion and institutions of his country than he. His motto was to do right, to 
 
VALLANDIGHAM FOR THE UNION. 8 1 
 
 trust in God, in truth, and the people. Amid the harsh criticisms upon his 
 course in 1863, he appealed to time and right. Well might he have said : 
 " Nobly hath the avenger answered me." 
 
 Negrophilistic fanaticism produced and encouraged an intense hatred 
 of this statesman ; for his whole public life was a protest against the ex 
 tremists and a clear and uniform expression of a true love of country. He 
 warned against the sectionalism which brought on the deadly national con 
 flict. When it came, he differed from many in whom the people had 
 reposed confidence ; but he stood by his principles, and he held his position 
 immovably against a terrific current of raving prejudice. For this he 
 was denounced as a traitor and disunionist. But the immense circle of 
 his friends who observed his inflexible firmness, even in his last terrible 
 trial, stood by him to the last. He was born in New Lisbon, Ohio, July 29, 
 1820. His father was a Presbyterian clergyman from Virginia. He was de 
 scended from a family which came from the French Flanders of the old 
 Frisian stock. Like Calhoun he was educated under Presbyterian influences, 
 and had the inflexible character that they developed. He began public life 
 very early as a teacher, lawyer, and editor. When he was twenty-five years 
 of age, he was elected to the Ohio Legislature. He opposed the Wilmot 
 proviso, with tongue and pen, in the legislature and upon the stump. He 
 opposed those who denounced the annexation of Texas, and who declared 
 that the Union was dissolved thereby. He held that the Mexican War was 
 a constitutional war, that it should be sustained, and that nothing but an 
 honorable peace should be its end. The compromise measures of 1850 
 found in him a rare and eloquent defender. As a friend of peace and con 
 cord and a lover of the Union, he held that every law upon the statute-book 
 of the United States which was constitutional should be vindicated. Thrice 
 he ran for Congress and thrice was beaten. At last, in 1856, along with 
 George H. Pendleton, John A. Bingham, Benjamin Stanton, and others 
 who made a name in the Thirty-fifth Congress, he was elected ; but was not 
 admitted to .his seat until after a contest upon the floor of the House. That 
 contest was settled on the 25th of May, 1858. It turned upon certain negro 
 votes, but it fixed Vallandigham as one of the most conspicuous of our pub 
 lic men in the national councils. Few will fail to remember what was 
 known as "The Ohio Rebellion" in 1857. Vallandigham led the Union 
 force in that contest. It grew out of the fugitive-slave act, in connection 
 with habeas corpus, and excited almost as much agitation in the state, as if 
 war had been flagrant. In 1859, ^ e J^ n Brown raid took place in Vir 
 ginia. Mr. Vallandigham's presence at Harper's Ferry a few hours after 
 the capture of Brown, enabled him to witness the first shedding of blood 
 between the sections. In the campaign of 1860, he rose to the full height 
 of the great argument for the Union. He feared that the inevitable fruit of 
 abolition sentiment, which had culminated in the Republican organization, 
 
82 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 would be disunion. To the Democrats of Detroit he then said : " Human 
 nature has been misread from thq time of Cain to this day, if blood, blood, 
 human blood, is not the result.'* 
 
 It is true that when secession came, he was opposed to coercion and 
 favored compromise. In this course he was a companion of Senator Pugh 
 and John J. Crittenden. During the winter of iS6o-'6i, when a committee 
 of one from each state was selected to consider the condition of the country, 
 Mr. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, was selected as the member from that state. 
 When Judge Hawkins, the elegant and sole representative of the State of 
 Florida, arose in his seat and declined to serve on that committee, the vexed 
 question became still more vexatious. It was then, on the tenth day of 
 December of the year 1860, that Mr. Vallandigham made one of his stirring 
 speeches in the House. "We are all ready," he exclaimed, "and, sir, all 
 in the cause of our yet, thank God ! common country ; and by no vote or act 
 or speech of ours, here or elsewhere, shall anything be done to defile or im 
 pair or overthrow this, the grandest temple of human liberty ever erected in 
 any age. But we demand to worship at the very foot of the altar, and not,, 
 as servants and inferiors, at the outer courts of the edifice. Sir, we of the 
 Northwest have a deeper interest in the preservation of this government in 
 its present form than any other section of the Union. We have an empire 
 equal in area to the third of all Europe, and we do not mean to be a depend 
 ency or a province either of the East or of the South. A nation of war 
 riors we may be ; a tribe of shepherds, never." 
 
 While Mr. Vallandigham held that war was disunion, final and eternal 
 separation, and exclaimed with Chatham, " You cannot conquer America," 
 he was not unwilling, when he found the South succumbing before the attacks 
 of the Union armies, to make what he called a New Departure. But before 
 that time, and during the war, he had offered peace resolutions declaring the 
 object of the war, holding* that no state could be extinguished by Federal 
 authority, and that to declare any state extinguished, or to establish territorial 
 governments or permanent military governments within it, should deserve the 
 censure of the House and the country. Mr. Vallandigham, together with 
 many of the Democratic members of Congress of that day, and even such Re 
 publican members as Judge Benjamin Thomas, of Massachusetts, had a pro 
 found reverence for the wisdom of our ancestors. They could not, in thought 
 or action, allow the supremacy of the national government without its own 
 sphere, or within the reserved rights of the states. They held that between 
 the national and state powers there was no necessary conflict ; that each juris 
 diction was the complement of the other ; and that both were vital parts of 
 that political system under whose admirable distribution and adjustment of 
 powers the people of the United States had enjoyed for so many years the 
 most beneficent government that ever existed. They did not believe that 
 there was any inherent defect or want of wisdom or foresight in its founders^ 
 
VALLANDIGHAM UPHOLDS THE CONSTITUTION. 83 
 
 nor that we had outgrown its provisions, nor that it was behind the age. If 
 trouble came, it would be because the age was not worthy of a government 
 which had failed to be appreciated in the spirit of wisdom, prudence, and 
 moderation in which it was founded. 
 
 Vallandigham was no champion of the gospel of anarchy or the philos 
 ophy of dissolution. He would stand by the Constitution, whoever else 
 might falter. He believed in the system of many states in one polity, 
 working in their respective spheres as if the Divine hand had moulded and 
 set them in motion. For preaching this gospel, for asserting the right to 
 keep and bear arms in a state where war was not flagrant, for his opposition 
 to coercion, and for his attempt to restore the Union through peace, the men 
 of that time know what happened to him in 1862 and 1863. From the plat 
 form at Mount Vernon, Ohio, in the month of May, 1863, the writer and Mr. 
 Vallandigham addressed the people of Knox County, Ohio. Certain mili 
 tary orders had been issued before that time which restricted the right of the 
 people freely to discuss the condition of public affairs. In fact, confiscation 
 had been threatened in case of their violation. These orders were then prop 
 erly denounced as military insolence. It was a time when every case at law 
 could have been determined in the open courts of Ohio, and every question 
 of politics, at the ballot-box. Vallandigham counseled no resistance to law, 
 but he would meet and repel all mob violence by force and arms on the spot. 
 During the meeting at Mount Vernon the conscription law was discussed, in 
 fact, mostly discussed by the writer of this book. By some mistake the pro 
 vost-marshal, or some other reporter, gave his words as the words of Val 
 landigham. This was testified to before the court martial which convened 
 in Cincinnati on the sixth day of May, whereat the author was a witness and 
 swore to the facts. The result was that a military commander arrested Mr. 
 Vallandigham, at his house in Dayton, by a strategic movement, with the 
 aid of 150 soldiers. A special train was on hand. Houses were guarded 
 near Vallandigham's residence and along the street to the railway station. 
 The doors of his house were broken open, his bed-room was entered, the pris 
 oner was captured, placed in the railway car, all within thirty minutes. He 
 was consigned to a prison. The author was summoned as a witness the next 
 day, and went through the burning depot at Hamilton to Cincinnati. The 
 indignation of the people was deep and terrible. From his prison, on the 5th 
 of May, 1863, Vallandigham issued a letter to the Democracy of Ohio. He 
 declared that he was in a military Bastile for no other offense than political 
 opinions, and the defense of the rights of the people and of constitutional 
 liberty. The writer arrived at Cincinnati at daybreak on the morning of the 
 6th. He was informed by General Burnside that Mr. Vallandigham would not 
 be convicted. He was requested to so advise Mrs. Vallandigham, who was 
 in great distress. But some counter movement took place afterwards. The 
 whole thing was changed. Vallandigham was convicted by the military 
 court. He refused to acknowledge its jurisdiction, but this plea was treated 
 
84 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 with contempt. He was charged with publicly expressing in violation of 
 General Order No. 38, from headquarters of the Department of Ohio sym 
 pathy for those in arms against the government of the United States, and with 
 declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions for the purpose of weakening the 
 power of the government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion. The 
 president of the court had directed a plea of not guilty to be entered, and the 
 case was opened. With clear and deliberate speech and unexcited demeanor 
 he, a private citizen of Ohio, addressed the court martial. He claimed that 
 he was arrested without due process of law ; that as he was not either in the 
 land or naval forces of the United States, nor in the militia in the actual ser 
 vice of the United States, he was not triable for any cause by any such tri 
 bunal as a court martial or military commission. He insisted that if triable 
 at all, he should be tried in a civil court under the Constitution, on an indict 
 ment or presentment by a grand jury, there to be confronted with witnesses, 
 to have compulsory process, the assistance of counsel and evidence and argu 
 ment, according to the common law and the ways of judicial courts. An 
 attempt was made to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. This failed. The 
 court reserved the application from May 12, when the arguments concluded, 
 until the i6th, and then refused it. Having been found guilty on the i6th of 
 May, he was sentenced to close confinement as a prisoner at Fort Warren, 
 Boston Harbor. He remained in his place of confinement at the Burnet 
 House, Cincinnati, for six days longer, and then by some whim of tyranny, 
 he was, on the order of the President, transported beyond the lines. He was 
 banished from his native state for no crime, by the compulsion of an arbitrary 
 and tyrannical power. The purpose of the order by which he was sent to the 
 South was malicious. It was intended to give party color to calumny. In 
 his farewell to the people of Ohio, he said that no order of banishment exe 
 cuted by superior force could release him from his obligations or deprive him 
 of his rights as a citizen of Ohio and of the United States. At noon on the 
 29th of May, 1863, he left his military prison and embarked on a steamer for 
 the South. When the boat reached Elizabeth, a journal of that city gave it 
 a salute, as it said, for the heaviest gun that the Administration had ever put 
 on a boat. On Sunday evening, May 24, he arrived at Murfreesboro, and 
 was taken to the office of the provost-marshal-general, where he met General 
 Rosecrans and other officers. He was kept under guard until after midnight, 
 and then moved southward in charge of a mounted escort. Daylight found 
 him upon the Federal outpost. A flag of truce was sent forward. The 
 Confederate colonel reluctantly consented to receive the exile. Vallandigham 
 was delivered to the guards, asking them to mark his words : " I am a citizen 
 of the State of Ohio, of the United States of America. I am sent within 
 your lines contrary to my will and wish. I ask that you receive me as your 
 prisoner." 
 
 These facts reveal one of the darkest chapters connected with the war. 
 It was a gross outrage of liberty in the person of one of the truest patriots 
 
OSTRACISM OF VALLANDIGHAM. 85 
 
 of the country. Vallandigham was chosen as a candidate for governor of 
 Ohio, on the nth of June, 1863, being still an involuntary exile. Mean 
 while he had run the blockade, passed around into Canada and communed 
 with his friends, the author among them, across the border. During the 
 reconstruction period Mr. Vallandigham gave most of his time to his pro 
 fession. Still he was meditating many new modes of departure for the ben 
 efit and success of his party departures from old methods which had not 
 received the approbation of the people. 
 
 On the morning of June 13, 1871, while the author was standing at his 
 door-steps in New-York City, he received from the postman a letter. It was 
 from his friend Vallandigham, asking him to ponder over the policy of his new 
 departure. There was a postscript to the letter in which he said : " Am full 
 of murder now," meaning that he was engaged in trying a very important 
 murder case, in which a Democratic editor was concerned, and in which his 
 personal feelings were intensely wrought. 
 
 Here is the letter : 
 
 " DAYTON, OHIO, Tune n, 1871. 
 Hon. S. S. Cox, N. T. 
 
 MY DEAR SIR : Yours received. All right, right in time and direc 
 tion both; and the 'dry bones' everywhere are shaking. " J. D." seems 
 to prefer to be a ' dry bone ' still. No matter : he's past prophesy any 
 
 how - Tru 'y' etc '' C. L. VAIXANDIGHAM. 
 
 P. S. The Enquirer's bones being a little caries, it is hard for them to 
 shake. But they will, by and by. Am trying the McGehan case, and am 
 full of murder just now." 
 
 What he meant in his letter by the phrase that " the dry bones every 
 where are shaking," was a reference to his new departure in political tactics 
 and sentiment, which he was then preaching. He advocated absolute ac 
 quiescence in all amendments of the Constitution, and the general pacifica 
 tion of the elements of strife, North and South. In this liberal endeavor he 
 was thwarted by " J. D." ; or those representing the old element, of which 
 Jefferson Davis was the type. 
 
 Almost within the next five minutes after reading this letter the writer 
 received a telegram from Dayton, Ohio. It briefly stated : " Your friend 
 Vallandigham accidentally shot himself while practicing with a pistol to 
 illustrate the murder case which he was trying. Come to his funeral as soon 
 as possible." He died six days after the letter was written. This was the 
 last of earth to a statesman who was outspoken and fearless in a time of great 
 anxiety and peril, an orator who 'graced the noble fervor of many an hour 
 by the affluence of his classic and biblical references and allusions, and who, 
 while steadfast in his friendships and devoted to his country, never failed to 
 draw from his partisans the warmest adulation possible to leadership in 
 America. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE IMPENDING CONFLICT. 
 
 THE THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS WHAT BECAME OF THE MEMBERS HOW THEY 
 ACTED IN THE WAR NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CONGRESSMEN EMBAT 
 TLED A PARLIAMENT WITHOUT PRECEDENT WHY THE BATTLE OF BEL- 
 MONT WAS FOUGHT A CHAPTER OF WAR, ADVENTURE, AND NECROLOGY 
 ELY'S "ONWARD TO RICHMOND " JUDGE REAGAN'S REPULSE OF THE 
 ENEMY - THE SENATORS AND MEMBERS IN THE FIELD THEY FOUGHT AS 
 THEY VOTED INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN FIRST GUNS OF 
 THE WAR. 
 
 THE object of this chapter is to give something of the after-life of 
 members of the Thirty-sixth Congress who were conspicuous in 
 defending or resisting the doctrine of secession, which led to such 
 lamentable consequences. " There were giants in the land in those 
 days"; not a few " mighty men, which were of old, men of renown." 
 They have almost passed away with their day and generation. 
 
 The Thirty-sixth Congress met on the 5th of December, 1859. Consid 
 ered by results, it was, perhaps, the most important congregation of men 
 that ever assembled upon our continent. It held the destinies of our institu 
 tions and races in the hollow of its hand. The Senate was presided over by 
 John C. Breckenridge, Vice-President of the United States. Its members 
 became famous in the two subsequent decades. Hannibal Hamlin became 
 Vice-President, and William P. Fessenden, Secretary of the Treasury. They 
 were Senators from Maine. John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, was a man 
 of abundant wit and juiciest humor. He became Minister to Spain in Pres 
 ident Lincoln's administration. He returned home health-broken and spirit- 
 broken, in 1869, because of the attacks of a New- York paper. Of the other 
 New England members, Jacob Collamer had been Postmaster-General, and 
 Henry B. Anthony became presiding officer of the Senate. The death of 
 Senator Anthony has recently been deplored with most fervent and sympa 
 thetic eulogy. Lafayette S. Foster, of Connecticut, preceded him as Pres 
 ident of the Senate and Vice-President ex ojficio. Massachusetts had 
 Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson as its tribunes. They were fit repre- 
 
THE SENATORS IN AND AFTER THE WAR. 87 
 
 sentatives of the Puritan and progressive element for which New England 
 has been celebrated. 
 
 New-York had Preston King, who was known, when in the Democratic 
 ranks, as a devotee of anti-slavery, and William H. Seward, than whom no 
 greater Foreign Secretary has appeared since Jefferson's day. Simon Cam 
 eron, Senator from Pennsylvania, became Secretary of War, and afterwards 
 Minister to Russia. He lives to a ripe old age, not so much in his son, who 
 is his senatorial successor, as in the generosities of his nature. He was in 
 defatigable in organizing our war forces. He initiated the policy of enlist 
 ing colored soldiers. James A. Bayard, the irreproachable Senator from 
 Delaware, died long since, but he survives in his gifted son, upon whom the 
 senatorial mantle also descended. James M. Mason, of Virginia, is most 
 widely known by his association with John Slidell in the affair of the Trent. 
 Robert M. T. Hunter, of the same state, than whom no man was more 
 sedate in judgment, survives in venerable age. He became Secretary of 
 State in the Confederacy. He is now a poor man, but is not the less hon 
 ored by his state and by his record. Since the close of the war he has served 
 his state in some fiscal relation. He will be known to those who care to 
 look into his life and service as one of the best economists, theoretically and 
 practically, known to the decade which preceded the war. Among other 
 Confederate Cabinet officers, he was for some time a prisoner at Fort Pulaski, 
 Georgia. He had been a short time before a member of the commission that 
 met at General Grant's headquarters for the purpose of considering terms 
 of peace. Had he but exercised the immense influence which he had in the 
 South, he might have been more potential than almost any other man not 
 excepting Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy. Thomas L. Clingman, of 
 North Carolina, became a Confederate general. He still lives, though suffer 
 ing from many wounds. He gives his time to science, and his memory to 
 politics. James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, was a man of splendid 
 ability and rare oratory. He was tne author of The Pro-slavery Argu 
 ment. He long since preceded his colleague in that Senate, James Ches- 
 nut, Jr., to the other world. The latter became an aid-de-camp on the staff 
 of Jefferson Davis, and afterwards a general of brigade. Alfred Iverson, of 
 Georgia, was then an old man, but strong of will. His name indicates that 
 he belonged to the Norse race, whom no disasters by sea or land could intim 
 idate. He served as colonel and brigadier-general in the Confederate army, 
 and his son commanded a Confederate regiment. Robert Toombs, his col 
 league, was the first Confederate Secretary of State. He retired from that 
 office in July, 1861, to enter the Confederate army. He commanded a 
 Georgia brigade in Longstreet's celebrated fighting corps. He had some 
 differences with Jefferson Davis. He is a man as opulent in purse as he is 
 generous in disposition and able in oratory. Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Ala 
 bama, retired from the Senate a few months before the war began. He was 
 
88 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 a plain, old-fashioned miller, and not a man of conspicuous ability. He had 
 not the audacity peculiar to men of dash and skill, like his colleague, Clement 
 C. Clay, who also withdrew from the Senate about the same time. The 
 latter was a gentleman of elegant and dignified presence and calm elocution, 
 but of defiant attitude upon questions affecting Southern policy. Mr. Clay 
 became a Confederate Senator. In 1863, he went on a foreign mission for 
 the Confederacy. In 1865, he was arrested and for some time imprisoned at 
 Fortress Monroe. 
 
 Of the Senators from Mississippi, one was Jefferson Davis. He retired 
 from the Senate on Jan. 21, 1861, and became President of the Confed 
 eracy. His record forms a large chapter of American history. He is more 
 widely known than any other man connected with that Congress. Albert 
 G. Brown, the other Senator from Mississippi, raised a military company. 
 He became its captain and fought at Leesburg. He was afterwards elected 
 to the Confederate Congress. When the war was over he returned to his 
 plantation. He was foremost in advocating and advancing the acceptance of 
 the legitimate results of the war. In season and out of season, he opposed 
 all ineffectual efforts to continue the conflict. He opposed all policies that 
 were contrary to public or personal liberty and to the progress of new opin 
 ions and new elements in his state. He died in 1883, generally regretted. 
 The Senators from Louisiana were John Slidell and Judah P. Benjamin. 
 The career of each had its romantic side : Slidell became the Minister of 
 the Confederacy to France, and gave tone to a certain class of society in the 
 French capital. Benjamin was an Israelite. He was the first Attorney-Gen 
 eral of the Confederacy ; afterwards he became its Secretary of War and 
 Secretary of State. He was thoroughly educated in the canons and practice 
 of the civil law. After the war was over he betook himself to London. 
 There he became one of the most successful, as he was one of the most 
 accomplished, of the solicitors and advocates of the British bar. He died 
 recently in Paris, long after the ardors of his young ambition had been 
 burned out. Of George E. Pugh, of Ohio, the writer has already spoken. 
 Benjamin F. Wade is best known as a man after the Cromwellian type. He 
 was of rugged, fierce, and vindictive feeling. His climax as a politician was 
 reached when he failed to take the place that would have been vacant by 
 the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. 
 
 Kentucky was well represented in that Congress. John J. Crittenden 
 had been twice Attorney-General of the United States. He had been the 
 governor of his state, and been four times elected to the United States Sen 
 ate. Afterwards and during the war he became a member of the House. 
 He was a fervent patriot and a leading light in the Union cause. Lazarus 
 W. Powell, Mr. Crittenden's colleague in the Senate, was a man of large and 
 stalwart frame, whose heart was co-extensive with his body. He is best 
 known by his wonderful speech against military interference in the elections 
 
THE SENATORS IN AND AFTER THE WAR. 89 
 
 of the people. It is a monument of which his children may be proud. It 
 is worthy of the state of Henry Clay. It is worthy of a state which has pro 
 duced a galaxy of men each one of whom would have been a conspicuous- 
 star, but for the varied lustre of other stars of primary magnitude. A. O. 
 P. Nicholson, of Tennessee, had been a devotee of the Union. He had 
 been a writer for the Washington organ of the Democracy. Andrew John 
 son was well known for his devotion to the Union in peace, in war, and in 
 reconstruction. Graham N. Fitch and Jesse D. Bright were the Senators of 
 Indiana. Both were intense in their notions of duty. They had an inclin 
 ation toward the South, but with no loss of steadfastness toward the Union, 
 which they thought could not be preserved by coercion. Trusten Polk, of 
 Missouri, was a man whom it is pleasant to recall for his amiable disposition. 
 His name is associated with many heroes, clerical, executive, and legisla 
 tive. James S. Green, the other Senator from Missouri, although he sank 
 into comparative obscurity after the war, was a champion for the vigor of 
 the Constitution in its relation to slavery. He competed with Douglas for 
 the honors of the great debate on territorial power over that subject. Zach- 
 ariah Chandler, of Michigan, was afterwards Secretary of the Interior. He 
 was the third of his name and family in the Senate. Kinsley S. Bingham, 
 his colleague, died in October, 1861. Stephen R. Mallory, of Florida, 
 became the Secretary of the Navy of the Confederacy. He had been chair 
 man of the Naval Committee of the Senate before the war. After the close 
 of the war he was arrested on a charge of treason, and confined for a short 
 time at Fort Lafayette. David L. Yulee now resides in Washington City. 
 He lives in elegant leisure. He was the companion of Mr. Mallory in the 
 Senate, from Florida. He was also a companion of Mr. Hunter in arrest at 
 Fort Pulaski. Mr. Yulee is a man of wealth, which he accumulated by fore 
 sight and skill in the management of railroads. 
 
 At the end of that Congress there was only one Senator from Texas 
 John Hemphill. He died at Richmond, as a Confederate Senator, in the 
 early part of the war. Lewis T. Wigfall, his colleague, participated in the 
 bombardment of Fort Sumter. He was for a short time a brigadier-general 
 in the Confederacy, and afterwards a Senator. James Harlan and James W. 
 Grimes represented Iowa. The former has since been Secretary of the Inte 
 rior. He is now connected with the Alabama Claims Commission. Senator 
 Grimes was a man of clear intellect. He was a leader in the business of 
 the Senate. He has long since deceased. He, too, was a man of wealth. 
 Charles Durkee was known for his hostility to the fugitive-slave law, which 
 Wisconsin had resisted almost as persistently as Ohio. James R. Doolittle, 
 his colleague, was then a Republican Senator, but the excesses of his party 
 after the war was over, and especially in connection with reconstruction 
 and impeachment, drove him to his early love, which was the Democratic 
 party. He is a prominent man now in the resumption of power by that or- 
 6 
 
90 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ganization to which he gave the devotion of his earlier years. The only 
 prominent Senator from California in that Congress was William M. Gwin. 
 He is a native of Tennessee. He is a man of herculean build. He was 
 early associated with Southern sympathy and interests. He gave his whole 
 heart to the cause of the Confederacy. In many relations with politics, 
 before and since the war, he was a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by 
 night, upon our extreme western coast. When the Thirty-sixth Congress 
 met, Minnesota had but one Senator. Henry M. Rice is specially remem 
 bered, because it was by his side, when he was a Delegate from Minnesota 
 before the state was admitted, that the writer sat in the old hall, on his first 
 entrance into Congress in 1857. Oregon was represented by Gen. Joseph 
 Lane and Gen. Edward D. Baker. Both were heroes of Mexican fame. 
 General Lane was known to every part of the country as the associate of 
 Mr. Breckenridge upon the Southern ticket. His name recalls a pleasant 
 incident. In moving into the new hall and drawing for seats, General Lane 
 was awarded the seat that had been temporarily occupied by the author. 
 When the name of the latter was called, although the youngest of the mem 
 bers, General Lane escorted him, amidst the cheers of the House, to the new 
 seat, since so often occupied by him, saying at the same time : "I have no 
 need of a seat, sir ; but I expect you to vote very soon for the admission of 
 the State of Oregon. I am but a Delegate, and you are a member. You 
 may survive me in the work which is here to be done. I go to another 
 sphere. As soon as the vote on the admission of Oregon is taken, I shall be 
 its Senator." At the outbreak of the war General Baker took command of 
 the " California" regiment, and fell at Ball's Bluff in October, 1861, while 
 gallantly commanding a brigade. 
 
 In the House of Representatives of that extraordinary Congress there 
 were 109 Republicans, 101 Democrats, 26 "Americans," and one known 
 as a Whig. Of the State of Maine, the three leading men were : Ezra B. 
 French, who became Second Auditor of the Treasury ; Freeman H. Morse, 
 who went abroad as Consul to London, and Israel Washburn, Jr., who 
 became governor of Maine. New Hampshire gave to the army of the 
 Potomac Gilman Marston and Colonel Tappan, each of whom led well 
 equipped regiments to the field and served conspicuously during the war. 
 Their splendid records may be found in the volume t of Major Otis T. R. 
 Waite, entitled, New Hampshire in the Great Rebellion. They both live, 
 full of honors. Vermont had Justin S. Morrill, who still survives as the 
 venerable Senator from that state. He is known for his peculiar activity 
 in the formation of protective tariffs. Massachusetts, among other members 
 of rare talent, had Anson Burlingame. He was noted for his famous esca 
 pade in the Brooks-Sumner trouble. He became our Minister to China, 
 and afterwards an ambassador of that power. Alexander H. Rice became 
 governor of the state. John B. Alley survives many not so rich as him- 
 
THE NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVES. pi 
 
 self. He is now a resident of Washington. Charles R. Train was for 
 many years the attorney-general of Massachusetts. Henry L. Dawes is 
 now a Senator from that state. Eli Thayer, with whom the author was 
 associated at Brown University, still lives. He was active in sending anti- 
 slavery emigrants into Kansas. He is a man of eccentric humor and of 
 wonderful and advanced thought, mixed with practical sense. He is a liv 
 ing steam engine. Charles Francis Adams, by inheritance and ability, at 
 that time might almost have stood as a bulwark against the tumultuous 
 waves of party passion. He was a peerless man. He discharged with dis 
 tinguished ability the delicate and arduous duties of Minister to Great 
 Britain during the Civil War. His diplomatic correspondence of that 
 period shines with patriotism, elegance, and eloquence. Every letter is a 
 masterpiece. Orris S. Ferry, of Connecticut, afterwards became Senator. 
 
 New- York, at that time, furnished few who afterwards became conspic 
 uous in public life. Among those who became known in the war in a 
 martial way were Daniel E. Sickles, John Cochrane, and Charles H. Van 
 Wyck. The latter is now the anti-monopoly Senator from Nebraska. 
 General Sickles organized the " Excelsior Brigade," whose many brilliant 
 achievements made it most worthy of its name. It may be said that he is one 
 of the heroes of Gettysburg. He became military governor in the South, and 
 afterward was Minister to Spain. John Cochrane survives in great vigor; 
 and, although he was a Republican for many years, he has returned to his early 
 love the Democratic party. Horace F. Clark was a son-in-law of Vander- 
 bilt, of New- York. He was, at that time, a prominent actor upon the scene. 
 John B. Haskin still lives. He has been an active politician in the city of 
 New- York. Francis E. Spinner is known as well by his integrity as by his 
 signature. Roscoe Conkling has a fame that reaches to the extremity of the 
 Republic, and far beyond. Charles B. Sedgwick lived many years in his 
 native district, the honored possessor of an honored name. He was espe 
 cially honored in the profession of the law, to which he dedicated most of his 
 life. He died three years ago. Alfred Ely became noted in connection with 
 the battle of Bull Run. He was captured and borne by the Black Horse 
 Cavalry to Richmond under the cry of *' On to Richmond." He left a 
 blessed name as the dispenser of much comfort to his fellow-prisoners in 
 Libby Prison. Elbridge G. Spaulding lives in Buffalo, along with his accu 
 mulated riches. He surveys with serene satisfaction the history of our bank 
 ing system, with the origin of which he had so much to do. Reuben E. 
 Fenton represented the last of the thirty-three districts in New- York. Since 
 then he has made a splendid figure in the Senate, and in the gubernatorial 
 chair of New- York. He lives to make his reminiscence of the scenes of this 
 remarkable Congress. 
 
 William Pennington is the first name from New Jersey among its five 
 members. He became Speaker after a bitter contest lasting two months. 
 
92 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 He had been governor of New Jersey. He was a man of splendid pres 
 ence, with great talent for humor, a capital stump-speaker, and perhaps the 
 most thoroughly ^^accomplished man in parliamentary law who ever 
 wielded the gavel. Delaware, then as now, had but one member, William 
 G. Whiteley. He is now on the bench in his native state. James A. 
 Stewart, of Maryland, long since deceased, became a judge also. J. Mor 
 rison Harris, Edward H. Webster, and Henry Winter Davis were elected 
 to the Thirty-sixth Congress by the "American " party in Maryland. They 
 gave their efforts to the Union party. Mr. Webster and Mr. Harris sur 
 vive. Mr. Davis was the most gifted in eloquence and logic of any mem 
 ber in Congress within the author's acquaintance. Virginia presented a re 
 markable company. Their subsequent history is a study for men who are 
 adepts in necrology. Muscoe R. H. Garnett, member from the first district 
 of Virginia, married Miss Stevens, a rich lady from Jersey City. He volun 
 teered into the war and became an aide to Gen. Joseph E. Johnston. The 
 author was informed by Judge Reagan, of Texas, who was the Postmaster- 
 General of the Confederacy, that he himself was present at the battle of 
 Seven Pines when General Johnston was wounded and borne off the field > 
 at the time Mr. Garnett was with him. Jefferson Davis, General Lee, and 
 General Magruder were present at that engagement. Mr. Garnett after 
 wards died ; but not from any wounds received in battle. Daniel C. De- 
 jarnette became a member of the Confederate Congress. He has made 
 frequent visits to Washington. Roger A. Pryor is a revered citizen and an 
 eminent lawyer of New- York at this time. He is a hale, manly, courageous 
 man. He dares at all times to express his opinion ; even though it may be 
 in singular contrast with his previous thought, or the ideas of others. He 
 was a brigadier-general through the war, and, wherever it was possible, he 
 was in an engagement. 
 
 Thomas S. Bocock, who was a candidate for Speaker of the Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, and for whom the writer voted, became afterwards 
 Speaker of the Confederate Congress. He did not serve in the army, except, 
 perhaps, as the writer has been informed, on one occasion. While the 
 troops were away from Richmond and a raid was apprehended from the 
 Union cavalry, Mr. Speaker Bocock, after the manner of the early English 
 Speakers of the Commons, assumed a military role and became captain of a 
 company of members of the Confederate Congress in the defense of Richmond. 
 He is still active as an extensive planter, and maintains the style of the old 
 and elegant Virginian hospitality. Shelton F. Leake was a member of the 
 Confederate Congress. But what shall we say of Governor Smith? He is 
 best known by his pet name of " Extra Billy." He was a man of undaunted 
 courage and of wonderful resources. He became a major-general in the 
 Confederate army. He graduated from the war as the governor of Virginia. 
 He and his sons were often wounded, for they never shirked danger. Upon 
 
THE SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVES. 93 
 
 one occasion, when he was but a colonel, he was ordered by a general in 
 command, to move forward down a road, to divide his command and capture 
 the enemy. He rushed to the capture with such impetuosity, that when re 
 proached for not dividing his force as he had been ordered, he replied : "I 
 captured the enemy, sir, before I could divide." Alexander R. Boteler is 
 still living. He had some relation with the Centennial Anniversary. He 
 made the most eloquent speech, next to that of Sergeant S. Prentiss in his 
 own case, ever delivered in Congress. He was a Union man before the 
 war, and deprecated hostilities. He made a picture before the House, of 
 Washington, the Virginian, with his homespun and buckskin-clad patriots, 
 moving to the defense of Massachusetts. It was emotional enough to have 
 stirred the stones to mutiny against secession. But afterwards he became 
 " Stonewall" Jackson's adjutant-general, a fact showing the force of state 
 pride in forming and directing the plastic Virginian and Southern mind. 
 Albert G. Jenkins had been a classmate of the author at the Athens, Ohio, 
 University. He commanded a cavalry brigade in the Confederate army, and 
 was killed in the third year of the war. Col. Harry A. Edmondson became 
 a member of the Confederate Congress, and still lives. North Carolina re 
 joiced in a Union man whose name was William N. H. Smith. He came 
 within one vote of being Speaker. After the many complications connected 
 with the speakership, the writer voted for this gentleman in the famous con 
 test which the Helper book occasioned. Twenty odd years afterwards he 
 met him in North Carolina, and had the pleasure of being introduced by 
 him, in courteous words and kindly oratory, to an audience in Fayetteville. 
 Mr. Smith is now chief justice of the state. Thomas Ruffin, of North 
 Carolina, died of wounds as a prisoner. Lawrence O'B. Branch became a 
 Confederate major-general. He was killed at Antietam. He was conspic 
 uous as a soldier. While a member of Congress he was dignified, reticent, 
 able, and just. Warren Winslow was fond of literature. He read poetry 
 amidst the most fiery debates. He was not a young man, and was worried 
 at last into following his state into secession. He died in 1863. John A. 
 Gilmer was a strong Union man in Congress. He had a treasure of fun 
 which his oratory and features never belied. He became a member of the 
 Confederate Congress. He never fought, except through his son. He lived 
 until after the war was over. Burton Craige, of North Carolina, was a man 
 of herculean proportions. He is chiefly remembered by the members of the 
 Thirty-sixth Congress for an attack made upon him by Mr. Helper, for 
 something said in debate connected with local politics. The attack was 
 made with a pistol, near the writer's seat, just after an adjournment in mid- 
 afternoon. Zebulon B. Vance, when he first came to Congress, had a very 
 youthful look. He registered among the South u Americans." It was not 
 long before he gave evidence of being a strict Federalist after an intense 
 Union pattern. His voice was never heard at Washington for disunion. 
 
94 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 He served with the writer on the Committee of Revolutionary Claims. 
 Often, along with George Briggs, of New- York, who gave the casting vote 
 for Mr. Pennington for Speaker in the long contest of that Congress, he 
 used to drink i ' to the next war " from a healthy and stealthy demijohn in 
 the committee room. Little was thought then of what the " next war'* 
 meant to them and theirs. 
 
 South Carolina had six members of Congress. They were men of varied 
 ability. John McQueen was a man of fine physique and courteous manner. 
 He was brother-in-law to Governor Pickens. The writer recalls him from 
 one incident which happened at the Metropolitan Hotel -when he first came 
 to Congress. He had an opportunity of exercising a little surgical skill in 
 setting the jaw of a young son of Mr. McQueen, who had dropped two 
 stories into the area of the hostelry. Mr. McQueen used to say to the 
 writer, whom he always called "Doctor" after that incident, that if his 
 boy lived, he would be the President of a Southern Confederacy ; and if any 
 difficulty happened in the culmination of that event, and the writer should 
 become a prisoner, the courtesy of the McQueens who had saved Prince 
 Charlie in Scotland should be extended to him. John McQueen became 
 a member of the Confederate Congress. He was not in the military service. 
 He died in 1867. William Porcher Miles, of South Carolina, was a man 
 of great urbanity and ready aptitude in speaking. He became a member of 
 the Confederate Congress. He is now the president of an agricultural col 
 lege in Virginia. He is specially adapted, by method and manner, to win 
 people to his thought. Lawrence M. Keitt was the Chevalier Bayard of 
 the Congress. He was without reproach, full of dash in debate, of dainty 
 elegance of expression, and fiery ardor for his section. He died of wounds 
 received at Cold Harbor, twenty miles north of Richmond. He fell while 
 skirmishing and riding wildly ahead of his regiment. Milledge L. Bonham 
 became a brigadier-general in the war. He fought bravely. Afterwards 
 he became governor of South Carolina. He still lives, a contented planter. 
 John D. Ashmore, of South Carolina, withdrew when his state seceded. 
 His hair was as straight as that of an Indian, and as dark and glossy as that 
 of an Oriental. He served in the Confederate army, and died at Sardis, 
 Mississippi, in 1871. William W. Boyce, dialectician, student, and econo 
 mist, became a member of the Confederate Congress. He lives near Wash 
 ington in an honorable old age. He is worthy of the best description of 
 Cicero in his De Senectute. 
 
 Louisiana had one marked Unionist, John Edmund Bouligney. He 
 was of dark aspect, of French descent, a Creole of Creoles. His widow 
 lives in Washington. He did not long survive the outbreak of the war. 
 Miles Taylor was as sedate as a judge, in fact he had been upon the bench. 
 He became a member of the Confederate Congress. Thomas G. Davidson, 
 a stout, heavy man, walked with a cane and a lame foot. He still lives in 
 
THE SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVES. 95 
 
 Louisiana. He has been a member of local legislatures in that state. John 
 M. Landrum died long since. Kentucky gave Henry C. Burnett, with a 
 divided sense of responsibility, a seat in the Confederate House of Repre 
 sentatives. He finally reached the Confederate Senate. He died without 
 military service shortly after the war ended. John Y. Brown came to Con 
 gress before he was of the constitutional age. He was a member of Con 
 gress with quite a contest, after the war was over. William E. Simms, of 
 Kentucky, was also a member of the Confederate Congress. Of the Ten 
 nessee members connected with that Congress, six out of the ten were Union 
 men. They were known as " Americans," sometimes called "Know- 
 Nothings." Of these, Horace Maynard turned out the most distinguished. 
 He became Minister to Turkey, and afterwards Postmaster-General. He 
 died a few years ago. R. B. Brabson broke his leg, and died soon after 
 the war began. With Robert Hatton, the writer had a regretable contro 
 versy, which in the flush of that time looked toward a personal rencontre. 
 Mr. Hatton became a Confederate brigadier-general. He was killed at 
 Seven Pines. He has left a remarkable name for his splendid and courage 
 ous defiance on the field of battle. J. H. Thomas was a Democrat. He had 
 been a law partner of President Polk. He was a good lawyer, and a man of 
 excellent ability. Of John V. Wright, who is still as young in appearance as 
 he was when a member of the Thirty-sixth Congress, the writer can speak 
 with some ardor and personal enthusiasm. Mr. Wright had a personal 
 trouble with John Sherman in the old hall. He became a brigadier-general 
 in the Confederate army. At the battle of Belmont, Philip B. Fouke, John 
 A. Logan, and John A. McClernand, three Democratic members from Illi 
 nois, met John V. Wright upon the field. There was no military object in 
 fighting that battle if the writer has been correctly informed except to 
 show that the North and South were each made up of men of mettle. At that 
 battle there was a romantic incident. Fouke had started with his regiment be 
 yond the lines. Wright drew his telescope upon him. He saw that he was 
 the whilom Democratic member from Illinois. Fouke was riding to the front 
 to make a reconnoissance. A soldier lifting his musket drew a bead upon 
 him. Wright immediately said : " Down with your arms ! Don't fire, for 
 God's sake, don't fire ! " Fouke was saved. The two have frequently spoken 
 since of the imminent danger out of which Colonel Fouke was rescued by 
 old congressional associations. John V. Wright has since been a judge of 
 the Supreme Court of Tennessee. He now resides in Nashville. James 
 M. Quarles was at first a Union man. He was a brigadier-general in the 
 Confederate Army. He lives, honored in his profession, at Nashville, Tenn. 
 William T. Avery represented Memphis. The writer received a letter from 
 him while he was a prisoner at Johnson Island, during the war. He received 
 courtesy from him after the war was over, in Memphis, and regretted to hear, 
 shortly after 1877, tnat ^' IS friend na d keen drowned in the Mississippi River. 
 
96 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Missouri gave seven members to that Congress, all Democrats. Thomas 
 L. Anderson still lives. He is an elderly man, a prominent lawyer, and has 
 been somewhat engaged in politics in his native state. John B. Clark is 
 now a blind old gentleman, with whom the author has often conferred since 
 the war. He is a man of rare wit and indomitable courage. He became a 
 general in the Confederate service. His son served ten years in Congress 
 from Missouri, and is now the clerk of the House of Representatives. The 
 father was in the Confederate Congress. James Craig lives at St. Joseph. 
 He was a captain of Missouri volunteers in the Mexican war. He became 
 a brigadier-general in the Union army and served gallantly. He is a man of 
 wonderful adaptability to public life. He gives his thought mostly to rail 
 roads for the increase of the prosperity of the West. He is honored among 
 his friends at St. Joseph. Samuel H. Woodson and John W. Noell are both 
 dead. Arkansas furnished, perhaps, the most efficient Confederate major-gen 
 eral known to the war. His name is Thomas C. Hindman. He was an irre 
 concilable man. No one could eat more fire in a given time in connection with 
 Southern questions in that Congress. While he was on the floor of the 
 House it seemed as if he was perpetually anxious to have a duel. He lived 
 at Helena. There was much criticism on his conduct connected with the 
 war. He had made private enemies. While sitting in his room after the 
 war, he was shot through the window by some one unknown. Albert Rust, 
 of Arkansas, was a tall, elegant, splendid man, of kindly sympathy and 
 great heart. He became a general in the Southern Confederacy. He died 
 in 1870. The Georgia members have been singularly successful, either be 
 cause their state suffered less or because of some imperial vitality belonging 
 within its borders. L. J. Gartrell was colonel of the Seventh Georgia Regi 
 ment. He fought at the first Manassas battle. He was a member of the 
 Confederate Congress, and afterwards a brigadier-general. He yet lives. 
 Peter E. Love died in 1861, without seeing service, either civil or martial. 
 Martin J. Crawford was captured in 1862, in Kentucky. He was a Confed 
 erate colonel of cavalry. He died within the last two years, while on 
 the supreme bench of his state. James Jackson is now chief justice of 
 Georgia. Thomas Hardeman illustrates most substantially his surname, for 
 to the writer he seems as stalwart as he was twenty-four years ago, when he 
 left the American Congress and became the captain of a Confederate com 
 pany. He was wounded at the battle of Frazer's Farm ; but he is now, 
 along with two others of the Thirty-sixth Congress, a member of the 
 Forty-eighth Congress. He has not been elected to the Forty-ninth Con 
 gress. Joshua Hill had sons who fought for the Confederacy. He was a 
 Union man and became a United States Senator. J. W. H. Underwood, of 
 Georgia, did not go into the war. He was one of those men who had sedate 
 thoughts about our future, and did not believe that anything helpful to the 
 South could come from the contest. 
 
THE SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVES. 97 
 
 Alabama signifies the land of rest. Before the war closed it had no rest 
 in this conflict. The member from Mobile, James A. Stallworth, is remem 
 bered by the writer, for he sat near him in that Congress. In the conflict 
 between Keitt and Grow, in the small hours of the morning, it was this tall, 
 robust man who was almost the first in the melee. He took no part in the 
 war, and died shortly after it began. James L. Pugh was a Calhoun dialec 
 tician. He is now a member of the United States Senate. He was a mem 
 ber of the Confederate Congress. David Clopton served in the same Con 
 gress, and became a judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama. Sydenham 
 Moore went into the war as colonel of the Eleventh Alabama, and was killed 
 in the Seven Days* fight. Jabez L. M. Curry became a colonel of cavalry 
 and a member of the Confederate Congress. He is now a resident of Rich 
 mond, where he has lived for many years since the war, as a leading minister 
 of the Baptist denomination. He is the head of the administrators of the 
 Peabody fund, and administers that philanthropic trust with wonderful 
 sagacity and .unceasing energy. Williamson R. W. Cobb is remembered as 
 a tall, gaunt, remarkable man. He was chairman of the Land Committee. 
 He was elected to the Confederate Congress, but did not live to take his seat. 
 He was accidentally shot. George S. Houston was chairman of Ways and 
 Means. He went out with his state, and afterwards did good service in re 
 storing Federal relations. He was elected to the Senate in 1865, and was 
 refused a seat. He became governor in 1874, and died a United States Sen 
 ator. As to Mississippi, the writer remembers specially Reuben Davis. 
 He was always upon his feet. He never failed to make sharp points. He 
 had been judge of the court of appeals, and colonel of the famous "Missis 
 sippi Rifles." He served in the late war, in command of a brigade. He is 
 one of the ablest lawyers of his state. Gen. Otho R. Singleton is now a 
 member of Congress from Mississippi. He is one of the oldest members 
 connected with the Federal Legislature. He was in the Confederate Con 
 gress, but served in many of the battles of the war. Lucius Q. C. Lamar 
 entered the Confederate service as a lieutenant-colonel of a Mississippi regi 
 ment ; but he was soon appointed by Jefferson Davis on a special mission 
 to Russia. After the war, his accomplishments led him to become the pro 
 fessor of economy in the Mississippi University. His rare oratorical and 
 dialectical skill has made him of perpetual utility to the state which he rep 
 resented so well in the Senate. He came back to Congress as member and 
 Senator. He has just been appointed to President Cleveland's Cabinet. John 
 J. McRae is remembered by the writer with singular affection. He was a man 
 of extreme views. He even defended the slave-trade. He was a dissenter 
 from the dissenters. He was elected to the Confederate Congress, but ill 
 health led him to Honduras in search of a better climate and relief from the 
 anxieties of the war, and there he died. William Barksdale sought no civic 
 honors after the war came. He went into the army as a private in the Thir- 
 
98 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 teenth Mississippi. He became its colonel. He was in all the battles in 
 Virginia. He became a general. On the second day of July, 1863, in 
 Longstreet's charge against Sickles' corps at Gettysburg, he was in the ad 
 vance. He fell, and with him most of his brigade. He lives in the memory 
 of his state. His brother worthily represents the capital city of Mississippi 
 in Congress. 
 
 What shall be said of Texas ? Texas then had but two Congressmen 
 John H. Reagan and Andrew J. Hamilton. Now she has eleven members. 
 This illustrates the wonderful development which Texas has had since the 
 war. In fact, Texas was a reservoir of the Southern spirit and enterprise 
 which the war aroused. The war gave her vitality and vigor. Her increment 
 is not alone due to her situation, soil, climate, and area ; but to that inevita 
 ble law of movement which drives men away from the localities where their 
 cause has been lost. Texas has had a varied and singular history. Gen. 
 Samuel Houston, Governor Throckmorton, now a member of Congress, and 
 Andrew J. Hamilton, along with Judge Reagan, in the beginning were 
 Union men. When the war was over, no man did as much good for that 
 imperial state as Andrew J. Hamilton. He was one of President Johnson's 
 best provisional governors. He was in the constitutional convention when 
 excesses were rife. He kept that state out of trouble. He disfavored the 
 ab initio policy, which sought to eradicate everything upon the law books r 
 from the days of secession to the days of reconstruction making nullity and 
 creating confusion and litigation. He defeated the projects of the wilder 
 portion of the extreme men of the Union party. When Governor Pease fol 
 lowed him in the executive chair, and recommended thirty thousand more 
 proscriptions than reconstruction proscribed, Andrew J. Hamilton success 
 fully resisted. He desired that every man in the state who was a voter 
 should vote. He thus lifted Texas out of the miry muck and social ostra 
 cism of the party then in power at Washington. He remained at all times- 
 loyal to the Union cause. He died at Austin in 1875. 
 
 Judge Reagan, of Texas, at first a Union man, was elected to the Texas 
 secession convention. He followed his state out of the Union. He is a man 
 of civic, social, and economic thought. He is indefatigable in its vindica 
 tion. He became Postmaster-General of the Southern Confederacy. How 
 he executed that trust, Southern men know. It was a most difficult duty. 
 He did not serve in the Southern army ; but is full of its warlike memories. 
 At Richmond, during many emergencies, he had occasion to observe and 
 sometimes to take a part in the many adventurous dashes which belonged to 
 the besieging of that capital. Oftentimes Richmond was left without de 
 fense. On one occasion when some Union cavalry made one of their daring 
 raids, Richmond was particularly exposed. The Confederates resorted to a 
 ruse. Colonel Lines, an eminent attorney of Richmond, and a Confederate 
 Senator, was in command of the principal fortification. There were m> 
 
THE SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVES. 99 
 
 troops to defend it. Mr. Mallory, Secretary of the Navy, and Postmaster- 
 General Reagan visited the fortification. In a stentorian voice Lines com 
 manded : " Reagan and his troops to the right ! Mallory and his brigades to 
 the left ! " and in equally stentorian voice these solitary brigadiers gave 
 orders to their supposititious commands. The enemy at once fell back and 
 the city was saved ! Mr. Reagan recounts this exploit with great gusto. 
 He is now one of the foremost members of the House. 
 
 George S. Hawkins represented Florida alone. It was on his motion 
 that the South made the first attempt at recusancy in the House of Repre 
 sentatives. He had been a soldier in the regular army, and had gone down 
 to Florida to fight the Seminoles. He was a man who was so well preserved 
 that he had been married six times. He did not live to see the result of the 
 war. Iowa furnished two men to the Thirty-sixth Congress, Gen. Samuel 
 R. Curtis and William Vandever. Col. William Vandever did service in 
 the war ; but of him the writer cannot speak much. But of Gen. Samuel 
 R. Curtis, the hero of Pea Ridge, the author of the Pacific Railroad system, 
 it is only necessary to say that as an engineer on the Muskingum in Ohio, 
 and on the Des Moines in Iowa, as a highly distinguished soldier in the 
 Mexican War and the war for the Union, as the skillful chief engineer of 
 St. Louis, as one of the pioneers who came through Baltimore with the 
 Seventh Regiment of New- York when the war began, and as one of the 
 best men who ever wore earth about him, he had but one parallel himself. 
 Perhaps the writer is not fitted to speak of him impartially because of inti 
 mate connections, only rendered more endearing and ardent by the lapse of 
 time. 
 
 Wisconsin gave Cadwalader C. Washburn and Charles H. Larrabee to 
 the Union army, one from each party. Washburn rose to the rank of 
 major-general. After the war he served in the Fortieth and Forty-first Con 
 gresses and became governor of his state. He died in 1882. Larrabee be 
 came disabled by wounds, and after the war removed to settle in Washing 
 ton Territory. He was killed in a railroad accident a few years ago. Cali 
 fornia at that time was represented by John C. Burch. He has been a re 
 porter of the Supreme Court at Sacramento. Charles L. Scott, her other 
 Representative, removed from California to his native home in Alabama, 
 where he now lives. Minnesota furnished two members, one of whom has 
 since been Secretary of the Treasury William Windom. He was con 
 tinued as a Representative until 1870, when he became Senator. The other 
 member was Cyrus Aldrich. He was afterwards a member of the state 
 legislature, and postmaster of Minneapolis, where he died in 1871. 
 
 Perhaps one of the most noted men at the beginning of the war was a 
 Delegate from Washington Territory, Isaac I. Stevens. He was a Massa 
 chusetts man, a West Point graduate, and a splendid soldier. He fell at 
 Chantilly, Virginia, in 1862, at the head of his division. His name will 
 long be revered among our Western pioneers and their descendants. 
 
100 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 There are other members as well as Delegates of that Congress, of whom 
 the writer could and should make special and honorable mention. In the 
 memorabilia connected with these incidents one thing is apparent. It cannot 
 be obliterated. It is this : the great body of the men who gave their votes in 
 that Congress to secession indorsed them by martial courage. Many fell 
 defending them upon the field of battle. Those who survive bear honorable 
 scars in personal justification of their opinions. That Congress gave also to 
 the Union cause many who won imperishable renown on the field of battle. 
 Those who remained in the succeeding Congress were engaged in a no less 
 arduous field of duty. The physical strife was not more fierce than the en 
 counters in the legislative halls over issues which shook the whole structure 
 of our political system to its very foundations. 
 
 On a gloomy day in March, 1861, the Thirty-sixth Congress adjourns 
 sine die. There are many sad and last farewells for the pall of impend 
 ing wrath hangs over all the land. Black clouds of war loom up all around, 
 surcharged with the elements of death and devastation. Abraham Lincoln 
 takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 
 For the first time in the Republic a Chief Magistrate is installed under the 
 protection of artillery charged with grape and canister. He makes his 
 fealty amid no holiday array of plumed horsemen and martial music, with 
 gaudy surroundings of fluttering banners and streaming pennons. The 
 pomp and circumstance of civic and martial display have no place to-day 
 in the Federal capital. No loud huzzas greet the escorting squadron as it 
 advances along the avenue with tightened rein and clanking scabbard, and 
 sabres drawn, all ready for the charge ! This small but disciplined array, the 
 cold line of infantry with bayonets fixed, the champing of troop horses, 
 the tramp of armed men, the rumbling of cannons, the hoarse command 
 of general officers, the unlimbering of guns trained to sweep the streets ; 
 what mean these dreadful preparations ? Surely this is a vision of the wrath 
 of war ! At last, in the culmination of the events which presaged it, the 
 supreme moment has come. There is a short truce. Then, hark ! the 
 peace is broken. South Carolina begins the conflict. The tempest is upon 
 us ! The lightnings of Moultrie are launched against the Union standard. 
 For days it proudly waves over the volcano of Sumter, until, at last, it 
 falls into the extinct crater. Before the evening zephyrs have dispersed the 
 sulphurous smoke of the bombarding guns or hushed the bellowing mortars, 
 the "fall of Sumter" is flashed to every hamlet in the land and the 
 whole Nation springs to arms ! Now, indeed, is war in its most terrible 
 form. The fields of strife are red for the reaper. The abyss of the grave 
 yawns for the embattled hosts who are to fall in the conflict. Weep now, 
 ye mothers, for the sons to whom ye give the last embrace on earth ; how 
 unspeakable is your portion of the sorrow and desolation that is to come. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF SECESSION MR. CALHOUN'S EXPOSITION OF 
 THE DOCTRINE HE FAVORED NULLIFICATION BUT NOT SECESSION 
 JEFFERSON'S VIEWS THE KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA. RESOLUTIONS 
 ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS - MR. MADISON'S INTERPRETATION MASSA 
 CHUSETTS SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH SOUTH CAROLINA ON STATE 
 RESISTANCE THE PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS OF THE NORTH SOUTH 
 CAROLINA LEADING SECESSION MOVEMENTS - ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS' 
 GREAT SPEECH FOR THE UNION JEFFERSON DAVIS' PROPOSITION ACTION 
 OF TEXAS THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY IN MONTGOMERY - FEDERAL 
 AND CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTIONS PROTESTS AGAINST SECESSION DE 
 FACTO IF NOT DE JURE GOVERNMENTS IN THE SOUTH A LINE OF 
 HOSTILITY BETWEEN TWO GREAT COMMUNITIES THE CRITTENDEN RESO 
 LUTIONSSECESSION AND SLA VERY SUBORDINATE TO THE LINCOLN POLICY 
 FOR THE UNION THE ANOMALOUS SECESSION OF WEST VIRGINIA FROM 
 OLD VIRGINIA VARIOUS THEORIES AS TO THE INSURGENCY ALL MERGED 
 IN LINCOLN'S POLICY THE FINALE OF SLAVERY AND OF ITS INCIDENT, 
 SECESSION. 
 
 M 
 
 R. CALHOUN is regarded as the expounder, if not the author, of 
 the theory that the several states have the sovereign right to with 
 draw from the Union whenever a majority of their people decide 
 that their liberties have been invaded, or are unsafe within its con 
 trol. This opinion, however, has no foundation in his speeches and writings 
 on the principles and powers of the Constitution. He expressly disclaimed 
 the theory. In a letter from the late Reverdy Johnson to Edward Everett, 
 no doubt is left in regard to Mr. Calhoun's views on secession. The letter 
 bears date June 24, 1861 . Mr. Johnson states in it that it was his good fortune 
 to be a member of the United States Senate for four years, from 1845, with 
 Mr. Calhoun ; that during two sessions they resided in the same house ; and 
 he thus sets forth Mr. Calhoun's doctrine : 
 
 " He did me the honor to give me much of his confidence, and frequently 
 his nullification doctrine was the subject of conversation. Time and time 
 
102 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 again have I heard him, and with ever-increased surprise at his wonderful 
 acuteness, defend it on constitutional grounds, and distinguish it, in that 
 respect, from the doctrine of secession. This last he never, with me, placed 
 on any other ground than that of revolution. This, he said, was to destroy 
 the government ; and no constitution, the work of sane men, ever provided 
 for its own destruction. The other was to preserve it, was, practically, 
 but to amend it, and in a constitutional mode. As you know, and he was 
 ever told, I never took that view. I could see no more constitutional warrant 
 for this than for the other, which, I repeat, he ever in all our interviews re 
 pudiated, as wholly indefensible as a constitutional remedy." 
 
 The doctrine of secession is sometimes traced to the Kentucky Resolu 
 tions of 1798. The original draft of these resolutions was written by Mr. 
 Jefferson. But a careful analysis of this manifesto shows, that while it seems 
 to give countenance to the idea that a state may declare an act of Congress 
 null and void, it cannot be cited as authority for the more radical measure of 
 a dissolution of the Union. At least, it was not so understood at the time of 
 its appearance. 
 
 The first resolution denies that the states are united on the principle of 
 unlimited submission to the general government. It declares that by com 
 pact they constituted a general government for special purposes, with dele 
 gated powers, while reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of 
 right to its own self-government. It adds, "that whensoever the general 
 government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, 
 and of no force ; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an 
 integral party ; that this government, created by this compact, was not made 
 the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; 
 since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the meas 
 ure of its powers ; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties 
 having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as 
 well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." 
 
 By " each party," Mr. Jefferson refers to the states on the one hand, and 
 the general government on the other; and his meaning, therefore, would be 
 that the states as one party and not a single state, have an equal right with 
 the general government, to judge of infractions. It is true that this was 
 not a strictly accurate way of speaking, since the Constitution and Federal 
 Government, which were created by the states and people, cannot be regarded 
 -as a party to the compact. They are the creatures of the compact. But the 
 context shows that Mr. Jefferson used the term, parties, in this sense ; and 
 hence, he could not mean that a single state could decide finally upon the 
 constitutionality of the laws of Congress. 
 
 The remaining resolutions show that the Alien and Sedition acts of Con 
 gress were unconstitutional usurpations, unjust and oppressive. The last of 
 the series appeals to the co-states to unite with Kentucky "in requesting 
 
KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS. 103 
 
 their repeal at the next session of Congress." Such was "the mode and 
 measure of redress " proposed by Kentucky. 
 
 The House of Representatives of the State of Kentucky, in November, 
 1799, resumed the consideration of the subject. Mr. Desha was in the 
 chair. After some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and 
 Mr. Desha reported that the committee had taken under consideration sundry 
 resolutions passed by several state legislatures, on the subject of the Alien and 
 Sedition laws, and had come to a resolution thereupon. The preamble to 
 this report says : 
 
 " To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly 
 to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, w r ould, it is appre 
 hended, be as unnecessary as unavailing. We cannot, however, but lament, 
 that in the discussion of those interesting subjects by sundry of the legisla 
 tures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions and uncandid insinuations, 
 derogatory to the true character and principles of this commonwealth, have 
 been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. 
 Faithful to the true principles of the Federal Union, unconscious of any de 
 signs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the 
 fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of 
 censure or calumniation." 
 
 The resolution was adopted. It declares, " unequivocally," the attach 
 ment of Kentucky to the Union : ; ' She adheres to that compact, agreeably 
 to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its disso 
 lution." She asserts " that a nullification by those sovereignties of all 
 unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful 
 remedy." 
 
 The Kentucky Resolutions, therefore, claimed the right of the states not 
 of one state to nullify unconstitutional laws ; and they expressly repelled 
 the charge that their import and purpose was to destroy the Union. 
 
 The Virginia Resolutions, prepared by Mr. Madison, and adopted Dec. 
 24, 1798, are still further removed in language and spirit, from the doctrine 
 of secession. 
 
 They declare that the General Assembly will maintain and defend the 
 Constitution of the United States. They profess a warm attachment to the 
 Union, "to maintain which it pledges its powers." The third resolution 
 embodies the theory of the Constitution which gives character to the docu 
 ment. It is as follows : 
 
 " That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it 
 views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact 
 to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of 
 'the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are 
 authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a 
 deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by 
 
104 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are 
 in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for 
 maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties 
 appertaining to them." 
 
 This resolution contains the peculiar doctrine, or theory of constitutional 
 construction, which the legislature meant to declare. Others follow in which 
 the particular grievances complained of the Alien and Sedition acts 
 are set forth. The series concludes with protesting the truest anxiety of the 
 people of the Commonwealth for " establishing and perpetuating the 
 Union." " The General Assembly appeal to the like disposition in the 
 other states, in confidence that they will concur with their commonwealth in 
 declaring that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional ; and, that the necessary 
 and proper measures will be taken by each for co-operating with this state, 
 in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to 
 the states, respectively, or to the people." 
 
 In an elaborate paper, prepared by Mr. Madison many years after the 
 events to which these resolutions relate, he defends them with great force of 
 logic. He repels the inferences that have been drawn from them, that they 
 give sanction to either nullification or secession. He calls attention to the 
 fact that the resolutions claim for the "states," meaning all the states, 
 the authority to interpose for arresting the evil, and for protecting their re 
 served rights. He rejects the idea that one state may do this ; but that the 
 states, in council or convention, which framed the compact, or have become 
 parties to it, may do so. It follows, of course, that Congress would promptly 
 repeal an obnoxious act which had been declared null and void by a majority 
 of the states, and the remedy proposed would be at once effectual and peaceful. 
 This masterly paper, with other selections from the writings of Mr. Madison, 
 was published in 1853, " exclusively for private distribution," and has there 
 fore been seen and read by few. 
 
 In another able paper Mr. Madison combats the secession theory that 
 sovereignty is indivisible. He points to its inconsistency with the fact that 
 the Constitution confers sovereign and exclusive powers upon the general 
 government, accompanied by the means of enforcing them, while other sov 
 ereign powers are reserved to the states. 
 
 Mr. Madison incidentally refers to the Kentucky Resolutions of Mr. Jef 
 ferson. He denies that they give countenance to the theory of secession and 
 nullification by a single state. It is curious to note, in this connection, 
 that while the responses from the states under the control of the Federal 
 party concur in condemning the Virginia Resolutions, none of them make 
 the charge of a deliberate purpose to break up the Union. They deny the 
 right of the states to pronounce an act of Congress unconstitutional, null, and 
 void, and declare that the tendency of such proceedings is to produce anarchy 
 or revolution ; but the purpose of revolution is not charged. 
 
DEFEAT OF THE FEDERALISTS. 105 
 
 The first section of the Sedition Act passed July 14, i 798, provided : " That 
 if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to 
 oppose any measure or measures of the Government of the United States, 
 which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the opera 
 tion of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person 
 holding a place or office in or under the Government of the United States, 
 from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty ; and if any per 
 son or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to 
 procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether 
 such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the 
 proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misde 
 meanor." The penalty was a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and 
 imprisonment for not less than six months nor exceeding five years, and, at 
 the discretion of the court, sureties for good behavior might be required. 
 
 The second section provided: " That if any person shall write, print, 
 utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or 
 published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, 
 uttering or publishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writings against 
 the Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the 
 United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame 
 the said Government, . . . or to excite against them the hatred of the 
 people, or to stir up sedition, " he was to be punished, on conviction, by fine 
 not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding 
 two years. The act was to terminate on March 3, 1801. 
 
 These unpopular measures of the Federal party, together with the Alien 
 act, passed on June 25, 17985 contributed more, perhaps, to the overthrow 
 of that party than all other causes combined. Opposition to these illib 
 eral laws became the shibboleth and the platform of the Republican (or 
 Democratic) party of that day. Under that sign it conquered in the elec 
 tion of Thomas Jefferson over John Adams, the leader of the Federalists. 
 
 The Alien act gave the President authority to order all such aliens as 
 he might judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, 
 or might have reasonable grounds to suspect of treasonable practices, to 
 depart out of the territory of the United States within the time ex 
 pressed in his order. The marshal was directed to serve the order, or 
 leave a copy at the usual place of abode of the alien. Three years' imprison 
 ment and permanent exclusion from the country was the penalty for failure 
 to depart within the time specified. Licenses to remain might be granted to 
 such aliens as could show that no harm would result to the country from their 
 presence. Masters of vessels were required to report to the collector of the 
 customs, the names, ages and places of nativity, the occupations, and places 
 of embarkation of all aliens brought into the country. The operation of this 
 act was limited to two years from the date of its passage. 
 7 
 
106 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 An " act respecting alien enemies " was passed on July 6, of the same 
 year. This act is still in force. 
 
 The denial by the Federal party of the right to question the constitution 
 ality of acts of Congress by the states in the mode proposed, was singularly 
 narrow in spirit. It was the denial to the sovereign states which framed 
 and adopted the Constitution, of a right which is freely exercised by every 
 citizen. It happened, a few years later, that the Federalists themselves were 
 guilty of nullification, under circumstances of overt action which made their 
 conduct criminal. When war was declared against Great Britain, in June, 
 1812, and the President made requisitions upon the governors of the states 
 to furnish militia for the war, both Massachusetts and Connecticut refused 
 compliance, on the ground that it would be unconstitutional to call out the 
 militia until the enemy had invaded the country. In other words, Con 
 gress might declare war, but it could not raise an army until the enemy had 
 gained a foothold on our soil. A committee of the Massachusetts Legisla 
 ture, in February, 1814, made the following report to that body : 
 
 " A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy 
 it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the spirit of 
 resistance as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty 
 reserved to the states was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of vio 
 lence by the United States, as well as for the purpose of domestic regulation. 
 We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign, and independent State of Mas 
 sachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to 
 protect its people and defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter 
 it comes. When the national compact is violated and the citizens of the 
 state are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized law, this legislature is bound 
 to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor his victim." 
 
 It appears from this declaration, that Massachusetts and South Carolina 
 stood shoulder to shoulder in defense of the doctrine of state resistance to 
 what their authorities might regard as Federal usurpation. 
 
 But the only successful instances of the nullification of a law of the 
 United States are furnished in what are known as the " Personal Liberty 
 Bills." These were enacted in several of the Northern states. Their pur 
 pose was to obstruct and defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave act of 
 1850. That act provided that a fugitive from labor, who had escaped into 
 another state, might be seized by the owner, or his agent or attorney, with or 
 without a warrant. Being brought before a United States commissioner, or 
 judge, either of those officers was required to hear the case, and " in a sum 
 mary manner " remand the fugitive to the custody of the claimant, his agent 
 or attorney, upon the oath or affidavit of the claimant, his agent or attor 
 ney. The fugitive was not allowed to testify in his own behalf. The United 
 States marshals were required to arrest the fugitives. This duty was to be 
 done under a penalty for refusal or neglect It was necessary for the claim- 
 
NORTHERN NULLIFICATION ACTS. 107 
 
 ant to take with him from the state in which he and his slave resided, a 
 certified paper of a court of record, showing that he had appeared before 
 the judge thereof and made oath to the fact of his ownership of the slave and 
 of the escape of the latter, accompanied with a description of his person. 
 All a good citizens" were commanded to assist the marshal in arresting the 
 fugitive. Any person who should obstruct or oppose the marshal, or the 
 claimant, in arresting the fugitive, was liable to a fine of one thousand dollars 
 and imprisonment. 
 
 The Massachusetts Legislature, in 1843, had passed an act forbidding sher 
 iffs and other state officers to aid in arresting or detaining fugitive slaves, or 
 to confine them in the jails of the state. In 1855 * n * s ac ^ was re-enacted with 
 reference to fugitives arrested under the act of Congress of 1850. This act 
 of the legislature provided that fugitives from slavery should have the benefit 
 of the writ of habeas corpus and of trial by jury. State officers were 
 again forbidden to aid in making arrests of fugitives, on pain of forfeiture of 
 office, and disqualification to hold office in the state. State judges were lia 
 ble to impeachment for issuing warrants of arrests in such cases. The gov 
 ernor was required to appoint county commissioners to defend persons 
 claimed as fugitives. State jails were not to be used for the imprisonment of 
 fugitives. Each of these acts was unconstitutional. 
 
 Vermont, in the year 1843, enacted a law with provisions similar to those 
 in the Massachusetts act of that year. In 1850, 1854, an< ^ T ^58 5 additional 
 enactments rendered it utterly impracticable to arrest a fugitive slave in Ver 
 mont. It was made a criminal offense for any person to declare or represent 
 that any free person within the state owed service as a slave. The privi 
 lege of habeas corpus and trial by jury were given to fugitives, and the oath 
 of two witnesses was required to establish the fact of slavery. 
 
 The Legislature of New- York, in 1840, gave the right of trial by jury to 
 fugitive slaves. 
 
 Pennsylvania, in 1847, passed a similar act. 
 
 The Legislature of Michigan, in 1855, enacted that : " Whenever any in 
 habitant of the state is arrested or claimed as a fugitive slave," the prosecut 
 ing attorney of the county shall "use all lawful means to protect and defend 
 every such person." All persons so arrested and claimed as fugitive slaves 
 were to be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus and to trial 
 by jury. The jails of the state were not to be used for imprisoning fugitives. 
 Persons who falsely charged a free person with being a fugitive slave were 
 to be punished with imprisonment for not less than three years. For wrong 
 fully seizing a free person the penalty was five years' imprisonment. The 
 proof of slavery required two witnesses. 
 
 The Legislature of Wisconsin, in 1858, passed an act almost identical 
 with the statute of Michigan. 
 
 These statutes of the states were in direct conflict with the fugitive-slave 
 
I08 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 act of Congress. They were designed to obstruct and defeat the execution 
 of that act. They were practical applications of the doctrine of nullifica 
 tion. They were effective to that end in almost every instance. The census 
 of 1860 showed that during the preceding decade, the escaping slaves from 
 the South averaged about one hundred per annum, and of this number 
 scarcely one in ten was reclaimed ; and of those who reached the states 
 which enacted the Personal Liberty bills, not more than two or three in 
 the hundred were carried back into slavery. 
 
 It was owing to these acts, and the apprehension of more serious denials 
 of state rights, that South Carolina led the secession movement in 1860. 
 That small state, with a white population of 291,300, and a black population 
 of 412,320, began the work of disintegration. Her ruling class was nearly 
 unanimous in the belief that the election of a Republican President was a 
 justification of the measure. Her governor, William H. Gist, in obedience 
 to public sentiment, and in anticipation of the event, recommended, in his 
 annual message, the call of a state convention for the purpose of considering 
 the ** mode and measure of redress." The legislature responded. At the 
 same time the formality was observed of choosing Presidential electors. 
 These electors cast the vote of the state for Breckenridge and Lane. The 
 delegates to the convention were chosen Dec. 6, 1860. That body met on 
 the iyth. The secession ordinance was adopted on the 2Oth. The United 
 States officials in the state, and the Senators and Representatives in Con 
 gress resigned their places. The ordinance is brief. It served as the model 
 for the other seceding states. It declares : " that the ordinance adopted 
 . in convention, on the 23d day of May, in the year of our Lord 
 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, 
 and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this state ratify 
 ing the amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, and that 
 the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and the other states under 
 the name of the United States of America is hereby dissolved." 
 
 The vote on the passage of the ordinance was unanimous. A declaration 
 of the " Causes which induced the Secession of South Carolina," was 
 adopted. This document briefly refers to the events which preceded the for 
 mation of the Constitution of the United States. It announces the grounds 
 of separation. It asserts that fourteen of the states had deliberately refused 
 for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. It refers to their 
 statutes for proof. The address copies the clause of the Constitution which 
 requires that fugitives held to service in one state, escaping into another, 
 shall be delivered up. It proceeds to remark that this stipulation was so 
 material that the compact could not have been ratified without that clause. 
 
 The states of Maine. New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecti 
 cut, Rhode Island, New- York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
 Wisconsin, and Iowa are arraigned for enacting laws which either nullified 
 the acts of Congress, or rendered useless any attempt to execute them. 
 
RETURN OF FUGITIVF SLAVES. 
 
 It was true that in many of these states the fugitive w as discharged from 
 the service of labor claimed. In none of them did the state government 
 comply with the stipulations made in the Constitution. The State of New 
 Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional 
 obligation ; but the current of anti-slavery feeling led her more recently 
 to enact laws which rendered inoperative the remedies provided by the 
 former law and the acts of Congress. In the State of New- York, even the 
 right of transit v/ith a slave was denied by her tribunals. The states of Ohio 
 and Iowa refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder. 
 Their people incited a servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus, said 
 the address, "the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and 
 disregarded by the non-slave-holding states ; and the consequence follows 
 that South Carolina is released from her obligation." 
 
 It is singular that in this declaration of the causes which impelled the 
 people of South Carolina to attempt a withdrawal from the Union, there is 
 not an intimation that the Federal Government, in any of its departments, 
 had encroached upon the rights of the state. It is not charged that Con 
 gress, or the Executive, or the Supreme Court, had been guilty of usurpa 
 tion, or that any one of them had failed to perform the duties imposed by the 
 Constitution. The whole ground of separation is based on the action of 
 certain states in nullifying an act of Congress. This was, to say the least, 
 a strange predicament in which the State of South Carolina placed herself, 
 namely, that of a resort to secession as a remedy against her own favorite 
 policy of nullification. 
 
 As a further ground of justification, the declaration alleges the facts that 
 the Republican party had elected Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency ; 
 that his party was pledged to the doctrine of the non-extension of slavery ; 
 and that Mr. Lincoln himself had declared that the " Government cannot 
 endure permanently, half free, half slave." But the declarations of a party 
 which owed its success entirely to divisions in the ranks of its opponents 
 were not likely to be engrafted on the statute-books during a single Presi 
 dential term ; while to withdraw from the Union, even peaceably, would 
 involve the inevitable consequence of losing the constitutional guaranty for 
 the return of fugitive slaves. Nothing could be more remote from proba 
 bility than the assumption that the Northern states would concede to a 
 Southern confederacy the right to reclaim runaway slaves. Their reclama 
 tion would not have been tolerated under such a state of things. Neither 
 could Southern men have reasonably calculated upon a division of the ter 
 ritories between a Northern and Southern confederacy. The condition of 
 Kansas and Nebraska as free communities was then already decided. The 
 remaining territories, if that held by the Indians be excepted, were in no 
 respect adapted to the introduction of slavery. They were mostly too 
 far north, sterile, or mountainous. Those best adapted to agriculture were 
 
HO THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 already under the control of Northern men. It should have been remem 
 bered by Southern men, that Great Britain and other European powers, 
 though anxious to see the Union broken up, were as unfriendly to slavery as 
 the Northern abolitionists, and far more so than the great mass of Northern 
 men. In the event of successful secession, and the formation of a Southern 
 confederacy, those trans-Atlantic powers would feel at liberty to take a far 
 higher tone in regard to slavery than they had ever ventured upon while the 
 institution enjoyed the protection of the American flag. Great Britain, 
 France, Germany, Austria, and Italy might unite in treating inter-state com 
 merce by sea in slaves as piracy. The Northern people would naturally have 
 sympathized with and acquiesced in this European policy ; and the Southern 
 Confederacy would thus have found that political independence of the North 
 had made their institution more vulnerable than ever to the intolerant anti- 
 slavery sentiment of the civilized world. The prolonged existence of sla 
 very under such circumstances would have been impossible. 
 
 Pending the debate in the South Carolina Convention upon the declara 
 tion of causes for secession, Mr. Gregg, a leading member, objected that no 
 reference was made in it to the tariff, and internal improvements policy. 
 But to this Mr. Keitt, who had for years been a prominent member of the 
 United States House of Representatives, pertinently replied: "Your late 
 Senators, and every one of your members of the House of Representatives 
 voted for the present tariff. If the gentleman had been there he would have 
 voted for it. The tariff is not the question which has brought us up to our 
 present attitude. I am willing in this issue to rest disunion upon the ques 
 tion of slavery." Mr. Keitt, in the same connection, expressed his doubts 
 about the constitutionality of the fugitive-slave act. This was to admit that 
 the Northern states in adopting their personal liberty bills, had only nulli 
 fied an unconstitutional act of Congress. Mr. Rhett reiterated the same 
 doubt of the constitutionality of the fugitive-slave act. Mr. Meminger, 
 the author of the declaration, stated that he concurred in that doubt. He 
 therefore laid the grievance of South Carolina upon the failure of the indi 
 vidual Northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligations. It was not 
 the Federal Government, he said, which had failed to perform its duty in this 
 regard. He intimated his disapprobation of the attempt of Congress to do 
 what was solely incumbent on the states. 
 
 On the 2 ist of December, Messrs. Barnwell, Adams, and Orr were 
 elected and constituted a commission to proceed to Washington. Their pur 
 pose was to negotiate the terms of a cession of the forts, arsenals, and other 
 public property within the limits of South Carolina. They were to settle the 
 terms of peace and amity between the two independent republics. Com 
 missioners were also sent to the other Southern States, to propose a Southern 
 Congress. On Jan. 4, 1861, the convention elected delegates to the pro 
 posed Congress. Thus South Carolina attempted to pass out of the Union. 
 
GEORGIA FOLLOWS SOUTH CAROLINA. Ill 
 
 The Legislature of Georgia met on Nov. 8, 1860. On the i8th, it passed 
 an act authorizing the election of delegates to a state convention. The 
 election took place. The delegates chosen met on the iyth of January, 1861. 
 On the 1 8th, a resolution was adopted declaring secession to be a right and 
 duty. On the i9th, the ordinance of secession was adopted, by yeas 208, 
 nays 89. The Senators and Representatives in Congress withdrew on the 
 2 1 st. On the 24th, delegates were elected to the Southern Congress at Mont 
 gomery. Commissioners were sent to the other slave-holding states, on the 
 28th, charged with the duty of securing concerted action ; and on the 29th, an 
 address to the South and to the world was adopted. After a recess, the con 
 vention met again in March. The delegates ratified the Confederate States 
 Constitution, and authorized the Confederate Government to take possession 
 of the forts, arsenals, and other property of the United States which had 
 been seized by the state authorities. On the 26th of April, Governor Brown 
 issued a proclamation forbidding the payment of debts to northern creditors. 
 He called on the people to pay these debts into the state treasury. 
 
 Foremost among the men of Georgia who opposed secession, was the 
 late Alexander H. Stephens. In an address to the legislature, on Nov. 14, 
 1860, he said with emphasis, that the election of Mr. Lincoln did not justify 
 secession ; that secession, on account of the legal election of a President, 
 would place the South in the wrong ; that the House of Representatives was 
 largely against the new President ; and that in the Senate there was a ma 
 jority of four against him. The speaker proceeded to state that the Presi 
 dent could not form his Cabinet, nor appoint a public officer, without the con 
 sent of the Senate. " Where," said he, " will you go, following the sun in 
 its circuit round the globe, to find a government that better protects the liber 
 ties of its people, and secures to them the blessings we enjoy? I think 
 that one of the evils that beset us is a surfeit of liberty, an exuberance of the 
 priceless blessings for which we are ungrateful." 
 
 In the same speech Mr. Stephens replied to a speech of Mr. Toombs, who 
 had spoken on the previous day. The government of the United States had 
 then been arraigned by Mr. Toombs on the charge of having taxed the South 
 in order to pay bounties to northern fishermen. These bounties had subsisted 
 under forty-eight years of Southern Presidential rule. The bounties had 
 served to train sailors to fight the battles of the country. The tariff and navi 
 gation laws were grievances dwelt upon by Mr. Toombs. He held that they 
 warranted an overthrow of the government. As to the tariff, Mr. Stephens 
 replied that the duties had been readjusted to the satisfaction of the South ; 
 while the navigation acts had originated during the administration of a 
 Southern President. 
 
 In the state convention Mr. Stephens made an able and earnest speech 
 against secession. His language, in the light of subsequent events, was pro 
 phetic. u When," said he, " we and our posterity shall see our lovely 
 
112 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 South desolated by the demon of war, which this act of yours will inevitably 
 invite and call forth; when our green fields of waving harvest shall be 
 trodden down by the murderous soldiery and fiery car of war sweeping 
 over our land ; our temples of justice laid in ashes ; all the horrors and deso 
 lation of war upon us ; who but this convention will be held responsible for 
 it? And who but him who shall have given his vote for this unwise and ill- 
 timed measure, as I honestly think and believe, shall be held to strict account 
 for this suicidal act of the present generation, and probably cursed and exe 
 crated by posterity for all coming time, for the wide and desolating ruin that 
 will inevitably follow this act you propose to perpetrate ? What reasons can 
 you give to the nations of the earth to justify it ? What right has the North 
 assailed ? What interest of the South has been invaded ? What justice has 
 been denied?" He warned the delegates that "the last slave would be 
 wrenched from them by stern military rule, or by the vindictive decree of 
 a universal emancipation, which may reasonably be expected to follow." 
 He asked, what had the South to gain by withdrawing from the Union? 
 The South had always had the control of it, and could retain that control 
 " if," said he, " we remain in it, and are as united as we have been." The 
 South had fifty years of Southern Presidents to twenty-four of the North ; and 
 eighteen of the twenty-nine judges of the Supreme Court, although nearly 
 four-fifths of the judicial business had arisen in the free states. " This," said 
 he, " we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Con 
 stitution unfavorable to us." The South had also twenty-four of the thirty-five 
 Presidents (pro tern.) of the Senate ; twenty-three of the thirty-five Speak 
 ers of the House of Representatives, while the North had all along a 
 majority of population and Representatives. The South had fourteen of 
 the nineteen Attorneys-General ; eighty-six of the one hundred and forty 
 ministers; and a vast majority of the higher offices in the army and navy, 
 foreign and civil service, with two-thirds of the clerical force. Mr. Stephens 
 pointed to the facts that more than three-fourths of the revenue for the sup 
 port of the government had been raised in the Northern states ; that in the 
 free states the expenditure for the support of the Post-Office Department, 
 for the year 1860, was $13,000,000, and that the income of the department 
 in those states was $19,000,000, showing an excess of revenue amounting 
 to $6,000,000. The expenditure by the department in the Southern States 
 was $14,716,000, while the postal revenue in those states was only $8,001,- 
 026, leaving a deficit of $6,714,974. 
 
 Mr. Stephens concluded with the remark, that he regarded the govern 
 ment of the United States as "the best and freest government the most 
 equal in its rights, the most just in its decisions, the most lenient in its meas 
 ures, and the most aspiring in its principles to elevate the race of men that 
 the sun of heaven ever shone upon." He declared the attempt to overthrow 
 such a government to be the height of folly, madness, and wickedness, to 
 
MR. STEPHENS' REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR. 113 
 
 which he could neither lend his sanction nor his vote. The appeal was all in 
 vain. This array of facts and arguments failed to arrest the tide of secession. 
 The ordinance was voted for finally, nearly three to one. 
 
 Alexander H. Stephens was a great figure in the eye of the Nation. Dur 
 ing the old contests between the Whig and Democratic parties, he was a 
 staunch Whig. As time wore on, the Republican party arose and he became 
 a Democrat, along with his friend, Robert Toombs. He was called by his host 
 of admirers, " the Georgia commoner." His home was called "Liberty Hall." 
 He was never married, owing perhaps to his physical decrepitude. He was 
 a man of singular appearance, being almost like a skeleton. Toward the 
 end of his life he was wheeled in and out, to and from his seat in Congress, 
 upon a chair from which he made some of his ringing congressional speeches, 
 even at the end of his career. In early life his spare figure was erect and 
 his dark hair unfrosted. At the end of the war he was imprisoned in Fort 
 Warren. On his release he sent for the writer who, being then a citizen of 
 New-York, renewed the old acquaintance which had begun in Congress as 
 early as 1857. Mr. Stephens was the contemporary and friend of such 
 men as Herschel V. Johnson, William H. Crawford, Charles J. Jenkins, 
 Joseph Henry Lumpkin, and was a brother of Judge Linton Stephens. He 
 was the author of two volumes connected with the war, entitled The War 
 Between The States. They are written in a lucid but colloquial style, 
 after the manner of the Imaginary Conversations of Walter Savage Lan- 
 dor, yet they lack that cogency which belongs to his speeches, and have 
 more discursiveness than properly belongs to interesting narrative. 
 
 Frequently, during his service in Congress after the war, he was enfee 
 bled, and remained at his room, or in his bed ; but, for a chronic invalid, he 
 was the most remarkable that " e'er wore earth about him." His patience, 
 in spite of pain, was remarkable. His good humor was ever refreshing. 
 He was as kindly a man as could be met in politics or in any sphere. He as 
 sisted the poor and ambitious scholar with his purse, and the poorest negro 
 boy had his helpful advice and kindly offices. Upon one of the occasions 
 when he was lying discouraged and ill at his room in the National Hotel, ex 
 pecting to die, he sent for the writer. He was surrounded by friends, who 
 looked disconsolate. Mrs. Coleman, the daughter of John J. Crittenden, 
 was ministering to him, as it was thought, in his last illness. After taking 
 the hand which now writes these lines, he turned over with a pleasant smile, 
 and said : " I have read your eulogy on Speaker Kerr. I sent for you to make 
 a request a last request. Will you promise to deliver my eulogy when I am 
 gone? " I promptly caught his compliment and smile, and said : " I would 
 like you to promise me one thing ; and that is to make my eulogy ; you will 
 be the survivor." Turning quietly to Mrs. Coleman, he said: "Well, he 
 will always have his little joke," and he promised to be my eulogist. He 
 got well. 
 
114 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 At the end of his service in Congress, he was elected governor of Geor 
 gia. He was not, in one sense, a consistent Democrat, as men regard consist 
 ency. He frequently had individual and independent opinions of men and 
 measures. No one could be more independent than he was before the legis 
 lature and the Confederate convention of Georgia, when he made his great 
 speeches against secession and in favor of the Union. In his book he prints a 
 fac simile of a letter written by Abraham Lincoln on the 3Oth of November, 
 1860, in which the then President-elect says : u I have read in the newspaper 
 your speech recently delivered before the Georgia Legislature or its assembled 
 members. If you have revised it, as is probable, I shall be much obliged if 
 you will send me a copy." Thereupon, there began a correspondence be 
 tween these gentlemen who had served together on the same committee in 
 Congress, in which Mr. Lincoln undertook to strengthen the Union senti 
 ment of Mr. Stephens by saying in the conclusion of one of his letters: 
 "You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is 
 wrong and ought to be restricted. That, I suppose, is the rule. It certainly 
 is the only substantial difference between us." Mr. Stephens held that that 
 difference was not a sufficient cause for war, and he dilated upon it with such 
 fervor, spirit, and patriotism that he almost persuaded Georgia to halt before 
 giving its consent to secession. 
 
 The Legislature of Mississippi met on the 26th of November, 1860. A 
 convention was called, and the election of delegates fixed for December 20. 
 They assembled Jan. 7, 1861. On the 9th, an ordinance of secession was 
 adopted by a vote of 84 to 15. The minority, on the next day, signed the 
 ordinance. It was thus made unanimous. The ordinance declared for in 
 dependence. It expressed a readiness to form a Southern confederacy, on 
 the basis of the old Constitution. A committee was appointed with reference 
 to the subject. It recommended a provisional government. On the 3oth of 
 March, the convention ratified the Confederate Constitution. The Represent 
 atives in Congress resigned on the I2th of January. Albert G. Brown, one 
 of the Senators, resigned on the I4th, and Jefferson Davis on the 2ist. 
 
 Mr. Davis may be regarded as the exponent, then, of the sentiments and 
 purposes of the State of Mississippi, and of the South. He was a member 
 of the Senate Committee of Thirteen, in December, 1860. He submitted a 
 proposition in that committee, that it be declared, by amendment of the 
 Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local laws 
 of any of the states in the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all con 
 stitutional and Federal relations as any other species of property so recog 
 nized, and like other property shall not be subject to be diverted or impaired 
 by the local law of any other state, either in escape thereto, or of transit or 
 sojourn of the owner therein. He held that in no case whatever should such 
 property be subject to be diverted or impaired by any legislative act of the 
 United States or any of the territories thereof. This proposition, which 
 
THE GULF STATES SECEDE. 115 
 
 would have introduced slavery into the free states, was not agreed to 
 yeas 6, nays 6. Messrs. Rice, of Minnesota, and Bigler, of Pennsylvania, 
 voted with Messrs. Davis, Hunter, Powell of Kentucky, and Toombs, in its 
 favor. Mr. Crittenden voted with the Northern Senators, Messrs. Collamer, 
 Doolittle, Grimes, Seward, and Wade, against it. Mr. Douglas withheld his 
 vote, or was not present. Slavery, therefore, was the sole ground of con 
 troversy, in the estimation of Mr. Jefferson Davis, in December, 1860. But, 
 like many other Southern men, in the progress of the struggle he seems to 
 have subordinated slavery to the question of Southern independence. 
 
 The Legislature of Florida assembled Nov. 26, 1860. Gov. M. S. Perry, 
 in his message, recommended the call of a convention, and the immediate 
 secession of the state. A convention was called on the first day of Decem 
 ber. The delegates were elected, and the body met on the 3d of January, 
 1861. On the loth, an ordinance of secession was passed by yeas 62, nays 
 7. On the 1 8th, delegates were appointed to the Southern Congress at Mont 
 gomery. On the 2 ist, the Senators and Representatives of the state- with 
 drew from the Congress of the United States. The legislature, on the i4th 
 of March, passed an act defining treason. It declared that holding office by 
 a citizen of Florida under the Federal Government, after an act of collision 
 between the state and Federal forces, would be treason. 
 
 The Legislature of Louisiana met on the tenth day of December, 1860. 
 On the following day a convention bill was passed. The delegates elected 
 were to assemble on the 23d of January, 1861. That body assembled ac 
 cordingly, and 011 the 25th an ordinance of secession was passed by yeas 
 113, nays 17. By a vote of 84 to 45, the convention refused to submit the 
 ordinance to the popular vote for ratification. The Senators in Congress 
 withdrew on the 5th of February ; and the Representatives, except Mr. Bou- 
 ligney, withdrew on the same day. Pilots were prohibited from bringing 
 United States vessels into the Mississippi. The convention, on March 7th, 
 adopted an ordinance in secret session. By it, the specie in the United 
 States mint was transferred to the Confederate States Government. The 
 amount was $536,000. On the i6th, a proposition to submit the Confederate 
 States Constitution to the popular vote was rejected yeas 26, nays 74- 
 That constitution was ratified in the convention by yeas 101, nays 7. The 
 governor was authorized to turn over to the Confederate Government all 
 public property of the United States which had been seized by the state 
 authorities. The convention adjourned, sine die, on the 27th of March. 
 
 The Legislature of Alabama ordered an election to take place Dec. 24, 
 1860, for delegates to a state convention. The election was accordingly 
 held, and resulted in favor of the secessionists, by 50,000 majority. The 
 convention met January 7. On the same day the delegation from the state 
 in Congress sent a dispatch to the convention advising immediate secession, 
 as they saw no prospect of a satisfactory adjustment. On the 8th, an organ- 
 
Il6 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ization was effected. On the nth, a secession ordinance was adopted in 
 secret session. The vote was 61 yeas to 39 nays. A proposition to submit 
 the ordinance to the popular vote for ratification was defeated. The vote 
 was yeas 47, nays 53. The legislature, on the I9th of January, chose 
 delegates to the Confederate Congress. On the 2ist, the Representatives 
 and Senators in the United States Congress withdrew from that body. 
 Commissioners were chosen on the 26th, to treat with the United States 
 Government for the surrender of the forts, arsenals, and other public property 
 within the state. The convention adopted a resolution requesting the people 
 of each of the seceding states to send delegates to Montgomery on February 
 the 4th, to consult upon the most effectual mode of securing harmonious action 
 in measures for their common peace and security. Commissioners were sent to 
 the other slave-holding states. After a recess the convention reassembled on 
 the 4th of March. On the I3th of that month, the Confederate States Con 
 stitution was ratified by a vote of 87 to 6. The convention passed an ordi 
 nance transferring the United States forts and arsenals to the Confederate 
 Government. The vote in the convention upon the ordinance of secession 
 shows that the people of Alabama were far from unanimous on that question. 
 
 The convention in Texas which passed the secession ordinance, was 
 constituted without the formalities of law. It was therefore a revolutionary 
 body. Its members were chosen in the primary meetings of the people, by 
 concerted agreement throughout the state. On the 28th of January, 1861, 
 they assembled. They proceeded to the consideration of an ordinance of 
 secession. The Governor, Samuel Houston, was opposed to secession. 
 He resisted the movement to the utmost of his power. The sessions of 
 the legislature were biennial under the constitution, and that body could 
 not meet until the autumn or winter of 1861, except on the call of the gov 
 ernor. For some time the hero of San Jacinto held out against the popular 
 frenzy ; but at length he yielded. He issued a proclamation convening the 
 legislature, on the twenty-first day of January. That body promptly recog 
 nized the voluntary convention as legal. On the first day of February, the 
 ordinance was adopted by a vote of 166 to 7* On the 7th of February, the 
 convention decided to submit the ordinance to the vote of the people for rati 
 fication. The election took place on the 23d. It resulted in a majority of 
 three to one, in its favor. The vote w r as, 34,794 for, and 11,235 against se 
 cession. In conforming with this vote, the convention, on March 4, declared 
 the state independent and out of the Union. Governor Houston endeavored 
 to regain public confidence by negotiations with General Twiggs for the sur 
 render of the forts and public property, but he was ruthlessly thrown aside. 
 
 The Texas ordinance sets forth that the Federal Government had failed to 
 accomplish the purposes of the compact of the Union between the states by not 
 giving protection either to the persons of the people upon an exposed frontier, 
 or to the property of the citizens. It recites the action of the Northern states 
 
THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY FORMED. 117 
 
 as violative of the compact between the states and the guarantees of the Con 
 stitution. " Recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident," it says, 
 "that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon 
 with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas 
 and her sister slave-holding states, instead of permitting it to be, as was in 
 tended, our shield against outrage and aggression." It will be noticed that 
 the convention of Texas alleges, as the first cause justifying a separation 
 from the Union, the alleged failure of the National Government to protect 
 the people of the state against the Indians or the Mexicans. The remaining 
 ground of secession is the nullification of the fugitive-slave act by f .he Nor 
 thern states. The "recent development in Federal affairs " probably refers 
 to the election of a Republican President by a constitutional majority. 
 
 The Southern Confederacy was formed by South Carolina, Georgia, and 
 the four gulf States, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, in 
 February, 1861. The delegates chosen by the state conventions assembled at 
 Montgomery, Alabama, on the fourth day of that month. On the 8th, a pro 
 visional constitution and government were agreed to, by a unanimous vote 
 of the convention. The permanent constitution, adopted some weeks later, 
 was modeled on that of the United States, but it contains some material 
 variances. The initial words of the preamble, " We the people" of the 
 Confederate States, are qualified by inserting, " each state acting in its sov 
 ereign and independent character." The words " provide for the common 
 defense and promote the general welfare," are omitted. 
 
 The second section of the first article of the United States Constitution 
 simply provides that the electors in each state, in choosing members of the 
 House of Representatives, shall have the qualifications requisite for electors 
 of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. The Confederate 
 Constitution, in addition to these words, provides that the electors in each 
 state shall be citizens of the Confederate States ; and further, that " no per 
 son of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed 
 to vote for any officer, civil or political, state or Federal." This was an im 
 portant change from the Constitution of the United States, as it stood at that 
 time. The latter left the whole question of suffrage to the states. But the 
 Confederate States Constitution, though spoken of by its framers as a mere 
 compact or league between sovereign states, assumed the high prerogative of 
 declaring who should vote, and who should not vote, not merely for Con 
 federate congressmen, but for officers of the sovereign states. This was a 
 stride toward centralization which went far beyond that of our Fifteenth 
 Amendment. That amendment merely establishes uniformity of political 
 rights, but it does not attempt to grant the franchise to any citizen. 
 
 In the United States Constitution, the words slave and slavery are not to 
 be found. Mr. Madison, in the debates in the convention at Philadelphia in 
 1787, said he " thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that 
 
Il8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 there could be property in men/' It was this sentiment, which pervaded that 
 body, that caused the evasive circumlocution to be resorted to in apportion 
 ing representation and taxation, and in providing that "persons held to ser 
 vice or labor," and escaping into other states, shall be delivered up. The 
 same eminent Virginian strongly opposed the clause which tolerated until 
 the year 1808, the " migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
 states now existing shall think proper to admit." He said that so long a 
 term would be more dishonorable to the American character than to say 
 nothing about it in the Constitution. But the framers of the Confederate 
 Constitution were embarrassed by none of these scruples. They prohibited 
 the African slave-trade. This was in deference to European sentiment. It 
 was also domestic policy ; but there was no hesitation about the recognition 
 of slavery, co nomine. It was placed on the basis of all other property, 
 under the aegis of the confederation. 
 
 The Confederate Congress was given power, in the ninth section, to pro 
 hibit the importation of slaves from any state or territory not a member of, 
 nor belonging to, the Confederacy. The President and Vice-President were 
 to hold their offices for six years. No person not a natural-born citizen of 
 the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of the 
 Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 2Oth 
 of December, 1860, was eligible to the office of President. The latter must 
 be thirty-five years of age, and fourteen years a resident of the Confederacy. 
 
 These are the principal deviations from the Constitution of the Union. 
 
 The clause defining treason is retained ; and the sixth article, which de 
 clares the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties made 
 in pursuance thereof, to be the supreme law of the land, is adopted, with 
 the necessary modification. 
 
 The plan for the election of President and Vice-President is retained. 
 
 This constitution was adopted unanimously by the delegates from the six 
 states above named, together with those of Texas, on March n, 1861. 
 
 The delegates, before framing the permanent Constitution, had adopted 
 a provisional government, with a constitution. The constitution was simi 
 lar to that of the United States. It declared the delegates to be invested 
 with legislative powers under it, until the permanent government should be 
 established. Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens were chosen as 
 provisional President and Vice-President. 
 
 The accession of Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to 
 the Confederacy took place in the order thus named, in the course of the 
 spring and early summer of 1861. 
 
 The Arkansas Legislature, on the i6th of January, 1861, passed an act 
 calling a state convention. The delegates were elected on the i8th of Feb 
 ruary. They convened on the 4th of March. The popular vote on the 
 question of calling the convention was, 27,412 for, and 15,826 against it. An 
 
ARKANSAS, VIRGINIA, AND NORTH CAROLINA. Up 
 
 ordinance of secession was introduced and discussed. On the i8th of March, 
 it was rejected by a vote of yeas 35, nays 39. It was then agreed to submit 
 the question of secession to the vote of the people on August i st. But before 
 that day arrived, namely, on May 6, the convention reconsidered and passed 
 the ordinance by yeas 69, nays i. Delegates had been sent to the Provisional 
 Congress, at Montgomery. The convention now authorized them to transfer 
 the United States Arsenal at Little Rock, and the Marine Hospital at Napo 
 leon, to the Confederate Government. 
 
 The preamble to the secession ordinance shows that the Arkansas Con 
 vention was moved to its adoption, not by the original causes which in 
 spired the movement ; but by the fact that President Lincoln had issued a 
 proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand troops to suppress the Rebel 
 lion. 
 
 The Virginia Legislature met in extra session on the 7th of January, 
 1861. On the following day it passed a joint resolution. This resolution 
 denied the right of the general government to coerce a state. On the I3th 
 of the same month, an act was passed calling a state convention. The elec 
 tion was held on the 4th of February. At the same election the question 
 was referred to the people, whether the result of the deliberations of the 
 proposed convention should be submitted to them for ratification or rejection. 
 It was decided in favor of submission, by a majority of 55,000. The con 
 vention met on the thirteenth day of February. After deliberating two 
 months, it passed a secession ordinance in secret session on the i7th of 
 April. The yeas were 88 ; the nays 55. The vote of the people upon the 
 ordinance was cast in the latter part of May ; but on the adoption of the 
 ordinance by the convention, the Confederate Constitution was ratified. The 
 Governor, John Letcher, issued a proclamation announcing the accession of 
 Virginia to the Confederacy. Immediately after the ordinance of secession 
 passed, a military league was formed by the convention, in the name of the 
 people of Virginia, with the " Confederate States of the South." By this 
 treaty the latter were bound to march to the aid of Virginia against the in 
 vasion of the Federal Government. 
 
 A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed to seces 
 sion. They did not regard it as a constitutional right. They were equally 
 opposed to a separation from the Union in resentment of the election of Mr. 
 Lincoln. But the Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the 
 secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state Into line with South 
 Carolina. The legislature met on the 2oth of November. The governor, 
 in his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a conference 
 with the Southern States, or send delegates to them for the purpose of 
 securing their co-operation. He also recommended the reorganization of 
 the militia, and the call of a state convention. Bills were introduced for the 
 purpose of carrying these measures into effect. The Joint Committee on 
 
120 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Federal Relations reported a convention bill, but it was not acted upon. An 
 appropriation of $300,000 for organizing and arming the militia was adopted 
 in the Senate, but it failed to be acted on in the House of Commons. On the 
 22d of December, the legislature took a recess until the yth of January. By 
 that time the excitement had grown. On January the 8th, the Militia bill 
 was adopted in the Commons. 
 
 On the 3oth of January, a bill for calling a state convention was passed. 
 It provided that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with the 
 Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be ratified by a majority 
 of the qualified voters of the state. The vote of the people was appointed 
 to take place on the 28th of February. The delegates were elected on 
 the day named. A large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same 
 time, the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a convention was 
 46,671 ; against a convention, 47>333 The majority against it was 662. 
 This majority against a convention, however, was no criterion of popular 
 sentiment in regard to secession. The true test was the votes received, 
 respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former received a 
 majority of nearly thirty thousand. But the indefatigable governor was not 
 to be balked by the popular dislike for secession. The legislature was called 
 together in extra session on May i . On the same day they voted to have 
 another election for delegates to a state convention on the i3th of the month. 
 The election took place accordingly, and the delegates convened on the 2oth. 
 On the following day the secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confed 
 erate Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further obstructions, the 
 question of popular approval was taken for granted. On the 5th of June, 
 an ordinance was passed for transferring the United States Arsenal at Fay- 
 etteville to the Confederate Government. 
 
 The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On the I2th, a 
 bill for the calling of a state convention was passed. It was passed subject 
 to the approval of the voters. The election took place on the eighth day of 
 February. The people voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 
 54.156. 
 
 In disregard of this vote of the people, however, the legislature, on May 
 ist, passed a joint resolution authorizing the governor to enter into a military 
 league with the Confederate States. The league was formed. The Gov 
 ernor, Isham G. Harris, sent a message to the legislature, announcing the 
 fact. He stated its terms. Messrs. Gustavus A. Henry, A. O. W. Totten, 
 and Washington Barrow, on the part of the state, and Hon. H. W. Hilliard, 
 on the part of the Confederacy, negotiated the league. It stipulated that 
 until the state should become a member of the Confederacy, "the whole 
 military force and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said state, 
 in the impending conflict with the United States, shall be under the chief 
 control and direction of the President of the Confederate States." It was 
 
CONFEDERATE 
 
 E GOVERNORS^ 
 
TENNESSEE COMPLETES THE CONFEDERACY. 121 
 
 also agreed that the state would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy 
 turn over all public property it might acquire from the United States. The 
 legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of both branches. These 
 final proceedings took place on the seventh day of May. On the preceding; 
 day, the legislature put forth a declaration of independence. It was sub 
 mitted to the votes of the people for ratification. This document waives the 
 right of secession, as follows : " We, the people of the State of Tennessee, 
 waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, 
 but asserting the right, as a free and independent people," declare that all 
 the laws and ordinances by which Tennessee became a member of the Fed 
 eral Union, " are hereby abrogated." The vote for separation was declared 
 by the governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure. It 
 thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in declaring the separation 
 of the state from the Federal Union, placed its action upon the ground of 
 a revolutionary right, which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just. 
 Upon such a question the aggrieved people must be the judge. 
 
 In nearly all the seceding states there were earnest and rational protests 
 made against secession, by writers and speakers of intelligence and sagacity. 
 
 One of these trenchant criticisms held that it was no answer to say that 
 the new constitutions were better in some of their provisions than the old. 
 This might be, and in other respects they might be worse. The changes had 
 been startling. A series of searching questions and answers thus states the 
 opposing view with cogent vivacity : Was the purpose to enlarge the rights of 
 the states? They have been curtailed. Was the object to strengthen and ex 
 tend the institution of African slavery? It has been circumscribed, hemmed 
 in. Was the object in setting up the new government to diminish the expenses ? 
 They have been increased. Was the object to lessen taxation? That object 
 has failed ; for where the expenditures were thousands, they will be millions. 
 Was the object in tearing down the old government to secure the property- 
 holder ? The new government has not the strength to protect that the old one 
 had. Was the object to enlarge the elective franchise and expand the rights of 
 the individual members of society ? The new government prescribes a quali 
 fication for electors in a state, whereas the old government left that entirely 
 with the states. Was the object in demolishing the old and setting up 
 the new government to increase the culture and growth of cotton? The 
 heavy expenditures of the new polity, with the increase of taxation conse 
 quent thereon, will diminish the laborers, and the production will fall off. 
 
 The ^uasi-ofiicial and conventional utterances in the seceding states had, 
 apparently, all the sanction of a successful revolution. Within the area of 
 secession, the authority of the United States was thus extinguished, first by 
 the action, voluntary or forced, of conventions representing the people and 
 forming governments for practical ends, and next by the seizure of arsenals, 
 mints, custom houses, forts, and navy yards. These acts gave evidence de 
 
122 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 facto, if not de jure, of the existence of new governments. Peace, how 
 ever, was looked for and kept until March, 1861, notwithstanding the efforts 
 which the government established at Montgomery was making to consolidate 
 its authority in the seceding states. 
 
 No one except an actor in the scenes of that time can understand the in 
 tense anxiety in relation to the first breach of the peace. The preliminary 
 debates in Congress turn on the collection of duties, and the avoidance of 
 menacing and irritating measures. Then, Fort Sumter is surrendered. 
 Volunteers are called for. At once the Confederate States become militant 
 and powerful. A blockade is announced by proclamation. Letters of 
 marque and reprisal against the commerce of the United States follow a 
 declaration of war by the Confederate Congress. It is a fight to the death 
 between two opposing communities, with a line of hostility between them. 
 But is it rightful secession or revolution ? The result of the movement will 
 decide. 
 
 When the special session of Congress is called on July 4, 1861, where 
 are the representative men from the South? Not one is there to de 
 fend secession. Attempts are made to limit the design and define the cause 
 of the war. The Crittenden resolutions are intended to keep the Union para 
 mount above all other concernments, certainly above those of slavery and 
 state rights. The attempt of the zealots of the Republican party to force 
 President Lincoln from his resolution on this subject fails. What he had 
 written on the i4th of December, 1860, to Alexander H. Stephens, he 
 steadily maintains. "Do the people of the South," he then asked, " really 
 entertain fears that a Republican Administration would directly or indi 
 rectly interfere with the slaves ? " He assures Mr. Stephens that the South 
 would be in no more danger in this respect than they were in the time 
 of Washington. 
 
 Resolutions pass both houses of Congress affirming the autonomy of the 
 United States and declaring for its maintenance. They place the Union above 
 all other objects, and when that is made secure the war is to end. But with 
 the lapse of time the war goes on. The Democratic members of Congress 
 again and again challenge debate in relation to the object of the war. The 
 writer of this volume vindicated Mr. Lincoln's policy upon th* stump in Ohio, 
 and was returned in 1862, in a strong Republican district, upon that issue. 
 
 One of the whimsical excesses of secession, or vicissitudes of the war, 
 is the partition of Virginia. Forty western counties of Virginia agree to 
 secede and form a new state, without the consent of the old one ! This is 
 anomalous and unconstitutional. It is a new phase of secession, made by the 
 war. It is vigorously opposed, but in vain. The first beginnings of recon 
 struction thus, and in the very midst of the war, come out of this disparting 
 of Virginia. It is one of the scars made by the war. It remains to com 
 memorate the policy of force. It inevitably led to the successful attack 
 which was soon to be made upon state institutions, including slavery. 
 
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. 123 
 
 On the ist of January, 1863, after three months' notice and much anxious 
 avoidance, the President issues his Emancipation Proclamation, but only as a 
 war measure, as he afterward maintained to the last. It sets free the slaves 
 within the enemy's lines, as rapidly as the Federal arms move to the front, 
 or open a way for the fugitives under the new military habeas corpus. This 
 enfranchisement continues. But in the meantime the President holds that it 
 is for the courts to determine the effect of the Proclamation. 
 
 The more audacious members of the Republican party, such as Thaddeus 
 Stevens and those whom he led so vigorously, insisted that the Constitution 
 was suspended within the Confederate lines by an act of war and not by 
 secession. " Where," he exclaimed, " is the constitution of South Caro 
 lina ? " " Why should members of Congress, or an Executive in Washing 
 ton, be bound by a constitution that* does not exist in that state ? " In effect 
 this was to say that the Constitution ceased to exist while the National 
 Government existed. The theory of Mr. Sumner was not unlike that of 
 Mr. Stevens. While he held that the outgoing states could not remove them 
 selves from national jurisdiction until the war which they waged became suc 
 cessful, he held that, in the meantime, these states had become territories. 
 Their statehood being forever gone, any conditions might be prescribed by 
 Congress for the admission of these territories. How he would ascertain the 
 boundaries of these territories, without admitting some constitutional basis 
 for the secession ordinances, neither Mr. Sumner nor any of his political 
 .school has ever attempted to demonstrate. How could there be a territory 
 -of South Carolina? 
 
 The doctrine of the Northern Democrats, in and out of Congress, in 
 volved no such vindictive absurdities as that of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Sumner. 
 The Democrats held that secession was unconstitutional, null, and void. 
 Therefore, it could in no way impair the vitality of the Constitution. 
 Secession was simply a denial of the power of the general government to 
 exercise its Federal functions in certain states of the Union. It was an insur 
 rection, no more, no less ; and for the suppression of which the people and 
 the states of the Union had clothed the general government with full author 
 ity and ample power. This power was not to be exercised rashly while 
 peaceful measures might succeed. The Constitution might be denied any op 
 eration or be resisted by extremists North and South, but would it be thereby 
 limited in its legal and political force? Nothing could curtail the scope of 
 the Constitution except an absolute and permanent dismemberment of the 
 Union of the states. The result of the insurrection could alone determine 
 whether South Carolina was to remain a state of the Union, or to become 
 severed from her Federal bond. If the general government should succeed 
 in suppressing the insurrection, then, in contemplation of the Constitution and 
 the laws of the land, her ante bellum relations to the Federal Union would 
 ^continue. The fact that the extent of the insurrection and fche feelings of human- 
 
124 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ity required secession to be suppressed in the mode of civilized warfare could 
 not effect a political change in the Federal system. Such an effect, in a case 
 of unsuccessful revolution was never conceived, much less asserted, by any 
 authority on the science of civil government, until its violent assumption by 
 the radical obstructionists of the Republican party. They alone gave their 
 full sanction to the doctrine of secession. Secession drew the sword and 
 died by the sword, and slavery was buried with it. Despite the horrors of a 
 protracted civil war, and the still more violent suspension of constitutional 
 vigor succeeding it under congressional reconstruction, all the machinations 
 and devices of usurpers of power North and South failed to destroy even 
 one member of the Federal body politic. So firmly fixed in the American 
 mind is the theory of state and Federal government, that, at last, the people 
 arose in their might and silenced all disputation over war results, by com 
 manding the Federal hand to be withdrawn from the throat of sovereign 
 states which were and always would be states of the Union. 
 
 Who now will question the vitality of our political system ? What ele 
 ment remains, to eat out the substance, sense, and virtue of the people, undo 
 the work of the past, and dismantle our incomparable system of govern 
 ment ? Are we again to become the prey of mercenary and corrupting officials ? 
 Nothing can destroy our system except when the greed of gain struggles 
 toward the goal with the lust of power. The demoralization of the public 
 service during the war and shortly after it, was to be expected. But long 
 after that period, great and honored names were not ashamed of association 
 with the bribe-giver and bribe-taker, and the reckless and avaricious lobby. 
 
 The elements and conditions which produced the usurpation of 1877 still 
 exist in great force. We have the same timidity of wealth, the same coward 
 ice of credit, and the same tenderness of trade, which then drowned the pop 
 ular will by clamors for the revival of business. The rich bartered political 
 rectitude for contentment with their gains. But for all that, are we to be rid 
 of the rich? Shall there be no more bond-holders, no champagne revelers, 
 no railroad kings, no sleek lobbies, no purchasable news-venders, no mon 
 eyed princes, no men of fashionable clubs and soft attire? These cannot 
 be abolished. Their evil influences must be restrained. The impedimentum 
 cannot be left behind in the campaigns and contests for freedom, although 
 it may hinder the march. As it must have its place somewhere, let that 
 place be far in the rear of the column. 
 
 For purity of public conduct, we must turn to the principles and practice 
 of the Union established by the fathers. But how long will that Union be 
 worthy of maintenance, if the republican form of government gives place to a 
 plutocratic usurpation of all the co-ordinate branches of the Federal Govern 
 ment? Has not wealth, or unscrupulous fealty to corporate power, been for 
 many years the main, and often, the all-sufficient qualification for the high 
 
SOME RESULTS OF THE WAR. - 125 
 
 offices of state executive, legislative, and even judicial ? What has brought 
 about such a woeful, anti-republican condition of affairs? Is it not plainly 
 the continuance of the extravagances of the war times, when the foundations 
 of most of the present colossal fortunes were laid in great contracts and 
 cemented with the blood, tears, and cruel taxations of the people? One 
 would think that the American people, with an ancestry providentially 
 guided here, with an inheritance so splendid, and with the example set 
 them by the generations of patriotic men who have passed away, would 
 still retain the freshness and purity of virtuous power. All the bounteous 
 elements of sea and earth and sky would seem to beckon business men, legis 
 lators, judges, executives, and ministers of official grace and honor, away 
 from the base fascination of hoarded pelf which dishonors to destroy our 
 institutions. There must be more concern for the national character. 
 
 The recent election gives hope of better days and much reformation. 
 America in her fresh hemisphere, in her first cycle of unity, with the 
 vote, with the numbers, with the added wisdom and practical sagacity of her 
 people, must clarify the political and social atmosphere, and declare for the 
 new order of administration, else the light of her liberties may be extin 
 guished. Let not progress and poverty march abreast in this, as in the older 
 hemisphere. The American Republic must become an exemplar for all fu 
 ture republics which may be created by the achievements of free men. Now 
 that the world is adapting itself to new developments of physical forces and 
 moral resources, now that new boundaries are being made between the na 
 tions, now that new elements are startling kings and kaisers, and giving fleet 
 coursers to civilization by the vapor of water and the spark of lightning, let 
 progress and prosperity march hand in hand on this continent. Let us not 
 prove recreant to the demands of this new order. National wealth is not 
 always the evidence of national prosperity, nor does great industrial progress 
 always imply corresponding happiness among those who develop it. If 
 negro slavery was an unjust appropriation of the rewards due to labor, it 
 behooves the people to learn wisdom from the overthrow of that institution. 
 
 Let progress be in the paths of peace, humanity, and justice, and toward 
 the advancement of real liberty and mutual industry. Let the torch of 
 patriotism shine out upon the shoals and reefs wliere the wreckers would 
 despoil the Ship of State, so that free, unbiased as the winds and waves, she 
 may sail on forever, freighted with the hopes and the happiness of an up 
 right people. Let those who shall hereafter direct her course, be as the 
 elect of God yea, even the salt of the earth. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE FINANCES FOR THE WAR THE MEXICAN WAR FINANCES THE REVO- 
 LUTIONARY WAR FINANCES STATE AND CONTINENTAL BILLS OF CREDIT 
 EARLY REVENUE RESOURCES CUSTOMS, EXCISES AND DIRECT TAXES 
 THE CIVIL WAR DEBT THE ISSUES OF BONDS AND TREASURY NOTES 
 UNITED STATES NOTES LEGAL TENDER NOTES DUTIES ON IMPORTS 
 UNDER THE MORRILL TARIFFS THE INTERNAL REVENUE SYSTEM THE 
 PLAN FOR A NATIONAL PAPER CURRENCY ITS ORIGIN AND CONSTITU 
 TIONALITYAMERICAN ABILITY TO SUSTAIN TAXATION. 
 
 PRIOR to the war for the preservation of the Union, the country had 
 suffered no considerable strain upon its resources for a period of 
 forty-five years. Almost two generations of men had come and 
 gone since the government had found it necessary to meet the de 
 mands upon the treasury by a resort to direct or internal taxation. The 
 war with Mexico had imposed no such necessity. It was sufficient for that 
 emergency to borrow money in anticipation of ordinary taxes. We then 
 issued some millions of treasury notes. These were afterwards funded, or 
 received back in payment of duties on imports. The receipts under the 
 Democratic revenue tariff of 1846, during the ten years following, were almost 
 sufficient to pay the current expenses of the government and reduce the debt 
 incurred in that war to less than a fifth of its original amount. In 1846, 
 before the war commenced, the public debt was $15,550,000. In 1849, ^ e 
 year after its close, the debt was $63,000,000 ; and in 1851 it had risen, prob 
 ably as a consequence of the war, to $68,304,000. It may therefore be 
 assumed that the cost of the Mexican War, over and above the current reve 
 nue which was paid out in that period, was not in excess of $52,754,000. 
 In 1857 the public debt was reduced to $28,700,000; or only $13,149,000 
 more than it was in 1846. These figures afford evidence of good financial 
 management. 
 
 In 1846 it became necessary, in order to carry on the war with Mexico, 
 either to increase the taxes or borrow money. The party then in power, true 
 
REVOLUTIONARY WAR FINANCES. 127 
 
 to its traditions and policy, preferred the latter mode. In this it displayed 
 wisdom. The resources of the country were being rapidly developed, not 
 withstanding the apparent embarrassments of the Federal treasury. Popula 
 tion was steadily increasing. Money was in demand in all the industries, 
 and employment was open for labor in every field. Under these conditions, 
 it was deemed better statesmanship to discount the income of the future, 
 which must grow with the general prosperity of the people, rather than to 
 retard enterprise by taxation. Taxes, like governments, are necessary evils. 
 It has always been a favorite maxim with the writer, that the less the people 
 have of either evil, consistently with the general welfare, the better it will be 
 for themselves and their industries. It is not to be understood that the the 
 ory that a public debt is a public blessing is here admitted. Circumstances 
 will, at times, render a mean course between debt and taxation the better 
 policy ; but this course should always be steered on a line where the indus 
 tries the life-blood of the nation will be safe from wreck, and where no 
 man's goods shall be jettisoned for another's. In a government like ours, 
 intended as it is to secure to all citizens equal civil, political, and industrial 
 rights, privileges, and opportunities, it must be apparent to every one pos 
 sessed of sound reason, that the legislative fostering of any one industry or 
 private enterprise must correspondingly retard all other means of progress 
 and prosperity. Forced plants are seldom vigorous. Unnecessary taxation 
 is a burden that should be avoided. This is a Democratic maxim of Federal 
 administration. Acting on this maxim, Congress, instead of increasing the 
 taxes to carry on the Mexican War, passed an act on July 22 ,1846, authoriz 
 ing the issue of ten millions in notes, accompanied by a loan act at six per 
 cent. On the 28th of January, 1847, an act was P asse d authorizing the issue 
 of twenty-three millions in notes at six per cent. This act was accompanied 
 by authority to redeem them by the issue of stock running for a term of 
 years, at the same rate of interest. In March, 1848, a sixteen million loan 
 was authorized, at six per cent. 
 
 During the Revolutionary War, the Congress had no real fiscal power. 
 Such as it had was dependent upon the patriotism and good faith of the 
 people. The Congress then depended on the states for the enforcement of 
 its ordinances. It had but little legislative capacity. It could impose no 
 taxes. Its function in this regard was but little more than a right to initiate 
 or recommend measures. It could declare how much money was necessary 
 to carry on the war during the ensuing year, and it could apportion the 
 quotas of that amount among the states ; but it had no power to collect them. 
 If any state failed to pay its quota there was no remedy save entreaty. The 
 military authority of the Congress was something more tangible. The right 
 to call for troops and to appoint the commander-in-chief and other officers 
 carried with it some real power ; but not such power as could be legitimately 
 used for the enforcement of legislative ordinances. 
 
123 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 This was a defective system of government. The result was that the 
 struggle for Independence was protracted. The war was carried on to its con 
 summation by promises to pay, rather than with money. Great efforts were 
 made to borrow from foreigners. The chief business of our representatives 
 abroad was to negotiate loans. The total amount of the loans negotiated by 
 them during the struggle was only a trifle above ten millions. It was stated 
 by Hamilton, in his report submitted to the House of Representatives on 
 Jan. 14, 1790, at $10,070,307. On this the arrears of interest amounted to 
 $1,640,071.62. The domestic debt of the Union, including $13,000,000 of 
 interest overdue, amounted to $40,414,085.94. The debts of the states were 
 assumed to the amount of $21,500,000. Adding to these items the unliqui 
 dated part of the domestic debt, which consisted chiefly of Continental bills 
 of credit, estimated in the report at $2,000,000, the total debt on the 3ist of 
 December, 1789, was $75,624,464.56. The actual debt a year later was 
 reported at $75,463,476.52. 
 
 The paper currency called bills of credit, issued by Congress during 
 the war, and before the adoption of the Constitution, amounted to the sum of 
 nearly two hundred and fifty millions ; and the aggregate of the bills issued 
 by the states amounted to $209,524,776. Of the latter issue Virginia was 
 responsible for $128,441,000; North Carolina for $33,325,000, and South 
 Carolina for $33,458,926, thus leaving only $14,299,850 for the other states. 
 
 About half of the bills of credit issued by the Congress of the Confeder 
 ation were redeemed by new bills, at the rate of forty of the old for one of 
 the new issue. These last were assumed to be at par with silver, and were 
 receivable as such by the Congress for the taxes which were apportioned 
 among the states. Mr. Jefferson, who was in France much of the time, was 
 mistaken in saying that " very little of the money [old bills] was brought in." 
 He states that in 1780 the old bills had fallen in value, compared with silver, 
 to seventy-five for one, when they went out of circulation north of the Poto 
 mac. In Virginia and North Carolina, these bills continued to circulate a 
 year longer. By that time they had fallen to one thousand to one ; " and 
 then," Mr. Jefferson adds, " the paper expired, as it had done in other states, 
 without a single groan. Not a murmur was heard on this occasion among 
 the people. On the contrary," said he, " universal congratulations took 
 place on their seeing this gigantic mass, whose dissolution had threatened 
 convulsions which should shake their infant confederacy to its centre, quietly 
 interred in its grave." 
 
 The act of Congress which authorized the exchange of the new for the 
 old bills came near causing a breach with the French government. The 
 Count de Vergennes earnestly protested against it. He authorized the French 
 minister to this government to remonstrate against its application to French 
 subjects who were holders of the old bills. John Adams, then an unrecog 
 nized minister, sent over to be at hand, ready to negotiate a peace, and wait- 
 
REVOLUTIONARY WAR FINANCES. 
 
 ing in Paris for the opportune moment to arrive, gave great offence to the 
 Count by defending the justice and necessity of the measure. Dr. Franklin, 
 the resident minister at the French court, professed to concur with Vergennes 
 that the repudiation should not apply to French subjects. But he was too 
 wise not to foresee that if this were to be allowed, the effect of such a dis 
 crimination would be that Frenchmen would buy up all the bills. Dr. 
 Franklin communicated to Congress the fact that the course of Mr. Adams, 
 who had published his opinions in a newspaper, had given offence to the 
 French government. Congress censured Mr. Adams for his uncalled for 
 and pertinacious defense of its ordinance ; but, nevertheless, the ordinance 
 was adhered to. This incident was the cause of a permanent breach between 
 Franklin and Adams. 
 
 In order to pay off the Revolutionary debt, Hamilton devised a Federal 
 system of internal revenue. It consisted of an excise upon liquors dis 
 tilled within the United States. From this source, in the course of a dozen 
 years, about seven millions were raised. In 1799 a direct tax was imposed 
 by Congress upon lands and houses. This yielded about two millions of dol 
 lars, of which about one million and a half was collected in the three years 
 following. But at this era the great and permanent reliance for a revenue 
 was on customs. During Washington's administration these amounted to 
 nearly six millions per annum. This was yielded from a very low tariff. 
 Before the close of Jefferson's administration the revenue from this source 
 had risen to sixteen millions. 
 
 The recuperation from our earlier financial embarrassments was easy and 
 rapid. Under the long sway of the Democratic party, there was a minimum 
 of restraint by taxation, or other measures tending to foster monopolies, 
 which left the people free to avail themselves of the rich resources of the 
 domain that their fathers had won and bequeathed to them as an heritage for 
 ever. They waxed great in numbers, and prosperous beyond comparison. 
 Their fame spread abroad among the nations. Immigration poured in upon 
 them its waves of industrious millions to partake of their freedom and to 
 develop the fatness of the land. Peace smiled upon them, and plenty 
 abounded. 
 
 When the Southern States appealed to the ultima ratio, the American 
 people had no more conception of the financial exploits they were about to 
 perform than they had* of the extent and duration of the military operations 
 that followed. Even their statesmen had no adequate idea of the resources 
 of this country for raising revenue. They had not imagined that the United 
 States excelled every country in the world in capacity to raise revenue from 
 indirect taxes. Wherein is this capacity? The answer is now obvious: 
 Americans consume more of the luxuries of life than any other people. No 
 one would have believed in 1860 that in 1866, after four years of devastating 
 war, the people of this country could pay yearly $176,000,000 in taxes, at 
 
130 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 enormously protective rates, on foreign goods imported, and $309,000,000 in 
 taxes on domestic articles consumed ; or that a public debt of $2,381 ,500,000, 
 bearing interest to the amount of $151,000,000, could be paid off at the rate 
 of $100,000,000 per annum ; or that under such a debt the rate of interest 
 could be gradually reduced, by refunding, in the course of eighteen years, 
 from five, six, and seven and three-tenths per cent, to three per cent. Yet 
 all this has been accomplished. Our revenue, war debt, and interest reached 
 these figures. In place of paying interest now to the extent of $150,977,- 
 697.87 annually, as in 1865, we pay only $47,926,392.50. The latter sum 
 was paid during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1884, upon a debt reduced to 
 $1,226,563,850. This was all that then remained of the interest-bearing- 
 debt ! 
 
 The total debt, Aug. 31, 1865, less cash in the treasury, was $2,756,431,- 
 571.43. But of this sum, $374,901,276.47 consisted of United States notes, 
 fractional currency, and some other non-interest-bearing obligations ; so that 
 the interest-bearing debt was at that date $2,381,530,294.96. Of this sum 
 there had been paid off, up to June 30, 1884, $1,154,966,444.96. Probably 
 there will be some slackening in the rate of redemption ; but there is little 
 doubt that at the end of the present fiscal year (1885), more than half of the 
 original interest-bearing debt will be canceled. 
 
 The non-interest-bearing debt on June 30, 1884, consisted, as stated by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, of the following items : 
 
 Old Demand Notes of 1861 and 1862, .... $58,440 oo 
 
 Legal Tender Notes of 1862 and 1863, .... 346,681,01600 
 
 Certificates of Deposit, 1872, ...... 12,385,000 oo 
 
 Gold Certificates issued under Acts of 1863 and 1882, . 98,392,660 oo 
 
 Silver " " " " " 1878, . . . 119,811,691 oo 
 
 Fractional Currency, 1862, 1863, and 1864, . . . 6,980,061 31 
 
 Aggregate non-interest-bearing debt, .... $584,308,868 31 
 
 To this sum must be added . $19,656,205 26 
 on which interest had ceased ; 
 
 And for accrued interest, . . 11,507,24041 31,163,445 67 
 
 Making the total non-interest-bearing debt, . * $615,472,313 98 
 
 Adding to this the interest-bearing debt of that date, 1,226,563,850 oo 
 
 Made a total debt of, $1,842,036,163 98 
 
 Less cash in the treasury, 391,985,928 18 
 
 Shows the actual debt on that date to have been, . $1,450,050,235 So 
 The $346,681,016 in legal-tender notes seems to be circulating as a more 
 
THE CIVIL WAR LOANS. 
 
 acceptable currency than gold. These notes may not be called in for years 
 to come, if ever, except for the purpose of replacing such bills as are worn 
 out. 
 
 There were many curious and interesting developments attending the 
 vast expansion of American financial operations since the beginning of the 
 Civil War. Among these may be mentioned the greatly increased facil 
 ity of borrowing, and the readiness of foreigners as well as Americans to 
 lend their money to this government at rates of interest far below those of 
 the ante-bellum days, when the public debt was scarcely a twentieth of the 
 amount it has been of late years. It is not necessary, in order to find a rea 
 son for this confidence, to go back to an early date, when the country was 
 sparsely peopled and poor, and when the republican form of government 
 was regarded as a doubtful experiment. It is sufficient to refer to some of 
 the events which preceded the late war, when the United States had already 
 assumed their acknowledged and exalted place among the nations of the 
 world. 
 
 The financial collapse of 1837 caused a considerable falling off of im 
 ports. The sales of the public lands also decreased far below those for the 
 two preceding years. These sales and the customs were then almost the 
 only sources of revenue. The decrease embarrassed the government. It 
 became necessary to resort to the issue of ten millions in treasury notes, 
 bearing six per cent, interest. The act authorizing that issue was passed 
 Oct. 12, 1837. In May, following, it became necessary to authorize a re 
 issue of the notes. These temporary loans were renewed from year to year, 
 until July, 1841. Then a permanent six per cent, loan was authorized for 
 the purpose of funding the treasury notes, which ran for only one and two 
 years. In 1842 additional six per cent, temporary notes were authorized ; 
 and in 1843 provision was made for their reissue and funding at the same 
 rate of interest. The Mexican War debt followed ; but, as already shown, 
 all liabilities were easily liquidated. 
 
 Then came the financial crash of 1857. Like its predecessor of twenty- 
 years before, it caused a falling off in imports and revenue. On December 
 3, of that year, Congress authorized the issue of twenty millions in treasuiy 
 notes at six per cent. These were reissued from year to year, until July i, 
 1860. On June 14, 1858, a twenty million loan at six per cent, was author 
 ized ; and the act of June 22, 1860, authorizing a six per cent, loan of twenty- 
 one millions is traceable to that crash. It had no reference to the then ap 
 proaching war. It was not preparatory for that calamity, which, while 
 feared by many, could be known to no one. Neither was the probability of 
 war so menacing as to affect the public credit. The offer of six per cent, was 
 only a conformity to usage in such transactions. The loss in 1858 and 1859 
 of revenue from customs and sales of public lands was very considerable, 
 while the scale of expenditure, owing to several causes, had increased. 
 
132 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Hence the recourse to loans. The ten millions of six per cent, treasury notes 
 authorized by the act of Dec. 17, 1860, were called for by the same circum 
 stances. 
 
 Three days after the passage of the last mentioned act, the State of South 
 Carolina passed the secession ordinance. She was soon followed by the Gulf 
 States. Feb. 8, 1861, another loan was authorized, not to exceed twenty- 
 five millions, in order to meet the exigencies of the public service, and for the 
 redemption of the treasury notes then outstanding. The interest was, as 
 usual, restricted to six per cent. March 2, following, another act was passed 
 authorizing a ten-million loan, at the same rate of interest. 
 
 The first great financial measure of the war that ensued, was the act of July 
 17, 1861. It was passed at the first session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, 
 with only five dissenting votes in the House. It authorized the Secretary of 
 the Treasury not the President, according to the usual form to borrow, 
 on the credit of the United States, within twelve months, a sum not exceed 
 ing two hundred and fifty millions of dollars, or so much thereof as he might 
 deem necessary for the public service. He was authorized to issue coupon 
 bonds, registered bonds, or treasury notes, in such proportions of each as he 
 might deem advisable. The bonds were to bear interest at a rate not exceed 
 ing seven per cent., payable semi-annually. They were not redeemable for 
 twenty years. After that period they were redeemable at the pleasure of the 
 United States. The treasury notes were authorized to be of any denomina 
 tion fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, not less than fifty dollars. They 
 were to be payable three years after date of issue, with interest at the rate of 
 seven and three-tenths per centum per annum, payable semi-annually. The 
 secretary was also authorized to issue treasury notes of less denominations 
 than fifty dollars, bearing interest at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths 
 per centum. These were payable one year after date, to be exchanged for 
 coin, or paid out for salaries and other public dues. This act conferred upon 
 the Secretary of the Treasury the whole direction of the proceedings necessary 
 to carry out its purpose. It conferred discretionary power in many cases, 
 including that of assigning the amount of compensation to be paid to persons 
 employed in receiving the subscriptions. This act was prepared and forced 
 through the House, with only one hour allowed for debate, by Mr. Stevens, 
 of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 The act of August 5, of the same year, authorized the issue of six per cent, 
 twenty-year bonds. These were to be exchangeable for the seven-thirty 
 treasury notes. There was also a provision for issuing six per cent, twenty- 
 year bonds, instead of the seven per cent.'s authorized by the former act. 
 The act of August 5 originated in the Senate and was supplementary to 
 that of July 17. When it came to the House, Mr. Stevens moved certain 
 amendments, some of which were adopted. One of them proposed the 
 issue of treasury notes at nine per cent. This was modified so as to fix the 
 ,rate of interest at seven and three-tenths. 
 
THE CIVIL WAR LOANS. 133 
 
 The act of Feb. 25, 1862, laid the foundation of the present financial 
 system of this country. It declared United States notes a legal tender for all 
 debts, public and private, and made them receivable in payment of internal 
 taxes. It established the sinking fund. It is one of the most important 
 measures ever adopted by Congress, or by any legislative body. It author 
 ized the issue of one hundred and fifty millions in notes on the credit of the 
 United States, not bearing any interest, payable to bearer at the Treasury 
 of the United States, and of such denominations as the secretary might deem 
 expedient, not, however, less than five dollars each. Fifty millions of these 
 notes were intended to replace the demand treasury notes authorized by the 
 act of July 17, 1861. The amount of the two kinds of notes was not to ex 
 ceed one hundred and fifty millions. These notes are described in the act, 
 as " United States Notes," in contradistinction from those bearing interest, 
 which are in every act styled "Treasury Notes." It declares that these 
 United States notes " shall be receivable in payment of all taxes, internal 
 duties, excises, debts and demands of every kind due to the United States, 
 except duties on imports, and of all claims and demands against the United 
 States of every kind whatsoever, except for interest upon bonds and notes, 
 which shall be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender 
 in payment of all debts, legal and private, within the United States, except 
 duties on imports, and interest as aforesaid." Holders of these notes might 
 deposit them with the United States Treasurer or any of his assistants, and 
 have them funded in bonds of fifty dollars, or multiples of fifty. 
 
 The same act authorized a loan of five hundred millions to enable the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to fund treasury notes and other floating debts. 
 The bonds were to be either registered or coupon in form. They were to be 
 redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years, and payable 
 twenty years from date. 
 
 The fifth section of the act required all duties on imported goods to be 
 paid in coin, or in notes payable on demand theretofore authorized to be is 
 sued, and by law made receivable in payment of public dues. 
 
 The coin so received was to be set apart as a special fund, to be applied 
 as follows : 
 
 First. To the payment of the interest on the bonds and notes of the 
 United States. 
 
 Second. To quote the language of the act : " To the purchase or pay 
 ment of one per centum of the entire debt of the United States, to be made 
 within each fiscal year after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
 two, which is to be set apart as a sinking fund, and the interest of which 
 shall in like manner be applied to the purchase or payment of the public 
 debt as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time direct." 
 
 Third. The residue to be paid into the Treasury of the United States. 
 
 Good faith required that the demand notes, amounting to nearly fifty mil- 
 
134 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 lions, should be received for all taxes and dues. This necessity would for a 
 time reduce the amount of specie receivable from customs. Therefore, on 
 the i yth of March, 1862, an act was passed authorizing the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to purchase coin with any of the bonds or notes of the United 
 States, at such rates and upon such terms as he might find expedient. By 
 the same act the demand notes were made receivable and a legal tender, in 
 like manner as the notes authorized by the act of Feb. 25, 1862. 
 
 The act of July n, 1862, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 issue, in addition to the amounts theretofore authorized, one hundred and fifty 
 millions in United States notes, legal tender, not bearing interest. Not 
 more than thirty-five millions of these were to be of denominations less than 
 five dollars ; and no note was to be issued for the fractional part of a dollar. 
 The Secretary was authorized to receive these notes in exchange for the six 
 per cent, bonds authorized by the act of Feb. 25, 1862, which were redeem 
 able after five years at the pleasure of the government, and after twenty years 
 at the pleasure of the holder. These bonds were, for convenience, styled 
 *' Five-twenty-sixes." The United States notes, or legal tenders, received 
 for such bonds could be reissued. 
 
 On March 3, 1863, Congress passed an act to provide ways and means for 
 the support of the government, which authorized the Secretary of the Treas 
 ury to borrow three hundred millions of dollars for the current fiscal year, and 
 six hundred millions for the year following. For this loan he was empowered 
 to issue coupon or registered bonds, payable in coin at the pleasure of the 
 government after such periods as might be fixed by the secretary, not less, 
 however, than ten nor more than forty years from date. These bonds 
 were to be of denominations not less than fifty dollars, and were to bear 
 interest at a rate not exceeding six per centum per annum. They might be 
 disposed of for lawful money, that is to say, legal tender United States 
 notes for certificates of indebtedness, or for treasury notes that is to say, 
 notes bearing interest, and running for a term of years. 
 
 This act further authorized the issue of four hundred millions in treasury 
 notes, bearing six per cent, interest in currency, and payable within three 
 years. They were, to quote the language of the act, to be disposed of "on 
 the best terms that could be obtained," and were payable to public creditors 
 Avho were willing to receive them at par. These treasury notes were made a 
 legal tender to the same extent as United States notes for their face value, 
 including interest. These were also exchangeable for United States notes. 
 The secretary was authorized to issue one hundred and fifty millions in 
 United States notes, that is to say, legal tenders, to be exchanged for these 
 treasury notes, and for no other purpose. It is probable that the issue of 
 four hundred millions in treasury notes so authorized was intended for the 
 purpose of paying off the floating debt ; as some creditors who had no im 
 mediate use for their money might prefer such notes to legal tenders. 
 
THE CIVIL WAR LOANS. 135 
 
 A joint resolution of Jan. 17, 1863, authorized the Secretary of the Treas 
 ury to issue one hundred millions in legal tenders to pay off the army and 
 navy. The act passed on March 3, 1863, in its third section increased the 
 appropriation for this purpose to one hundred and fifty millions. This act 
 required the holders of United States notes issued under the acts of Feb. 25, 
 1862, and July 1 1 , 1862, to present them for the purpose of exchanging them 
 for bonds, on or before the first day of July, 1863. The right to make the 
 exchange after that date would cease. As heretofore stated, these two acts 
 authorized the issue of three hundred millions. The effect of the act of 
 March 3, 1863, was to draw in a large amount of outstanding treasury notes 
 which it was lawful to reissue. Section four of this act authorized the issue 
 of fifty millions in Fractional Currency, in lieu of the postage and revenue 
 stamps issued as currency under an act passed July 17, 1862. The fifth sec 
 tion authorized the deposit of gold coin and bullion with the Treasurer or 
 any assistant treasurer, in sums not less than twenty dollars, and the issue of 
 certificates therefor in denominations the same as United States notes. It 
 authorized the issue of these certificates in payment of the interest on the 
 public debt ; but it limited the amount of them to a sum not greater than 
 twenty per cent, of the amount of coin and bullion in the treasury. The 
 certificates were made receivable in payment for duties on imports. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1864, which was supplementary to the act of March 
 3, 1863, empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, from time to 
 time, on the credit of the United States, not exceeding two hundred millions 
 of dollars during the current fiscal year, in lieu of so much of the loan author 
 ized by the last mentioned act, and to issue therefor coupon or registered 
 bonds of the United States, bearing date March i, 1864, or any subsequent 
 date, redeemable in coin at the pleasure of the government after any period 
 not less than five years, and payable at any period not more than forty years 
 from date. These bonds were to bear interest at a rate not exceeding six per 
 cent. They might be disposed of for lawful money (legal tenders), or, at 
 the discretion of the secretary, for treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, 
 or certificates of deposit. They were exempted from state and municipal 
 taxation. The power of Congress to grant this exemption has been sustained 
 by judicial sanction. 
 
 The joint resolution of March 17, 1864, authorized the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to anticipate the payment of interest on the public debt by a period 
 not exceeding one year. He was further authorized to dispose of any gold 
 in the Treasury not necessary for the payment of interest on the public debt, 
 if the obligation to create the sinking fund according to the act of February, 
 1862, would not be impaired thereby. 
 
 On the 3oth of June, 1864, an act was passed authorizing the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to borrow four hundred millions of dollars, and to issue 
 therefor coupon or registered bonds, redeemable in coin after forty years and 
 
136 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 not under five, and bearing not exceeding six per cent, interest in coin. 
 These bonds might also be disposed of for lawful money, certificates of in 
 debtedness, or certificates of deposit. The secretary might, at his discretion, 
 issue in lieu of an equal amount of the bonds so authorized, and as a part of 
 said loan, not exceeding two hundred millions of dollars in treasury notes, 
 payable at any time within three years ; or, if thought expedient, redeemable 
 after three years from date, and bearing interest in lawful money at the rate 
 of seven and three-tenths per cent. 
 
 The act declared, in respect to these notes, that " such of them as shall 
 be made payable, principal and interest, at maturity, shall be a legal tender to 
 the same extent as United States notes for their face value, excluding interest, 
 and may be paid to any creditor of the United States at their face value, ex 
 cluding interest, or to any creditor willing to receive them at par, including 
 interest ; and" that u any treasury notes issued under the authority of this act 
 may be made convertible, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 into any bonds issued under the authority of this act." Treasury notes and 
 United States notes issued under former acts might be redeemed and can 
 celed by order of the secretary ; and he might substitute for them the notes 
 authorized by this act, or other United States notes. It was provided that 
 the total amount of bonds and treasury notes to be issued should not exceed 
 four hundred millions of dollars, in addition to the amounts theretofore 
 issued. The act further provided that the total amount of United States 
 notes (legal tender) issued, or to be issued, should never exceed four hun 
 dred millions of dollars, and such additional sum, not exceeding fifty millions 
 of dollars, as might be temporarily required for the redemption of temporary 
 loans. In addition to these limitations, the act provided that no treasury 
 note bearing interest issued under it would be a legal tender in payment or 
 redemption of any notes issued by any bank, banking association, or banker, 
 calculated or intended to circulate as money. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1865, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 borrow, in addition to the amounts theretofore authorized, any sums not ex 
 ceeding in the aggregate six hundred millions of dollars, and to issue there 
 for bonds or treasury notes. The bonds were to be made payable at any 
 period not exceeding forty years, and not less than five years. The principal 
 and interest of this issue of bonds and treasury notes might, at the discretion 
 of the secretary, be made payable in coin, or in other lawful money. The 
 rate of interest in coin was not to exceed six per cent. ; and when not paya 
 ble in coin it was not to exceed seven and three-tenths per cent. These 
 bonds and treasury notes might be disposed of in the United States or else 
 where, for coin or for lawful money, and were exempted from taxation by 
 state or municipal authority. This was the last act which authorized a loan, 
 except for the purpose of refunding. 
 
 On the iSth of March, 1869, an act was passed " to strengthen the pub- 
 
INCREASING THE REVENUE. 137 
 
 lie credit." It solemnly pledged the faith of the United States to the pay 
 ment in coin or its equivalent, of all the obligations of the United States not 
 bearing interest, known as United States notes, and also of all the interest- 
 bearing obligations of the United States, except in cases where the law author 
 izing the issue of any such obligation had expressly provided that the same 
 might be paid in lawful money, or other currency than gold and silver. 
 
 On the 1 2th of July, 1870, an act was passed providing that fifty-four mil 
 lions of dollars in notes for circulation might be issued to the national banks 
 in addition to the three hundred millions " authorized by the act to provide a 
 national currency, secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to pro 
 vide for the circulation and redemption thereof." 
 
 To provide for the interest of the debt to be incurred during the war, as 
 well as to support the current expenses of the government, it was thought 
 necessary greatly to increase the duties on imports. 
 
 The act of March 2, 1861, was passed before hostilities had commenced, 
 but after South Carolina, Georgia, and the Gulf States had passed their ordi 
 nances of secession. It was introduced in the preceding December. It was 
 so quickly superseded by the act of August 5, which was passed at the extra 
 session of the next Congress, that there was no time to estimate its effects 
 upon the revenue. These acts imposed nearly double the rates of duty that 
 were exacted by the tariff act of 1857. ^ ea an( ^ coffee were now among the 
 dutiable articles. The imports during the fiscal year 1861-62 fell off nearly 
 a hundred millions ; but the higher duties imposed increased the revenue 
 over that of the preceding fiscal year by almost seven and a half millions. 
 At no time during the war did the amount in value of the imports come up 
 to the figures of the fiscal year 1859-' 60, notwithstanding the immense sums 
 of money that were being disbursed by the government. Nevertheless, 
 after July I, 1862, the receipts from customs revenue steadily and enormously 
 increased over those of the fiscal year 1859 '60. Our manufacturers had no 
 reason to complain of the financiering that brought this about. They fattened 
 on the carnage. While it is true that labor was also well rewarded, it is no 
 less true that reactionary economy fell almost solely on its shoulders. Whether 
 Democratic administration will lighten this burden, remains to be seen. Bad 
 management can alone prevent the relief that strict and impartial adherence 
 to Democratic policy would bring. 
 
 The following table will present in a small space, the amount of imports, 
 the duties collected, and the rates of duty, for the whole period from 1860 
 to 1870. Duties began to be lowered in the latter year upon some articles 
 which were peculiarly regarded as objects of war taxes. It is proper to pre 
 face this table with the statement that several acts were passed between the 
 years 1861 and 1868 by which the rates of duties were increased or modified. 
 
138 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 AMOUNTS COLLECTED 
 
 AVERAGE AD VALOREM RATES. 
 
 YEARS. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 IN DUTIES. 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 FREE AND 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1860 
 
 336,282,485 
 
 52,692,421 
 
 19.67 
 
 15.67 
 
 1861 
 
 274*656,325 
 
 39,038,269 
 
 18.84 
 
 14.21 
 
 1862 
 
 178,330,200 
 
 46,509,215 
 
 36.20 
 
 26.08 
 
 1863 
 
 225,375>280 
 
 63,729,203 
 
 32.62 
 
 28.28 
 
 1864 
 
 301,113,322 
 
 96,465,957 
 
 36.69 
 
 32.04 
 
 1865 
 
 209,656,525 
 
 80,635,170 
 
 47.56 
 
 38.46 
 
 1866 
 
 423,470,646 
 
 177,056,523 
 
 48.35 
 
 4I.8l 
 
 1867 
 
 381,041,764 
 
 168,503,750 
 
 46.667 
 
 44*559 
 
 1868 
 
 344,873,441 
 
 l6 o,532,77 9 
 
 48.696 
 
 46.557 
 
 1869 
 
 406,555379 
 
 1 76, *> ^7, ^84 
 
 47.365 
 
 44.761 
 
 1870 
 
 419,803,113 
 
 I QI . C I '2. 074- 
 
 47- I 5 6 
 
 44.919 
 
 It would be tedious and unprofitable to state in detail the changes made 
 in the rates of duties. The tabulated figures indicate the tendency to higher 
 or lower duties with sufficient clearness. 
 
 In 1870 considerable reductions were made in the duties on a number of 
 articles, the principal of which were on tea, coffee, sugar, molasses, fruits, 
 spices, drugs, spirits and wines, and, mirabile dictul iron in pigs and old 
 scrap. The reduction in the duties on tea was from twenty-five cents to 
 fifteen cents per pound, estimated to be equal to forty per cent. On coffee, 
 from five cents to three cents per pound, equal to forty per cent. On sugar 
 of the lower grades, from three cents per pound to an average of two, equal 
 to thirty-three and one-third per cent. On clarified sugars, from three and a 
 half and four cents per pound, to two and three-fourths and three and one- 
 fourth cents per pound, equal, respectively, to twenty-one and three-sevenths, 
 and twelve and a half per cent. The reduction in the duties on spices ranged 
 from thirty-three and one-third to seventy-five per cent. On brandy the re 
 duction was from three to two dollars per gallon, or thirty-three and one-third 
 per cent. On spirits from grain, twenty per cent. On pig and old scrap 
 iron, about twenty per cent. 
 
 The following table shows the effect of these reductions on the imports 
 and revenues : 
 
 YEARS. 
 
 TOTAL VALUE 
 OF IMPORTS. 
 
 DUTIES 
 COLLECTED. 
 
 AVERAGE AD VALOREM RATES. 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 FREE AND 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1871 
 
 1872 
 
 505,802,414 
 610,904,622 
 
 202,446,673 
 2I2,6l9,I05 
 
 44.049 
 41.468 
 
 40.472 
 37-939 
 
SOURCES OF REVENUE. 
 
 139 
 
 An act passed on May i, 1872, placed tea and coffee on the free list ; and 
 another, passed on June 6 of the same year, reduced the duties on a number 
 of articles, and placed many others on the free list. 
 
 The following figures will show the result of these and the previous 
 reductions : 
 
 YEARS. 
 
 TOTAL VALUK 
 or IMPORTS. 
 
 DUTIES 
 COLLECTED. 
 
 AVERAGE AD VALOREM RATES. 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 FREE AND 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1873 
 l8 74 
 
 624,689,727 
 550,556,723 
 
 184,929,042 
 160,522,285 
 
 38.149 
 38.610 
 
 27.886 
 28.288 
 
 It should be remembered that the average rate of customs paid on the 
 dutiable goods is the true test of the character of the tariff; since most of the 
 articles on the free list are placed there more for the benefit of the manufac 
 turers than for the good of the consumers, they are articles which enter into 
 their manufactures. Even under a " tariff for revenue," every article which 
 is placed upon the free list increases the necessity for higher duties on 
 others. The same is true of a " protective " tariff. 
 
 In 1874 reductions and modifications were made in the customs duties, 
 with the following results : 
 
 
 
 
 AVERAGE AD VALOREM. 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 DUTIES 
 
 
 YEARS. 
 
 IMPOKTS. 
 
 COLLECTED. 
 
 DUTIABLE. 
 
 DUTIABLE 
 
 
 
 
 
 AND FREE. 
 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 1875 
 
 518,846,825 
 
 I 54^554'9 8 3 
 
 40.694 
 
 29.368 
 
 1876 
 
 445>93 8 7 66 
 
 145,178,603 
 
 44.805 
 
 3I-249 
 
 1877 
 
 438,518,130 
 
 128,428,343 
 
 4 2 -954 
 
 29.199 
 
 1878 
 
 422,895,034 
 
 127,195,159 
 
 42.815 
 
 29.012 
 
 1879 
 
 433> 6 79 I2 4 
 
 I 3339543 6 
 
 44-954 
 
 30.366 
 
 I880 
 
 656,262,441 
 
 182,747,654 
 
 43-5 6 3 
 
 29.121 
 
 1881 
 
 624,213,229 
 
 193,800,880 
 
 43- 2 53 
 
 29.787 
 
 1882 
 
 7733 2 49 
 
 216,138,916 
 
 42.706 
 
 30.178 
 
 1883 
 
 703,565,144 
 
 210,637,293 
 
 42.646 
 
 3 -055 
 
140 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, was passed in pursuance of the inform 
 ation collected by a Tariff Commission which was previously created by act 
 of Congress. This act proposed to make tariff reductions amounting to 
 twenty per cent. The following figures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 
 1884, show how this promised reduction was carried out : 
 
 The total amount of goods imported was, . . $667,697,693 
 Of which the free list embraced, .... 209,884,184 
 And the dutiable list, 457,813,509 
 
 The customs duties collected on this latter sum amounted to $190,413,849. 
 This was at the average rate of 41.591 per cent. The average rate per cent, 
 on the dutiable imports of 1883 was 42.646 per cent. It appears, therefore, 
 that the reduction made by the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, instead of being 
 twenty per cent., was one per cent, and a fraction so small as to be un 
 worthy of notice that is to say, 1.055. This slight reduction in taxes is 
 the measure of the relief which the Tariff Commission gave to the people ! 
 
 Another resource for meeting the extraordinary demands of the war, and 
 its debts upon the treasury, was that by which the Congress was empowered 
 to levy Direct taxes and Excises. Pursuant to this constitutional power, 
 Congress, by certain sections of the Tariff Act of August 5, 1861, levied a 
 direct tax of twenty million dollars, and apportioned it among the states 
 in proportion to their representation in Congress. This levy, even for the 
 first year, was never fully carried out. Congress after postponing its en 
 forcement from year to year, at length repealed it, the Southern States being 
 in arrears. It has been proposed to return the money collected under it to 
 the states, or to the people. 
 
 Some excise legislation was adopted early in the war period, but the In 
 ternal Revenue system was not regularly established prior to July i, 1864. 
 By the act of June 30, 1864, and subsequent acts, taxes were imposed 011 the 
 sale, consumption, and production of a great variety of domestic manufac 
 ture, such as distilled spirits, malt liquors, tobacco, textile fabrics, hardware, 
 wooden ware, drugs, cosmetics, and even lucifer matches, and farm prod 
 ucts. Banking capital, circulation, and deposits, and incomes of individuals 
 and corporations were also taxed, and a long schedule of documentary stamp 
 duties concluded the array. 
 
 The revenue from these excise duties during the first year was $36,158,- 
 ooo. For the fiscal year 1864, the yield was $109,526,000. The greatest 
 income from this source was in the year 1866, when it rose to the enormous 
 sum of $310,906,000. After that year Congress began to repeal or reduce 
 these taxes. If the system had been maintained at the rates of 1866, the 
 revenue therefrom would probably be twice as great now as it was that year. 
 All these excises have been repealed, except those on the manufacture and 
 
THE NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM. 14! 
 
 sale of distilled spirits, malt liquors, and tobacco, and a nominal tax on bank 
 circulation. Nevertheless, the revenue from these sources continues to yield 
 from one hundred to one hundred and twenty millions yearly. This amount, 
 with the revenue from customs, has for some years past created a surplus, 
 over the necessary expenditures of the government, of about one hundred 
 millions per annum. No party that maintains such a surplus revenue can be 
 credited with statesmanship. It has been proposed to abolish the internal 
 revenue, but this is the least burdensome of our taxes. 
 
 Perhaps the most noteworthy financial feat of the civil war period, was 
 the establishment of the national bank system. On February 25, 1863, an 
 act was passed, entitled " An Act to provide a National Currency, secured 
 by a pledge of United States stocks, and to provide for the circulation and 
 redemption thereof." By this act a Bureau of Currency was established in 
 the Department of the Treasury, with a chief styled the Comptroller of the 
 Currency. Banking associations were provided for, to consist of not less 
 than five persons, who were required to file a certificate, signed and sealed, 
 specifying : 
 
 1. The name of the association. 
 
 2. The place proposed for carrying on business. 
 
 3. The amount of capital, and the number of shares. (The capital 
 not to be less than fifty thousand dollars ; and in cities of ten thousand 
 inhabitants or more, not less than one hundred thousand dollars.) 
 
 4. The names and places of residence of share-holders, and the number 
 of shares held by each. 
 
 5. The time when the association was to commence business. 
 
 6. That the certificate was made in order to secure the benefits of the 
 act. 
 
 The law required that at least, thirty per cent, of the capital of these asso 
 ciations must be paid in before they commenced business ; ^nd the residue 
 in bi-monthly installments. The stock of delinquent share-holders was to be 
 sold ; and all share-holders were made liable for twice the amount of their 
 shares. 
 
 These banking associations might own the real estate on which they trans 
 acted their business. They might also take mortgages to secure loans ; and 
 buy real estate at execution sales to save debts. Before beginning business 
 they were required to transfer and deliver to the United States Treasurer, 
 interest bearing bonds of the United States to an amount not less than one- 
 third of the capital stock paid in. 
 
 The associations thus constituted were entitled to receive from the Comp 
 troller of the Currency circulating notes of different denominations, in blank, 
 registered and countersigned, equal in amount to ninety per centum of the 
 
142 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 current market value of the United States bonds so transferred and delivered ; 
 but not exceeding the par value thereof, if bearing interest at the rate of six 
 per centum, or of equivalent United States bonds bearing a less rate of interest. 
 But the notes were not to exceed in amount the capital paid in. The amount 
 of circulating notes issued to all the associations was not to exceed three hun 
 dred million dollars. One-half of the circulation was to be apportioned 
 among the states according to representation in Congress, and in the territories 
 according to population. The other half was to be distributed by the Secre 
 tary of the Treasury among the cities and towns in proportion to the demands 
 of business. The notes constituting this circulation were redeemable in United 
 States notes. 
 
 This act was superseded and repealed by the act of June 3, 1864 ; but 
 its leading features were retained. Subsequent amendments have not de 
 parted essentially from this original model of the present existing national 
 bank system. 
 
 The effect of this banking act on the public debt was to create a demand 
 for a large proportion of the United States bonds then upon the market. It 
 nearly duplicated the circulating medium when the associations authorized by 
 it availed themselves of its provisions. Whatever may be thought of the 
 necessity of the national banks at the present day, there can be no doubt that 
 they rendered great service to the country during the war, and for several 
 years following its close. 
 
 Before the Civil War, bank-note circulation was issued solely under state 
 legislation, with such security for its redemption as might be prescribed in 
 the statutes. Much of this security proved worthless in the latter part of 
 1861, when the strain of the war caused a suspension of specie payments. 
 The time was, therefore, favorable for the adoption of the new system of 
 paper currency. But the question was What shall the system be? The 
 old United States Bank, which carried on business for more than forty years, 
 was established upon the principle that it was the duty of the government to 
 furnish the country a safe and uniform paper currency. This institution 
 was granted the usual banking powers. The public funds were deposited 
 with it and its several branches, and the government was a stockholder. 
 The contests in Congress for the renewal of its charter became a bitter party 
 issue. Among the charges preferred against it were these : That the deposit 
 of government money enabled it to outbid private dealers in the purchase 
 of foreign exchange ; that its influence enabled it to corrupt legislation ; 
 that it subjected the government to the dictation of a moneyed aristocracy ; 
 and that it gave an unfair advantage to the stockholders of a single corpora 
 tion by the free use of the public money. Whether or not there was evidence 
 to sustain these charges, it was not likely that any fiscal agency not obviously 
 free from such objection would be acceptable to the people at this time, 
 although the notes of the state banks had become almost worthless for the 
 
THE NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM 143 
 
 purpose of currency. Two remedial plans were suggested by Secretary 
 Chase in his report to Congress, in December, 1861 : 
 
 First. The gradual retirement by destructive taxation of all bank-notes 
 emitted by private corporations, and the issue in their stead of United States 
 notes payable in coin on demand, in amounts sufficient for the useful ends 
 of a representative currency. 
 
 Second. The delivery to banking associations of notes prepared for cir 
 culation under national direction, and secured for prompt convertibility into 
 coin, by pledge of United States bonds and other needful regulations. The 
 secretary did not favor the first plan. He feared that the temptation to 
 issue notes would overcome the caution which should be exercised to provide 
 adequate means for their redemption. The second plan, with the taxing 
 feature of the first, had his approval ; and the national banking system was 
 subsequently reared upon it. This was not altogether a new financial 
 device. " It is not," said the secretary in his report, " an untried theory." 
 In the State of New- York, and in one or more of the other states, it had 
 been subjected, in its most essential parts, to the test of experiment, and was 
 found practicable and useful. " The probabilities of its success," said 
 he, "will not be diminished but increased by its adoption under national 
 sanction and for the whole country." It is said that Eleazur Lord, of Pier- 
 mont, New- York, was the first to propose the free banking system of that 
 state. Millard Fillmore, when comptroller of New- York in 1849, suggested 
 the issue of bank-notes secured by stocks of the United States, and receiva 
 ble at the National Treasury for all public dues. The Hon. Orlando B. 
 Potter, of the city of New- York, addressed a letter to Secretary Chase on 
 Aug. 14, 1861, in which he submitted a plan for a national paper currency, 
 which he says, in a recently published pamphlet, " was substantially adopted 
 in the National Banking Act passed Feb. 25, 1863." However this may 
 be, Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time. 
 To him must be given the credit of the plan for a national paper cur 
 rency, based on the national stocks, and thus secured by the government 
 itself. Whether he invented this plan, or whether he adopted it, matters 
 not. It was through his great financial genius that by a single stroke of the 
 pen, as it were, a bank-note currency as secure as the government credit 
 could make it, was substituted for a paper currency which varied in value 
 in every state, and fluctuated from par to /7, according to the value of the 
 stock, if any, pledged for its redemption. The old currency was forced in 
 by an excise tax that, while nominally a revenue measure, was in fact 
 prohibitory of its circulation. The question as to the constitutional power 
 to enforce such a tax was afterwards brought before the Supreme Court of 
 the United States in the case of The Veazie Bank vs. The Collector of Inter 
 nal Revenue. At that time Mr. Chase was Chief Justice. He delivered 
 
144 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the opinion of the Court, deciding the question in the affirmative : on the 
 grounds, first, that there is no limitation on the power of Congress to impose 
 excise taxes ; and, second, that Congress has the power to provide a uniform 
 paper currency. In effect, this decision denied the existence of sovereign 
 power in the states to charter banks of issue, a power which they had 
 freely exercised almost without question from the formation of the Union 
 until the year 1864. The fullest consideration was given to this question at 
 the January Term of the Supreme Court of the United States in the year 
 1837, an d it was tnen decided that there was no limitation in the Federal 
 Constitution upon the sovereign power of the states to charter banks of 
 issue. Three times thereafter this decision was affirmed by that Court. No 
 question could have been better settled. Yet, as the result of war legisla 
 tion and the innovations of the times upon the organic laws, the national 
 banks were clothed with the exclusive privilege to issue paper currency. No 
 judicial act of the Supreme Court has tended more to centralize power in 
 the Federal Government than its decision in the Veazie Bank case. But 
 whether the reader favors or opposes this system, he must admit that it 
 strengthened the government credit, and created a currency of uniform value 
 as stable as that credit could make it* 
 
 It is easy, now, to see why, irrespective of patriotic motives, capital came 
 to avail itself of the vast loans negotiated for the maintenance of the Union. 
 Without the Union, all capital would be swallowed up in future and not far 
 distant wars. No two nations of such diverse interests and conflicting insti 
 tutions as a Northern Union and a Southern Confederacy could remain at 
 peace with each other. On the other hand, the maintenance of the Union 
 would secure to capital the inexhaustible resources of the whole country. 
 We were banking not only on the wealth of our northern and western agri 
 cultural and mining resources, our forests and grazing ranges, our factories 
 and fisheries ; but also on the cotton, tobacco, and other staples of the South 
 ern States, whose annual yield is computed by hundreds of millions. His 
 tory affords no parallel of a people blessed with such a wealth of resources, 
 resources that enable us to add a billion in value to the credit side of our 
 country's ledger each succeeding year ! Vast as were our financial opera 
 tions during the prosecution of the war for the Union, they were almost as 
 nothing compared with what could have been accomplished had our full 
 abilities been tested. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE LEADING MOVEMENTS OF THE WAR, 1861-1862. 
 
 WHAT ARE ACTS OF WAR? SEIZURE OF FEDERAL FORTS AND PROPERTY 
 SUMTER AND ITS FATE DIPLOMACY AND ITS FAILURE JUDGE CAMPBELL 
 AND MR. SEWARD THE EXCITEMENT NORTH AND SOUTH BLOOD SPRINK 
 LING IMPULSES JERRY CLEMENS AND HIS STORY PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S 
 PROCLAMATIONS EXTRA SESSION, 1861 PREPARATIONS FOR HOSTILITIES 
 BLOCKADE RESPONSE TO CALL FOR TROOPS BALTIMORE IN A FERMENT 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS AROUSED THE MOUNTAIN UNIONISTS BORDER STATES 
 SECESSIONISTS ELLSWORTH'S DEATH THE ARMY ABOUT WASHINGTON 
 THE ADVANCE TO RICHMOND BULL RUN, ITS HUMORS AND TRAGEDIES 
 BALL'S BLUFF AND ITS DISASTER MISSOURI CAMPAIGN LYON'S HEROISM 
 
 GENERAL BAKER AND STONE PASHA THE OUTRAGE UPON THE LATTER 
 
 EXPEDITIONS TO NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA THEIR SUCCESSES 
 BATTLE IN HAMPTON ROADS THE MARVEL OF HISTORY. 
 
 THE adoption of an ordinance of secession, or of nullification, by a 
 state convention has not been regarded in the light of a declaration 
 of war against the United States ; but when followed by the seiz 
 ure of forts and arsenals, and other public property of the general 
 government, it is so regarded. An attempt so to obstruct or hinder the ex 
 ecution of the laws of Congress, by the organized militia of a state, can be 
 construed as nothing less than an act of war. But the word " war" is a 
 generic term. Such an act of hostility is defined in the Constitution as an act 
 of " insurrection." Secession is Insurrection. Nine of the twelve states 
 whose delegates framed and signed the Constitution, were made necessary 
 to its enforcement upon themselves ; and three-fourths of the states must 
 concur in amendments. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to hold that 
 one state may undo the work of three-fourths of the states. So thought 
 President Jackson, in 1832. He then issued his celebrated Proclamation 
 warning the people of South Carolina against the consequences of attempt- 
 
146 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ing to enforce their ordinance which declared the tariff laws null and void. 
 President Lincoln acted on this principle in 1861, with reference to the seiz 
 ure of the custom house at Charleston, and the firing upon the forts by the 
 state and Confederate forces. 
 
 The first overt act was the seizure of the revenue cutter Aiken. This 
 was done by the state authorities, to whom it was surrendered by Capt. 
 M. L. Coste. This act of war was followed by the seizure of forts, arsen 
 als, custom houses, and other property of the government along the south 
 ern coast, from Beaufort in North Carolina, to western Texas. Only Fort 
 Sumter at Charleston, Fort Pickens at Pensacola, and the fort at Key 
 West remained, within the limits of the seven Confederate States, in the 
 possession of the United States forces, at the close of Mr. Buchanan's 
 administration. On the fifth day of January, 1861, the government dis 
 patched the steamer Star of the West from New- York, with supplies and 
 re-enforcements for Fort Sumter. It arrived off the harbor of Charleston 
 on the 9th. It was fired upon and driven back to sea by the Confederate bat 
 teries. No further attempt was made during Mr. Buchanan's administra 
 tion, to defend the public property in the Confederate States. 
 
 The convention of South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington. 
 They were to negotiate for the peaceful surrender of the public property 
 to the state. On the 28th of December, 1860, they addressed a note to 
 the President. Copies of their full powers in the premises were enclosed. 
 They also submitted the ordinance of secession. They thought that there 
 would be little difficulty in settling the terms of the surrender. After their 
 arrival in Washington, they were disenchanted. They learned of the dis 
 mantling and abandonment of Fort Moultrie by Major Anderson. They 
 were advised of his occupancy of Fort Sumter. Until these circumstances 
 should be explained they concluded to suspend further negotiations. They, 
 however, urged the immediate withdrawal of the troops from the harbor 
 of Charleston. They regarded their occupancy of the fort as a menace. 
 While the Union flag floated over them negotiation was impossible. Presi 
 dent Buchanan replied, in the language of his annual message, that, 
 apart from the execution of the laws, " so far as it shall be practicable," 
 the Executive has no power to decide what shall be the relations between 
 the Federal Government and South Carolina. He held that the Consti 
 tution conferred no power upon the Federal Government " to coerce a state 
 into submission, which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn 
 from the confederacy." President Lincoln, in his inaugural speech, as 
 sumed it to be his duty to enforce the laws ; but he disclaimed the wish, 
 and the power, to interfere with slavery in the states. He declared that 
 he took the official oath with no mental reservations. 
 
 Early in March, 1861, Messrs. John Forsyth, of Alabama, Martin J. 
 Crawford, of Georgia, and Andre Bienvenu Roman, of Louisiana, made 
 
THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS. 147 
 
 their appearance in Washington. They came as commissioners represent 
 ing the Confederate authorities. They were charged with the duty of ne 
 gotiating a peace between the Confederacy and the United States. One 
 condition to such a peace was the surrender by the latter to the former, 
 of all forts, arsenals, and public property. This was to be accompanied by 
 an adjustment of the proportions of the public debt to be borne by each. 
 The Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, declined to see the commissioners. 
 He returned a polite reply to their written communication. It was in the 
 form of a memorandum. In this memorandum, the secretary rejects the 
 assumption of the commissioners, that the Confederate States had estab 
 lished an independent government, de facto and de jure. He resents all the 
 assumed consequences that would flow from such a relation. The memo 
 randum bears date March 15, 1861. It states that the communication from 
 the commissioners was received on the I3th. The memorandum was not 
 sent to the commissioners until the 8th of April. 
 
 The commissioners were not as courteous as the secretary in their reply 
 to his memorandum. They reply on April 9th. They call attention to the 
 long delay of the secretary. They leave the inference that they regarded the 
 delay as proceeding from a desire to gain time, while relief was being sent 
 to Fort Sumter. They admit that they consented to the delay ; but only 
 upon the assurance, given by Mr. Seward to " a person occupying a 
 high official position in the government " meaning Judge Campbell of the 
 Supreme Court, " that Fort Sumter would be evacuated in a very few days." 
 Judge Campbell, in a letter to Mr. Seward, dated April i3th, reiterates the 
 statement, that he gave them the information, on the secretary's authority, 
 that the fort would be evacuated within five days. He calls upon the secre 
 tary to explain the cause of the failure to carry out the promise. At the 
 expiration of the five days, he calls on him again with a telegram from 
 General Beauregard to the effect that Sumter was not evacuated, and that 
 Major Anderson was at work making repairs. He then learned from Mr. 
 Seward that the failure to evacuate was not the result of bad faith, but was 
 attributable to causes consistent with the intention to fulfill the engagement ; 
 and that notice would be given of any design to change the status at 
 Fort Pickens. Judge Campbell states that Judge Nelson of the Supreme 
 Court was also present at these conversations. They were three in num 
 ber. The communications to the commissioners had been shown to and 
 sanctioned by that gentleman. Judge Campbell further states that, on the 
 ist of April, Mr. Seward gave him the written assurance that he was satis 
 fied the government would not attempt to supply Fort Sumter without giv 
 ing notice to Governor Pickens. On the 7 tn f April, Judge Campbell 
 states that Secretary Seward wrote to him, " Faith as to Sumter fully kept ; 
 wait and see." The next morning he read in the newspapers that an au 
 thorized messenger from President Lincoln had informed Governor Pickens 
 
148 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and General Beauregard that provisions would be sent to Fort Sumter 
 " peaceably, or otherwise by force." On the 2oth of April, Judge Campbell 
 addressed a note to Mr. Seward enclosing a second letter similar to that 
 of the 1 3th, and stating that he had received no reply to the latter. 
 
 An article in the Albany Evening Journal of May 30 gives what was, 
 in all probability, Mr. Seward's version of the affair. That journal was 
 edited by Mr. Thurlow Weed. He was a life-long personal and political 
 friend of the secretary. The statement may be regarded as fully author 
 ized. Mr. Weed states that if Mr. Seward were at liberty to reveal all that 
 passed between him and Judge Campbell on several occasions, not only no 
 imputation would rest upon the secretary's sincerity, but the facts would 
 seriously affect Judge Campbell's well-established reputation for candor and 
 frankness. The implication was that Judge Campbell balanced long be 
 tween loyalty and secession ; that if he favored secession while those con 
 versations were being held, he was misunderstood ; and that if during that 
 period of mental trial he was acting in harmony with the leading enemies 
 of the Union, he was grossly misunderstood. The Journal admits a misun 
 derstanding on Mr. Seward's part: "That Governor Seward conversed 
 freely with Judge Campbell, we do not deny, nor do we doubt that in these 
 conversations, at one period, he intimated that Fort Sumter would be 
 evacuated. He certainly believed so, founding his opinion upon a knowl 
 edge of General Scott's recommendation." These discrepancies, if chari 
 tably construed, do not militate against the honor or good faith of either of 
 these gentlemen. No doubt it was a case of diplomacy on both sides. 
 
 Mr. Seward was anxious to avert war. It could not, therefore, be said 
 that he gave a positive promise which might not be retracted. He tempor 
 ized then, as who did not? He was ready to make concessions which could 
 not be required by constitutional obligations. He made concessions to 
 which a man like Andrew Jackson would not have listened. Mr. Seward 
 possessed a daring spirit and a firm purpose in the conduct of foreign affairs, 
 but in domestic concerns which might eventuate in civil war, he had the 
 noble hesitation of a patriot. Other men behind the President, who ap 
 peared to have greater firmness of purpose, were far less considerate of con 
 sequences. It was these men who overruled the peaceful plans of the Sec 
 retary of State. 
 
 The steam transport Atlantic sailed from New- York with troops and 
 supplies on the yth of April. On the same, or the next day, Governor 
 Pickens received official notification from Washington that supplies would 
 be sent to Major Anderson. Charleston was at that time filled with Confed 
 erate troops. There could be no ground for a complaint that timely notice 
 had not been given. General Beauregard was in command of six thousand 
 troops in the forts and batteries which he had seized or constructed. Major 
 Anderson had taken refuge with his eighty men in Fort Sumter. He was 
 
THE FIRST GUNS OF THE WAR. 
 
 I 49 
 
 short of provisions. On the nth of April, General Beauregard demanded 
 the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson declined to comply. At 4.30 
 o'clock on the morning of the 1 2th, the Confederates opened a heavy fire 
 with seventeen mortars and thirty large guns. The fort replied. It had 
 guns of inferior range and calibre. The bombardment was kept up for 
 thirty-four hours, " until," as Major Anderson states in his report, " the 
 quarters were entirely burnt, the main gates destroyed by fire, the gorge 
 walls seriously injured, the magazine surrounded by flames, and its door 
 closed from the effects of heat." The powder was nearly exhausted. 
 The slender garrison had nothing but pork in the way of provisions. There 
 was imminent danger of an explosion of the magazine. Under these cir 
 cumstances Major Anderson was tendered honorable conditions. He ac 
 cepted them and surrendered. He marched out of the fort on Sunday after 
 noon, April 14, with colors flying and drums beating, bringing away com 
 pany and private property, and saluting his flag with fifty guns. And thus 
 began the most needless and gigantic civil war ever recorded in the annals 
 of our kind. 
 
 Down to this period, public sentiment in the Northern states had been 
 divided in regard to the course to be pursued. But the bombardment and 
 capture of Fort Sumter touched every patriotic sensibility. The national 
 flag was fired upon. It was lowered in surrender. There was aroused a 
 universal sentiment of indignation. It was intensified by the desire for re 
 venge. Many who had been opposed to a war with the South, and who 
 had entertained strong political sympathies with her upon the causes which 
 provoked secession, were now emphatic in her denunciation. They were 
 among the readiest to volunteer for the suppression of the insurgency. The 
 whole North was aroused; and everywhere the appeal was heard, "To 
 arms ! To arms ! " 
 
 Did the South lack in enthusiastic devotion? The effect was also in- 
 stanstaneous and electric upon the ardent Southerner. The doubters and 
 semi-Unionists became convinced that separation was a necessity. Those 
 who could not sanction the theory of secession as a constitutional remedy 
 for Southern grievances, lifted up their ensign and proclaimed the inalien 
 able right of revolution. As predicted, the shedding of blood was necessary 
 to fire the Southern heart. The spirit of secession was not laggard but 
 swift. Roger A. Pryor, then a distinguished representative of Virginia in 
 Congress, went to Charleston in the early part of April. He urged the 
 Confederates to make the attack on the Union fortifications. In a speech 
 to the people and soldiery, by whom he was serenaded two days before the 
 bombardment began, he said, amid enthusiastic and deafening outbursts of 
 applause : "Do not distrust Virginia. As sure as to-morrow's sun will rise 
 upon us, just so sure will Virginia be a member of the Southern Confeder 
 ation. And I will tell you, gentlemen, what will put her in the Southern 
 
150 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Confederation in less than an hour, by Shrewsbury Clock. Strike a blow ! 
 [This was received with tremendous applause.] The very moment that 
 blood is shed, Old Virginia will make common cause with her sisters of the 
 South. It is impossible she should do otherwise." Mr. Pryor reasoned 
 well. He was prophetic. Fort Sumter surrendered on the I4th, and the 
 Virginia convention passed the secession ordinance three days after. 
 
 The same policy was urged in Alabama after the state legislature had 
 adopted an ordinance of secession in secret session and refused to submit it 
 to the people for ratification. Mr. Jeremiah Clemens gave some point to 
 this fact, in an address made by him, on March 13, 1864, at a peace meeting 
 held in his native town of Huntsville, in that state. He had served in the 
 United States Senate. He had been a distinguished officer in the Texan 
 war for independence, and in the Mexican War. He did not favor the 
 secession movement. He protested against it, and, in fact, he openly advo 
 cated the re-election of Mr. Lincoln in 1864. In adjourning the meeting, 
 Mr. Clemens said he would tell the Alabamians how their state was got 
 out of the Union. "In 1861," said he, " shortly after the Confederate 
 Government was put in operation, I was in the city of Montgomery. One 
 day I stepped into the office of the Secretary of War, General Walker, and 
 found there, engaged in a very excited discussion, Mr. Jefferson Davis, 
 Mr. Meminger, Mr. Benjamin, Mr. Gilchrist, a member of our legislature, 
 and other prominent gentlemen. They were discussing the propriety of im 
 mediately opening fire on Fort Sumter, to which General Walker appeared 
 to be opposed. Mr. Gilchrist said to him : ' Sir, unless you sprinkle blood 
 in the faces of the people of Alabama, they will be back in the old Union 
 in less than ten days ! ' The next day General Beauregard opened his bat 
 teries on Sumter, and Alabama was saved to the Confederacy." This 
 sprinkling of blood is equally effective North and South. Thenceforward 
 there is little hope of restoring peace until the resources of the weaker 
 party are exhausted. 
 
 When the news of the capture of Fort Sumter reaches Washington, 
 President Lincoln issues a proclamation. It is dated April 15. He calls 
 upon the states for seventy-five thousand militia, " in order to suppress un 
 lawful combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed." He 
 appeals to all loyal citizens to aid him in maintaining the honor, the in 
 tegrity, and the existence of the National Union. The first services of the 
 troops called forth will, probably, be to repossess the forts, places, and prop 
 erty which have been seized ; and in every event, the assurance is given that 
 the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects named, to 
 avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, 
 or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country. He com 
 mands all unlawful combinations to disperse within twenty days, and calls 
 the Senators and Representatives in Congress to convene on the fourth day 
 
AFTER SUMTER WAR. 151 
 
 of July, in extraordinary session. The writer went to that session as a 
 member of Congress, fresh from the terrible excitements of the capital of 
 Ohio, with a fear and trembling beyond all other public experiences. 
 
 The President's proclamation was certainly within the line of executive 
 duty. It came strictly within the Constitution. Yet it was made the ground 
 of justification for the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and 
 Arkansas. These states, up to that date, had been held in the Union by the 
 strong anti-secession sentiment of the people and their leaders. The seces 
 sionists were consistent at least ; but the Unionists of the South were not. 
 The latter held, with Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson, that secession and 
 nullification were not rightful nor constitutional remedies for grievances. 
 They could not justify resistance to the Federal forces on the ground that 
 the President had no power to call out the militia to protect the public pro 
 perty and enforce the laws. They simply fell into the current with their 
 states. They drifted, unable to resist the popular passions in the impending 
 war, until at last they heartily espoused the Confederate cause. 
 
 Although the government of the United States was immeasurably 
 stronger than the Confederacy, the latter was, at the moment, better pre 
 pared for hostilities than the former. As has been stated, Beauregard 
 had six thousand troops under arms at Charleston. Volunteers were 
 ready to march from every part of the seceded states. Not a few were going 
 South from the border states. They were full of dash, esprit, strength and 
 courage. They were as thoroughly imbued with the spirit of resistance as 
 any revolutionist who ever raised a troop or carried a flag. Pending the 
 Southern agitation and preparation for war, the Northern people had been 
 listlessly looking on. They were wondering what was to come of the ex 
 citement. They prophesied a short duration of conflict. Then all would 
 be serene again. The regular army was not above ten thousand effect 
 ive men. It was scattered over the Western territories. Only a few hun 
 dred could be brought together to meet the emergency. Most of the officers 
 from the South resigned and took commissions from the Confederacy. The 
 navy, too, had been dispatched to the four quarters of the globe ; although, 
 regarding that arm of the service, the government, of course, had greatly 
 the advantage over the insurgents. John B. Floyd, of Virginia, who had 
 been Secretary of War during the administration of Mr. Buchanan, until 
 the end of the year 1860, found pretexts for sending vast numbers of small 
 arms, as well as cannon, from Harper's Ferry and Pittsburgh to the South. 
 ,He resigned when this misuse of his authority was arrested ; but the mis 
 chief was already done. The Confederates were placed in possession of im 
 mense military equipments and stores, on the easy terms of seizing the forts 
 and arsenals in the South, each guarded by, at most, a captain's company. 
 The result of the war proved how all these advantages were reversed by the 
 mechanical skill and forces of the North. 
 
152 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 On the igth of April, the President issues another proclamation. It de 
 clares a blockade of the ports of the insurrectionary states. A competent 
 force is to be posted so as to prevent the entrance and exit of vessels. Vessels 
 attempting to enter, or departing, are to be warned off by the blockading ves 
 sels. A second attempt to enter is to be a ground of forfeiture as a prize. 
 The blockade is extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina on the 
 27th of April. This is done in consequence of the seizure of government 
 property and the arrest of government officers by the authorities of those 
 states. 
 
 The Northern states promptly respond to the President's call for troops. 
 Pennsylvania being the nearest to the capital, is the first to reach it, with three 
 companies, on the i8th of April. The Sixth Massachusetts regiment ar 
 rives at Baltimore on the i9th, the anniversary of the battle of Lexington. 
 It is there held in check by a mob for some hours. Eight of the companies 
 go through the city in railway cars, drawn by horses. They are assailed 
 with showers of stones and bricks. The two rear companies alight. They 
 march through, and are also assailed. Two soldiers are killed, and eight 
 wounded. The soldiers refrain from using their muskets as long as pos 
 sible. At length random shots are fired, by which several of the assailants 
 are killed and wounded. The regiment forces a passage through the city, 
 and reaches Washington. This is the first blood shed in the war ; for the 
 bombardment of Fort Sumter killed no one. The excitement produced in 
 the Northern states, and especially in Massachusetts, by this hostile reception 
 of Union troops in Baltimore, is intense. The effect is to nerve the arms of 
 Northern men for the fight. Baltimore remains, for some days, under the 
 control of the mob. Governor Hicks and the mayor inform the President 
 that no more troops can pass through the city without fighting their way. 
 But Baltimore cannot stop the march of the Northern legions. Not for a 
 second of time can that be done. 
 
 Troops are now rapidly pouring into Washington from the Northern 
 states. Annapolis and Fortress Monroe are re-enforced by volunteers. The 
 legislatures of the Northern states liberally vote men and money. Great 
 public meetings are held. Many more men volunteer than are called for. 
 Early in May, the President makes a requisition for 42,000 three-months 
 volunteers. At the same time he directs, on his own responsibility, that an 
 addition of eight regiments of infantry, one of cavalry, and one of artillery 
 be made to the regular army, the aggregate is to be 18,000 men. These 
 measures are afterwards legalized by an act of Congress. The Confederates 
 are equally active in preparing for war on a large scale. They are so 
 elated by their successes that they expect to seize the capital of the Nation. 
 Some sanguine secessionists talk of a march to Boston, and of hoisting their 
 flag on Bunker Hill in ninety days. By the first day of May the Confederates 
 have seized sixteen United States forts and arsenals, and 1,200 heavy cannon. 
 
GENERAL BUTLER IN BALTIMORE. 153 
 
 The Union officers in command of Harper's Ferry Arsenal, and Gosport 
 Navy Yard, near Norfolk, blow up and destroy the immense military and 
 naval armaments at those important government works, to prevent their fall 
 ing into the hands of the enemy. The property destroyed at the navy yard 
 is valued at $7,000,000 ; and yet a large number of heavy guns fall into the 
 hands of the Confederates. 
 
 The people inhabiting the Alleghany range of mountains, from Pennsyl 
 vania to Georgia, except those in the Virginia valley, held few slaves ; and as a 
 consequence, the secession sentiment had only a fragile hold upon them. The 
 counties of Virginia west of the Alleghanies, backed as they were by Penn 
 sylvania and Ohio, were strong enough to break off from the state, and set up 
 an independent government. This was carrying the doctrine of secession 
 further than its authors intended it to go ; but in the end, however invalid 
 and unconstitutional, it was the only kind of secession that succeeded. A 
 similar loyalty of feeling prevailed among the independent mountaineers of 
 North Carolina and Tennessee ; but being in the midst of the Confederacy, 
 they were, from time to time, overrun by the Confederate troops in their 
 marches and countermarches from north to south. Hence they were not 
 in a condition to institute independent governments. They were, neverthe 
 less, a thorn in the side of the Confederacy, and rendered not a little service 
 to the Union cause. There can be no doubt that the Union sentiment was 
 far stronger in these mountain districts of North Carolina and Tennessee 
 than it was in the border states, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Yet 
 the services and sufferings of these people in the cause of the Union, were 
 never sufficiently appreciated by the general government. 
 
 There is conclusive proof that the ruling classes, if not a majority of the 
 people, in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, were in entire sympathy with 
 the South ; but the contiguity of these states to the powerful and populous 
 North paralyzed all the efforts made to draw them from the Union. The 
 war, as regards the other states, was a war of sections of the South 
 against the North ; but in Kentucky and Missouri there was civil war in 
 the strict sense of the term. It was a war in which neighbor was arrayed 
 against neighbor and, sometimes, brother against brother. Secession, how 
 ever, was soon expelled from them, and the Union lines, though liable to 
 be invaded, were fixed, in the early part of the struggle, upon their southern 
 boundaries. 
 
 Gen. Benjamin F. Butler took possession of the Relay House on the 
 loth of May, 1861, and of Federal Hill in Baltimore, on the 1 3th, with 
 the Union troops under his command. After this there was no further 
 trouble from the excitements of that city. By securing a position at the 
 Relay House, he held the line of communication open from the North to 
 Washington, and commanded the line to the West along the Baltimore 
 and Ohio Railroad. It was a most important military feat, on the success 
 of which depended the fate of the capital. 
 10 
 
154 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 On the 24th of May, Ellsworth's Zouave regiment of Illinois and a 
 Michigan regiment cross the Potomac at Washington. These take pos 
 session of Alexandria. A citizen named Jackson is the proprietor of the 
 Marshall House. He floats the secession flag from the top of his house. 
 Colonel Ellsworth, finding no one who acknowledges responsibility for the 
 flag, ascends the stairway to the roof accompanied by two soldiers. He 
 takes the flag down. As the colonel descends he is met by Jackson, who 
 fires upon and kills him instantly. In a moment Jackson himself is shot 
 dead by one of Ellsworth's men. This tragedy, so near the capital, at the 
 beginning of the war, causes a great sensation. It intensifies the pas 
 sionate, already hot enthusiasm of the people on both sides. The Con 
 federates evacuate Alexandria on the approach of the Union troops. They 
 fall back toward the main body of their forces which are gathering in the 
 vicinity. On Arlington Heights is the residence of Col. Robert E. Lee. 
 They are in full view of, and command the national capital. On the 24th 
 of May they are occupied by the government forces, and are soon fortified 
 by them. From this time forward, regiments and brigades, as they arrive 
 from the North, are marched across the Potomac and encamped on the south 
 side, in the vicinity of the Heights. A few miles beyond the Union lines 
 the capital is menaced by the gathering hosts of the Confederates. As a 
 matter of policy and law, it is most important that the capital should remain 
 in the hands of the Unionists. The northern approaches are not forgotten. 
 Soon a line of fortifications, armed and manned, extends entirely around 
 the District of Columbia. The fortifications consist of a series of earth 
 works, at intervals of a few hundred yards, connected by rifle-pits. 
 
 In this brief reference to military movements, it is impracticable to 
 allude to many events which awakened great interest, North and South, at 
 the time of their occurrence. To do so is not within the scope and intent of 
 this volume. The military movements are only incidental to its purpose. 
 Passing by a number of encounters in the upper counties of Virginia, in most 
 of which the government forces had the advantage, and the affair at Big 
 Bethel in eastern Virginia, in which the Confederates were successful, it 
 must suffice to present a little more in detail the incidents attending the 
 first great battle of the war. That battle bears the significant title of Bull 
 Run. This is the name of a creek which separates the counties of Fairfax 
 and Prince William, in Virginia. The battle-ground is in the vicinity of 
 the stream, about thirty-five miles from Washington. The Confederates, 
 under the command of General Beauregard, were massed in the same 
 vicinity, near Manassas Junction, on the Orange and Alexandria Railroad. 
 The Union forces were commanded by Brig. -Gen. Irvin McDowell. As 
 has been stated, they were encamped on and around Arlington Heights. 
 The right wing was on the north bank of the Potomac, extending for some 
 miles above Georgetown. 
 
THE FIRST BULL RUN BATTLE. 155 
 
 Much criticism was then indulged in, because of the dilatoriness of the 
 army. The non-action of the generals was made the theme of many a jibe, 
 as it was afterwards, when General McClellan took command. But while 
 officers like Lieutenant-General Scott and Brigadier-General McDowell 
 believed that some weeks of drilling would be necessary to prepare raw 
 militia for the battle-field, there can be little doubt that the popular demand 
 for an advance had the effect of hastening the movement on the enemy at 
 Manassas. 
 
 General Mansfield, commanding the Department of Washington, in his 
 report of June 27, 1861, states that the number of privates, including regu 
 lars and volunteers, present for duty in the vicinity of Washington, was 
 22,846 ; and that the grand aggregate of officers and men, present and 
 absent, was 34,160. General Patterson, commanding in Maryland, to the 
 west of Washington, had a force of 15,923. But these troops took no part 
 in the battle of Bull Run ; they did not march to the sound of the enemy's 
 guns. The Confederate force engaged in the battle, as stated by General 
 Beauregard in his official report, was 32,672, consisting of the armies of the 
 Potomac and Shenandoah, the brigade of General Holmes, Hampton's 
 Legion, Hill's Virginia regiment, and a company of cavalry, ninety strong. 
 There were twenty-six cannon, belonging to these Confederate forces. The 
 battle was planned by Beauregard. He had the larger force under his im 
 mediate command ; but, being the junior officer, he was superseded by 
 Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, who came down from the west and joined him 
 on the 2oth of July. The Confederates, under Beauregard, fell back from 
 Centreville some days beforehand. They took position on the south side of 
 Bull Run, the fords and bridges being guarded and defended against the 
 approach of the Union army. General McDowell says in his report, in 
 respect to the number of his command: "We crossed Bull Run with 
 about 18,000 men, of all arms ; the Fifth Division (Miles') and Richardson's 
 brigade on the left, at Blackburn's Ford and Centreville ; and Schenck's 
 brigade of Tyler's division on the left of the road, near the stone bridge, 
 not participating in the main action." These are the statements of the com 
 manding generals of the opposing armies. There are no more reliable 
 authorities. The force under General Patterson, which crossed the Potomac 
 into Virginia, took position near Charlestown. It was rendered inefficient 
 in consequence of the fact that the term of service of half the men (eight 
 regiments) would expire on or before the twenty-fifth of the month. Pat 
 terson was expected to hold Johnston in check by threatening Winchester. 
 He did so until Johnston ascertained that the Pennsylvania three-months 
 militia were clamoring to be discharged. Then the latter felt that it would 
 be safe to move off and join his forces with those at Manassas. 
 
 McDowell's first plan is to cross Bull Run at Blackburn's Ford. But he 
 finds the enemy, on the i8th, strongly posted at that point. General Tyler 
 
156 . THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 is compelled to fall back, with some loss, before Beauregard. These 
 facts lead McDowell to pass the stream higher up, so as to turn the enemy's 
 left flank. Accordingly, on the morning of the 2ist, he crosses without 
 serious obstacle. He drives the enemy for some miles. At one time he 
 flatters himself that the day is won ; but about two o'clock, when the men 
 are fatigued with their long march, jaded and hungry, the Confederates are 
 re-enforced by the arrival of 6,000 of Johnston's men, being a part of the 
 army of the Shenandoah. This re-enforcement turns the scale. A panic 
 seizes the Union forces. They give way. The retreat becomes a rout. 
 The first great battle of the war results in an inglorious and appalling disas=- 
 ter to the Union cause. But in spite of the completeness of the overthrow, 
 and the loss of prestige, the number of men killed and wounded by the op 
 posing forces is not so disproportionate as might have been supposed. The 
 Union loss, according to the report of Assistant Adjutant-General Fry, 
 is 481 killed, 1,011 wounded, and 1,216 missing. The Confederate loss, as 
 stated by their officers, is 387 killed, 1,582 wounded, and 13 missing. 
 
 General McDowell says, in apology for the men under his command, 
 that they were raw militia ; and that they had to make a long march on the 
 morning of the 2ist, before reaching the battle-field ; that they were tired and 
 hungry ; that he had relied upon General Patterson to keep Johnston em 
 ployed in the neighborhood of Winchester ; and upon General Butler to de 
 tain those which came up from the South. It unfortunately happened, also, 
 that two forces of his own mistook each other for enemies and fell to fight 
 ing, by which his plans were deranged. It would seem from the accounts 
 that the battle hardly resulted in a determinate victory. Both sides apolo 
 gized. General Johnston apologized for failing to pursue his routed enemy 
 and capture Washington. His statement is, that he had no cavalry ; that the 
 United States troops remained apparently firm at Centreville ; that a strong 
 force occupied Alexandria, Arlington, and the works near Georgetown ; and 
 that General Patterson, with his " thirty thousand men" could reach Wash 
 ington before he could. These obstacles, except the last, were perhaps as 
 formidable as Johnston imagined. But the official returns show that Pat 
 terson could not have had at the time ten thousand troops. He reported 
 that, of his 14,344 men, eight regiments were to be disbanded before the 
 25th of July, and that most of them had already been discharged ; while 
 his re-enforcements, though ordered, had not had time to arrive at his camp 
 near Charlestown. General Johnston's monthly report for June 30, 1861, 
 shows that his command consisted of 10,622 men and officers. His force 
 was, therefore, larger than Patterson's on the 2ist day of July. 
 
 Details of this battle, or riot, as it has been called, may not be appro 
 priate in a volume dedicated particularly to " Federal legislation." But as 
 Congress had been in session from the 4th of July ; and as its members par 
 took of the general feeling of unrest for a warlike movement, the interest in 
 
THE CONGRESSMEN AT BULL RUN. 157 
 
 the expected pageantry in Virginia, aroused the wildest excitement. There 
 had not been much acrimonious debate. Much business had been done. 
 Tariffs were changed ; loans and troops authorized ; the currency regulated ; 
 and everything betokened a vigorous prosecution of the war for the Union ; 
 when lo ! "Onward to Richmond!" "The Army moves!" Before the 
 battle, the hopes of the people and of their representatives are very elate, 
 and almost jocosely festive. Sanguine newspaper editors, and congressmen 
 of like temperament and as little real information, are impatient with the 
 seemingly passive condition of the army. They demand an immediate 
 movement upon the enemy's works. " On to Richmond ! " is the watch 
 word of these belligerent gentlemen in their quiet homes. In the hall of 
 the lower House, the gloom of the preceding three weeks of inaction is 
 dispelled by the stirring movement. The writer shares the excitement. 
 There are some military members eager to join in the fray. Among 
 them are Col. William A. Richardson, of Illinois, a soldier of the Mexi 
 can War ; Gen. John A. Logan, of like martial fame ; Isaiah Morris, 
 also of Illinois ; Albert G. Riddle, of Cleveland, Ohio, an eminent lawyer 
 and a gallant man ; John A. Gurley, of Cincinnati, Ohio, a Universalist 
 minister, and Alfred Ely, of Rochester. Senators Wade and Chandler 
 join in the attack. The writer feels the martial contagion. He prepares to 
 go with his gallant friends to the front. If he cannot carry a musket, as 
 his comrades propose, he can observe the result with equanimity. To this 
 end, he procures a pass for that particular purpose. He here makes a 
 tender to the reader of that treasured memento of the war : 
 
 " HEAD QUARTERS, 
 MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, 
 
 July 15, 1861. 
 
 Pass Hon. Mr. Cox over the bridges and within the lines 
 By order of General Mansfield, Commanding : 
 
 DRAKE DEKAY, 
 
 Aide-de- Camp 
 
 OVER. 
 
 It is understood that the within named and subscriber accepts it, upon 
 his word of honor that he is and will be ever loyal to the United States ; and 
 if hereafter found in arms against the Union, or in ?ny way aiding her ene 
 mies, the penalty will be death." 
 
 By turning over this now yellow and patched souvenir of the first battle 
 of the war, the terrible obligation, with its death penalty, smites the soul 
 afresh. But the writer was not destined for that war ; at least, fate forbade 
 
158 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 an encounter of its inglorious Bull Run hardships. The members were to 
 go in carriages to the front. The writer's seat had been preoccupied by 
 some soldier in an emergency to join his command. He was thus ousted of 
 his right. Still, many of his constituents were there. One of them, from 
 Pickaway County, Ohio, like the celebrated contractor of the Revolution, 
 was there, crying " Beef! Beef! " He had brought on to Washington and 
 sold to the government, three hundred head of cattle. He came to tell his 
 member of his good luck. He would take those cattle on the hoof to Rich 
 mond, or perish. He would furnish the troops fresh beef by the way, or 
 die. What became of them, the sequel reveals. 
 
 With bated breath, Congress awaits the issue. Its business lags. Its 
 members gossip in the rear of the seats and in the cloak-rooms. At length 
 dispatches come. They are read at the clerk's desk. Then Bull Run comes 
 in, preceded by the Pickaway contractor's cattle on a stampede. Then 
 come intelligent contrabands and an incongruous array of wearied soldiers 
 in dusty uniforms. What of the Senators and Representatives ? Chandler, 
 Wade, Richardson, Logan, Gurley, Morris, and Riddle return safely. 
 Ely is borne by his resistless patriotism, darkly and fearfully afar. The 
 Black Horse Cavalry of the enemy carry him into Richmond. Libby 
 Prison receives him, and his goodness of heart and ample means enable him 
 to aid his fellow-prisoners. Mr. Riddle relates how his company had been 
 charged upon by wild riders of sable horses: "It seemed," said he, in a 
 deliberately penned description, " as if the very devil of panic and cowardice 
 seized every mortal soldier, officer, citizen, and teamster. No officer tried to 
 rally the soldiers, or do anything, except to spring and run toward Centre- 
 ville. There never was anything like it for causeless, sheer, absolute, absurd 
 cowardice, or rather panic, on this miserable earth before. Off they went, 
 one and all ; off down the highway, over across fields, towards the woods, any 
 where, everywhere, to escape. Well, the further they ran the more fright 
 ened they grew, and although we moved on as rapidly as we could, the 
 fugitives passed us by scores. To enable them better to run, they threw 
 away their blankets, knapsacks, canteens, and finally muskets, cartridge- 
 boxes, and everything else. We called to them, tried to tell them there was 
 no danger, called them to stop, implored them to stand. We called them 
 cowards, denounced them in the most offensive terms, put out our heavy re 
 volvers, and threatened to shoot them, but all in vain ; a cruel, crazy, mad, 
 hopeless panic possessed them, and communicated to everybody about in 
 front and rear. * The heat was awful, although now about six ; the men were 
 exhausted their mouths gaped, their lips cracked and blackened with the 
 powder of the cartridges they had bitten off in the battle, their eyes starting 
 in frenzy ; no mortal ever saw such a mass of ghastly wretches. As we 
 came on, borne along with the mass, unable to go ahead or pause, or draw 
 out of it, with the street blocked with flying baggage- wagons, before and 
 
GENERAL McCLELLAN AND HIS CRITICS. 159 
 
 behind, thundering and crashing on, we were every moment exposed to 
 imminent danger of being upset, or crushed, or of breaking down ; and for 
 the first time on this strange day I felt a little sinking of the heart, and 
 doubt whether we could avoid destruction in the immense throng about us ; 
 and nothing but the remarkable skill of our driver, and the strength of our 
 carriage and endurance of our horses saved us. Another source of peril be 
 set us. As we passed the poor, demented, exhausted wretches who could 
 not climb into the high, close baggage-wagons, they made frantic efforts to 
 get on to and into our carriage. They grasped it everywhere, and got on to 
 it, into it, over it, and implored us every way to take them on." 
 
 No more graphic picture has since been presented of the race of this 
 army from an imaginary pursuit. The pencil of a David could not do it jus 
 tice. No colors can be harmonized for such a chaos. De Quincy's " Flight 
 of a Tartar tribe," is far less veracious and not more thrilling. 
 
 General McClellan takes command soon after this battle, vice General 
 McDowell, removed. It is not long before the congressional critics are 
 pursuing him for holding back the eager soldiery. They impute his seeming 
 inactivity to fear of " Quaker guns." The radical cabal in congress, led by 
 Senator Wade and re-enforced by Secretary Stanton, desire his removal. 
 Among others who are thus eager is the Hon. and Rev. John A. Gurley, of 
 Ohio. It was the writer's fortune to obtain the floor for a reply to a speech 
 of his which abounded in strictures on McClellan. The hopes of the people 
 were centered in General McClellan. How could the effect of these attacks 
 on that favorite general be nullified ? How could Mr. Gurley's villifications 
 be turned to the account of the Republic ? The writer happily thought of the 
 reverend member's performance at Bull Run, of which full accounts had 
 been received. The ad hominem and ad risum argumentation occurred to 
 him, albeit then unused to this mood and mode. After repelling the attack 
 of the preacher upon that unity which is indispensable to all commands, 
 in or out of the army, and what was especially needed then, as personified 
 in General McClellan ; and after defending the President, who was attacked 
 for retaining General McClellan in chief command, the author of this vol 
 ume, addressing the Chair, said : 
 
 "Sir: My colleague Mr. Gurley compels me to examine into his 
 merits as a military critic particularly ; and also into the propriety of criticis 
 ing military 4 movements ' here in Congress and elsewhere by civilians. My 
 colleague is not a military man by education, nor a soldier, like FalstafF, on 
 instinct. His profession was that of a gospeller. His studies do not fit him 
 to discuss martial subjects. We do not go to a blacksmith to have our watch 
 repaired, nor to a watchmaker to have our horse shod. We do not go to Car 
 olina for cheese, nor to the Western Reserve for cotton. Criticism on the art 
 of war, to be valuable, must be backed by specific study and experience. 
 What has been the study and the military experience of my colleague? 
 
160 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 There will be, Mr. Chairman," said the writer, " empyrics in medicine, pre 
 tenders in religion, pettifoggers in law, mushrooms in vegetation, secession 
 ists in governments, and snobs in society ; and we must not be surprised 
 at military wiseacres in Congress ! Since my colleague has hurled the glove 
 at McClellan, I have a right to examine his claims as a critic. He admits 
 being at Bull Run. His masterly activity on the retreat he admits. How 
 that retreat was effected we only know from rumor. My colleague, after his 
 fatiguing race to Centreville, and having passed that point with the speed of 
 Gilpin and not having the benefit of a carriage like the congressman who 
 kicked out of it the tired soldiers besmutched with their cartridges in battle 
 was scampering along like the devil in Milton, flying 
 
 ' O'er bog or steep, through strait, rough, dense, or rare, 
 With head, hands, wings, or feet pursues his way, 
 And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies' 
 
 until luckily he met what think you, noble Representatives? a herd of 
 stampeded cattle, which were from my own beloved district Texan cattle, 
 sir, wintered in the Scioto valley, and selected by their drover for their 
 stampeding propensity. Seizing upon the extreme rear of a noble bull, the 
 Reverend and Honorable gentleman was borne from the field, holding on 
 with vigorous prehension to the tail of that animal ! There was a Bull Run 
 indeed ! " 
 
 " Mr. EDGERTON. I rise to a question of order. It is out of order for 
 members of the House to applaud, cheer, or laugh in the manner they have 
 been doing, and I submit 
 
 " The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is satisfied that when gentlemen consider 
 the impropriety of any disturbance, it will not occur again. 
 
 "Mr. WYCKLIFFE. I acknowledge a violation of order. I laughed; 
 but for my life's sake I could not help it." 
 
 The writer, or rather the speaker, proceeded: "I will do justice to my 
 colleague. I will put this as an apocryphal case. I am glad to do justice 
 to him, and to that noble animal of my constituent, to whom the gentleman 
 should have apologized, if the story were true. I was about to commend this 
 strategy of my colleague, for its quick sense of the commissary advantages. 
 But I deprecate his drawing on that, or any experience at Bull Run, to read 
 the gifted McClellan and this Congress a homily on military affairs. The 
 ancient warriors rode in their scythed chariots ; the warriors on the South 
 American pampas dash off with their lasso on horseback ; the ancient Ger 
 mans went into battle as our Indians do, with terrific yells and in painted 
 horror ; the courtly knight dashed into the tourney with iron-clad armor 
 and vizor down. Various as human ingenuity are the modes of human war 
 fare, both on the advance and in retreat ; but never, sir, in the accounts of 
 Xenophon or Marshal Saxe ; from the time of Joshua to General Taylor ; 
 
THE REVEREND MR. GURLEY AT BULL RUN. l6l 
 
 nor in the contests of Achilles, or even of Garibaldi, have we so unique a 
 performance as this supposititious race of my constituent's Durham with my 
 colleague, from the fields of Bull Run. Does he claim that this exploit, if 
 true, would make him a military expert ? 
 
 " The only parallel I can find for my colleague is the description which is 
 given of Job's war-horse : l Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper ? 
 the glory of his nostrils is terrible. He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth 
 in his strength. He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage ; neither 
 believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. He saith among the trum 
 pets, ha ! ha ! and he smelleth the battle afar off.' The parallel fails only in 
 one regard. While the war-horse of Job was advancing, that of my col 
 league was retreating. Leaving his campaign in Missouri unfinished, he 
 flew from Fremont to Ohio, with the ' certainty, celerity, and security ' of 
 a star bid in the Post-Office Department. 
 
 " I wish that my colleague would cultivate some faith in General McClellan. 
 He is a minister of the Gospel, a Universalist minister, and is full of faith in 
 the salvation of all men. I glory in according to him the fullest ' soul 
 liberty' in religion. His creed includes the salvation of all embracing in 
 its comprehensive faith Davis, Wigfall, and all that crowd of conspicuous 
 sinners. He believes that Zollicoffer is now in glory ; he can even see Hum 
 phrey Marshall entering, as my colleague from Cleveland once said of John 
 Brown, ' the pearly gates of Paradise' and that too without the enlarge 
 ment of the gates of Paradise or the lessening of the bulk of Marshall. He 
 can, with his eye of faith, and in his universal benevolence, see the Fals- 
 taflian Kentuckian squeeze through the celestial doors, and larding the golden 
 pavements of the New Jerusalem ; but he cannot exercise a little faith, just 
 the size of a mustard seed, in the prescience, skill, and sagacity of our ac 
 complished young general. 
 
 " Oh ! if there is one thing more beautiful than another, it is that trust 
 which we repose in another in the dark hours of trial and death. It is said 
 that reason was the first-born, but faith inherits the blessing. Reason is apt 
 to be fallible, short-sighted, eager, impetuous, and impatient of contradiction ; 
 while faith is gentle and docile, ever ready to listen to the voice by which 
 alone truth and wisdom can effectually reach her. God has created two 
 lights the greater light to rule the busy day reason ; the lesser to rule 
 the contemplative night faith ; but faith shines only so long as she reflects 
 something of the illumination of the brighter orb. Where a man has no 
 faith he has no light of reason. There are some things in which a man 
 must exercise his trust. The American people, unlike my colleague, have 
 read the history of General McClellan. They know his military studies, his 
 travel and observation, his practical railroad life, his mode of dealing with 
 men and bodies of men, his prudential reserve, his unfailing patience, patriot 
 ism, and confidence in his own resources. They know that he is safe, 
 
162 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 if not brilliant ; that his knowledge of topography, engineering, and field 
 strategy, his method and industry, and his quick apprehension of military 
 strength and weakness, eminently fit him for this high command. Knowing 
 this and reasoning upon this, now that the night is upon us, they will keep 
 their faith in him, and no hostile criticism of the gentleman here can shake 
 that faith. The attack of my colleague is like that of a * pigmy with a 
 straw against a giant cased in armor.' 
 
 "My colleague is not satisfied with anything short of an advance at 
 every hazard. He is not satisfied with the President, for the latter defers 
 to McClellan ; not satisfied with any commander-in-chief, for no one can 
 command even three hundred thousand men ; not satisfied with what has been 
 done ; not satisfied with what is to be done. He would discourage all our 
 efforts, and make taxation weigh like a useless burden on an anxious and 
 saddened people. His policy would disorganize the army, and realize his 
 theology by making a hell on earth, without giving us the satisfaction of a 
 future state." 
 
 The writer then answered in detail, the frivolous philippic of the reverend 
 member against General McClellan. Nearly a quarter of a century has gone 
 by since that debate. It was had on the last of January, 1862. Three years 
 afterwards, on the same day of the same month, and after the reverend mem 
 ber from Ohio had passed that bourne where he could solve the problems 
 of the future state, his anti-slavery ideas were crystallized in the thirteenth 
 amendment of the Constitution. But in the beginning of 1861, the country 
 was thoroughly disgusted with the part congressmen played at Bull Run. 
 Ah ! with what jocund levity the House adjourned to go over to see the 
 army march upon Richmond. Not one of the members ever got there, 
 except Mr. Ely. The writer opposed the adjournment, lest by going 
 over the river, they would only get in the way of the soldiers. It turned 
 out that the soldiers got in the way of the congressmen. But when the 
 grand consummation of the war came, in the ostracism of slavery forever, 
 the soldiers got out of the way of the congressmen. The result showed, 
 that in the order of events, even war has an inexorable logic and law of 
 its own. " God works in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform." 
 
 The Bull Run disaster led to many changes. General Patterson was 
 superseded by Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks. This was a consequence of his 
 failure to hold Johnston in check. On the second day of August, Con 
 gress was still in session. The war taxes were increased, and the President 
 was authorized to call out 500,000 men for three years, or during the war. 
 General McClellan began a thorough reorganization of the Army of the 
 Potomac. It was a much-needed work, for which he was well qualified. 
 For this, the country still owes him a debt of gratitude. The military 
 events in other quarters, immediately preceding or following the Bull Run 
 disaster were, in the main, favorable to the government. There were 
 
THE MISSOURI CAMPAIGN AND BALL'S BLUFF. 163 
 
 skirmishes innumerable, with varied success, as well as some actions of 
 greater importance. In Missouri, the plans of the secession leaders for 
 drawing the state mto alliance with the Confederacy were frustrated by the 
 intrepidity of Capt. Nathaniel Lyon, of the Second United States Infantry. 
 Governor Jackson endeavored to preserve a neutrality ; but /ie was organiz 
 ing the militia, as it was alleged, in concert with the Confederates. It was 
 also said that cannon and small arms were sent to St. Louis, where a mili 
 tary camp was formed which bore the name of the governor. On the nth 
 of May, Captain Lyon, at the head of a volunteer force and a few regu 
 lars, demanded of Brig. -Gen. Daniel M. Frost the surrender of the camp, 
 and of the men he was drilling for service in the Confederacy. Frost en 
 tered a protest, and surrendered. His militia numbered 639 men, and fifty 
 officers. They had six field-pieces, 1,200 rifle muskets, together with am 
 munition and other war material. These military equipments had been 
 sent up the river and addressed to a well-known Union firm of merchants, 
 but not delivered to them. As the prisoners were being led to the arsenal, 
 the secession mob fired upon Lyon's force, when the latter returned the 
 fire. Several of the rioters were killed. Lyon was rapidly promoted in con 
 sequence of this energetic action. He was made a brigadier-general of vol 
 unteers, immediately. But his active career was soon brought to a close. 
 He was killed in the battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, on the ninth day of 
 August, fighting against great odds. The Unionists were compelled to re 
 treat, but the result was otherwise without importance. 
 
 General Sigel, with 950 men, encountered the Confederates under Gen 
 eral Rains, commanding 1,800 men, at Carthage, in the same state, and 
 although compelled to retire, he did so in good order, and without serious 
 loss. On the 2Oth of September, Colonel Mulligan, with 2,500 men, surren 
 dered the town of Lexington, Missouri, to a large Confederate force, under 
 General Price, estimated at 20,000 men. It was, however, soon evacuated, 
 and reoccupied by the Union forces. 
 
 At Belmont, in southeastern Missouri, the Union forces under Brig.- 
 Gen. U. S. Grant, made an attack upon the Confederates. This was in 
 obedience to orders from General Halleck, who was in command of the 
 Western Department, with headquarters at St. Louis. After some sharp 
 fighting, the Confederates were re-enforced. General Grant fell back, and 
 re-embarked on his transports. The object of the advance, according to the 
 order from General Halleck, was to threaten, rather than to assail the enemy ; 
 and General Grant claims to have accomplished what he undertook. He 
 states the enemy's loss to be greater than his own, and that he brought off 
 175 prisoners. The object seems to have been to prevent Gen. JefF. Thomp 
 son, who was in command, from re-enforcing General Price. This object 
 was accomplished. 
 
 But the greatest disaster to the Union arms during 1861, after Bull Run, 
 
164 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 occurred at what is known as Edwards' Ferry, or Ball's Bluff. This point 
 is a few miles above the Great Falls of the Potomac. A force of about fif 
 teen hundred men of Gen. Charles P. Stone's command, in making a 
 reconnoissance, under Colonel Baker, of Oregon, crossed the river at that 
 point. They were met by a greatly superior force of the enemy. They 
 were driven back into the stream, with great slaughter. The Union loss 
 was above nine hundred. The Confederate loss was three hundred. Col 
 onel Baker, the eloquent Senator from Oregon, was among the killed. Gen 
 eral Stone was greatly blamed for this disaster. He was slandered because 
 of it, and then most outrageously treated. He was a native of Massachusetts. 
 He was a Democrat. He had served in Mexico with distinction. It was 
 his skill, under the venerable Scott, that established the line of fortifica 
 tions around the capital for its safety. He was a man of a sensitive nature, 
 and as courageous as he was expert in the art of war. Without probable or 
 any cause, he was arrested on a charge of treason. Although asserting 
 his innocence and demanding a trial, he was released without a word of 
 explanation. Not a word has been given to this day. After the war, he 
 went to Egypt. He is known there as Stone Pasha. He became the chief- 
 of-staff of the Egyptian army. He reconstructed it. He was with the ex- 
 Khedive and the present Khedive in all the early and later vicissitudes of 
 that ill-starred land. He survives nearly all of his detractors and persecu 
 tors, and has returned to America, warmly welcomed by all, as a man with 
 out a stain and a soldier without reproach. He is now engaged in super 
 vising the erection of the Bartholdi statue, in New- York Harbor. His 
 case, like that of Gen. Fitz John Porter, cries aloud for rectification by a 
 practical remedy, as it has been rectified in history. 
 
 On the Atlantic coast, where the navy co-operated with the military arm, 
 the most substantial and permanent successes were achieved. The expedi 
 tion against Hatteras, on the coast of North Carolina, sailed from Fortress 
 Monroe on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of August. It consisted of the 
 United States steamers Minnesota, Captain Van Brune ; the Wabash, Cap 
 tain Mercer ; the Monticello, Commander Gillis ; the Pawnee, Commander 
 Rowan ; and the Harriet Lane, Captain Faunce. The broad pennant of 
 Commodore S. H. Stringham, the commander of the naval force,was hoisted 
 on the Minnesota. The military force, commanded by Maj.-Gen. Benjamin 
 F. Butler, consisted of 880 men, 500 of whom belonged to the Twentieth 
 Regiment New-York volunteers, under Col. Max Weber ; 220 of the Ninth 
 New- York volunteers (Hawkins* Zouaves), under command of Col. R. C. 
 Hawkins ; 100 of the Union Coast Guard, commanded by Captain Nixon ; 
 and sixty of the Second United States Artillery, under Lieutenant Larned. 
 
 The expedition arrived off Hatteras Inlet on Tuesday, the 26th of 
 August. That inlet lies eighteen miles southwest of the Cape. The Con 
 federates had erected two strong fortifications of earth, or sand, near the 
 
THE TAKING OF PORT ROYAL. 165 
 
 inlet; one bearing the name Hatteras, and armed with ten thirty-two 
 pounders, and another piece. The other, called Fort Clark, was armed 
 with five guns. The ships of war opened fire upon the forts, and soon 
 silenced them, and 315 soldiers were landed. Night came on and these 
 men were left in a rather dangerous position. They took possession of 
 the smaller fort, however, and rendered efficient service the next morning. 
 It was believed that the Confederate commander meant to surrender, when the 
 firing ceased ; but when one of the smaller vessels approached within 600 
 yards, Fort Hatteras again opened fire. It was again silenced, however, 
 by the accurate fire from the ships. It then gave the signal for surrender. 
 After some parleying, and insisting on terms, the surrender was made on 
 the single condition that the Confederates were to be treated as prisoners 
 of war. The capitulation embraced the surrender of 715 men, including the 
 commander, Commodore Barron, the acting Confederate Secretary of the 
 Navy, and Major Bradford, the Chief of Ordnance, with the two forts, 
 arms, powder, cannon, cotton, and provisions. But this was the smallest 
 part of the achievement. The surrender opened the North Carolina 
 Sounds, large inland seas, with the greater part of the coast of the state. 
 This acquisition was permanent. It was of great importance. 
 
 The expedition to Port Royal, in South Carolina, midway between 
 Charleston and Savannah, was on a much grander scale. It consisted of 
 two ships of war, the Wabash and Susquehanna, fourteen gunboats, the 
 frigate Vandalia, and thirty-three transports, which conveyed 15,000 troops. 
 Commodore Samuel F. Dupont commanded the naval force, and Maj.- 
 Gen. Thomas W. Sherman, the military. The latter consisted of three 
 brigades, commanded respectively by Brigadier-Generals, Egbert S. Viele, 
 now a member of Congress from New- York City, Isaac J. Stevens, and 
 Horatio G. Wright. These officers were among the most accomplished 
 engineers of the army. The expedition consisted of fifty vessels. It sailed 
 from Fortress Monroe on the 29th of October. It had been preceded by 
 a fleet of twenty-five coal vessels. The weather was unsettled. It blew a 
 hurricane by the I st of November. The fleet was scattered. On the next 
 morning, only one sail was visible from the mast of the flag-ship. The wind 
 moderated on Sunday, the 2d of November, and the fleet gradually came 
 in sight, except two of the transports, which sank. Only seven lives were 
 lost. Commodore Dupont, with twenty-five of his vessels, anchored off the 
 bar of Port Royal on the 4th. He proceeded to search for the channel. It 
 was found and buoyed. On the same day the gunboats and light transports 
 passed inside the bar, and were anchored. The Confederate fleet, under 
 Commodore Tatnall, consisted of six gunboats. They took refuge under the 
 guns of the fortifications. The next day the Wabash and Susquehanna, 
 with the larger transports, crossed the bar. The assault on the Confederate 
 works was postponed until the 7th, in consequence of a storm. At half- 
 
166 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 past nine o'clock of that day, a heavy cannonade was opened upon the 
 two forts, Walker and Beauregard, and their outposts. They were mounted 
 with heavy guns of the most approved pattern. The bombardment lasted 
 for some hours. The forts were silenced. The landing force found them 
 deserted by their garrisons, who had fled in terror, leaving their clothing, 
 their papers, and even their watches. The loss on the part of the gov 
 ernment was eight killed, and twenty-three wounded. The Confederate loss 
 was not known, but it was believed to be far more considerable. The forts 
 contained forty-eight cannon, all but five in excellent order, and of large cali 
 bre. A considerable amount of ammunition and stores was also captured. 
 On the 9th, the town of Beaufort was found to be deserted. It was in the 
 hands of the negroes. The town and adjacent islands were occupied by the 
 Union forces, including Tybee Island, at the entrance of the Savannah River. 
 Hilton Head was taken by the troops under General Sherman. It became 
 the permanent base of operations against South Carolina and southeastern 
 Georgia. This almost bloodless conquest, like that of Hatteras, gave a per 
 manent lodgment to the government forces upon the soil of South Carolina, 
 and was a grand strategic acquisition. In each of these successful expe 
 ditions, the military accompaniments had little more to do than take posses 
 sion of the conquests made by the navy. 
 
 Military operations upon the Atlantic seaboard, in 1862, commenced with 
 another expedition to North Carolina. The naval force was commanded by 
 Commodore Goldsborough, and the military by General Burnside. Although 
 the Union forces had already secured an entrance to the sounds and rivers 
 of that state, by the capture of the fortifications at Hatteras Inlet, a farther 
 advance in that direction was desirable in order to shelter the war ships and 
 transports from the storms which are apt to be encountered on the coast. 
 With this object in view, a fleet of one hundred vessels, consisting of nineteen 
 gunboats and other small armed vessels, carrying something like seventy- 
 five or eighty pieces of heavy ordnance, together with transports for 16,000 
 soldiers, steamed away from Fortress Monroe for Hatteras Inlet, on the I2th 
 of January. A high wind, which at length developed into a severe gale, 
 rendered it impossible for all the larger vessels to enter the sound through 
 the narrow and tortuous channel. The result was the loss of some of the 
 vessels, together with valuable lives. The fortifications at the inlet, which 
 were taken in the preceding autumn by General Butler and Commodore 
 Stringham, ^nd manned by the soldiers under them, were still held by the 
 Federal troops, but the great severity of the protracted storm rendered it im 
 practicable for the expedition to proceed further before the 5th of February. 
 On that day the movement against Roanoke Island was begun. This small, 
 low island, about ten miles in length and two or three in breadth, is situated 
 in the strait which connects Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds. The Con 
 federates had fortified it and manned it with a force of between two and three 
 
THE CAPTURE OF NEWBERN. 167 
 
 thousand men. The combined forces of the expedition made the assault on 
 the morning of the yth. The Confederates, commanded by Colonel Shaw, 
 formerly a member of the United States House of Representatives, made 
 .a determined resistance. They were supported by a fleet of gunboats, five 
 or six in number. The fight lasted throughout the day ; but on the 8th, Col. 
 Shaw, being assailed in front and rear, found it impracticable to continue the 
 contest. He surrendered, with his garrison of 2,000 men. The forts, six in 
 number, were found to contain forty guns and 3,000 stands of arms. The 
 Union loss was thirty-five killed and 200 wounded. The Confederate loss 
 was reported by them to be sixteen killed and thirty-nine wounded. 
 
 The Union gunboats pursued the Confederate fleet, which retreated to 
 Elizabeth City. There it was captured. That town, situated on Pasquotank 
 River, surrendered, also. The old towns of Edenton, at the head of Albe- 
 marle Sound, and Washington, on the Pamlico or Tar River, surrendered 
 -without a struggle. At the latter place the Union sentiment was found to 
 be very strong. This fact appears from the report of a Confederate officer 
 to his superiors. 
 
 Newbern was the next object of attack. It is situated at the junction of 
 the Neuse and Trent rivers. The former is a tributary of Pamlico Sound. 
 The naval force was under command of Commodore Rowan, Commodore 
 Goldsborough having been recalled to Fortress Monroe. The expedition 
 left Hatteras on the morning of March i2th. It arrived about sunset of 
 the same day at Slocum's Creek, on the south bank of the Neuse, about 
 eighteen miles below Newbern. The landing of the troops was effected the 
 .next morning under cover of the gunboats. Then a march of twelve miles, 
 (Over muddy roads, became necessary before the Confederate line of defense 
 was reached. The road runs parallel with the river. The gunboats ren 
 dered efficient service by shelling it, in advance of the march of the troops. 
 The camp was formed that night, one mile and a half from the Confederate 
 works. Early on the morning of the i4th, the Confederate works were 
 .assailed along their whole extent of a mile and a half. The fight lasted four 
 hours. Their defenders gave -way and retreated up the river, in the direc 
 tion of Newbern. They burnt the bridges behind them, over the smaller 
 ^treams, and destroyed the draw of the railroad bridge over the Trent, at 
 Newbern. The retreating Confederate force, consisting of eight regiments 
 of infantry, five hundred cavalry, and three batteries of field artillery, each 
 of six guns, thus escaped capture. They were commanded by Gen. 
 Lawrence O'B. Branch an ex-member of the Congress in the absence 
 of General Gatlin, who was sick. They passed on through Newbern, leav 
 ing the town to be peaceably taken possession of by General Burnside. 
 In this battle, General Foster took an important part. The Union loss 
 was ninety-one killed, and four hundred and sixty-six wounded. The Con 
 federates, who fought behind breastworks, suffered considerably ; but not so 
 
l68 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 much as their conquerors. They halted in their retreat, at Tuscarora, ten 
 miles above Newbern. General Burnside found the Confederate works de 
 fended by forty-six heavy guns and three batteries of light artillery, each of 
 six guns, all of which fell into his hands. Two steamboats, with several 
 sailing vessels, and large quantities of ammunition and military stores were 
 also captured, with two hundred prisoners. 
 
 The harbor of Beaufort, the best in the state, with the town of that name, 
 Morehead City, and Fort Macon, a permanent United States fortification 
 which commands the harbor, were surrendered as a consequence of the 
 capture of Newbern. The fort withstood a bombardment of a whole day, 
 when its commandant, Colonel White, with five hundred men, surrendered 
 with the honors of war. It had been seized by the state troops of North 
 Carolina, by order of Governor Ellis, long before the secession ordinance 
 was passed. The loss of life was very trifling. On the side of the govern 
 ment only one was reported killed ; and on that of the Confederates, seven 
 were killed and eighteen wounded. The effects of these victories, which 
 closed all the ports of the state, except Wilmington, were permanent. The 
 naval part of the expedition could not penetrate beyond Newbern and Wash 
 ington. The latter is situated upon the Tar River, not far from Pamlico 
 Sound. The military force was not strong enough to venture further into 
 the interior unsustained by the gunboats ; but it is surprising that greater 
 use was not made subsequently of these important conquests on the coast of 
 North Carolina. 
 
 On March 8th and 9th the most remarkable battle ever known, up to that 
 time, in the annals of naval warfare was fought in Hampton Roads. The 
 number of vessels engaged was small in comparison with the great naval 
 actions of modern times. But the defensive armor and offensive weapons 
 employed, demonstrated the utter worthlessness of wooden against armored 
 ships in combat. At once, in the twinkling of an eye, a whirling, bewil 
 dering revolution in naval architecture was the result. 
 
 About one o'clock in the afternoon of the 8th, the Confederate iron-plated 
 steamer Virginia formerly the United States forty-gun steam frigate Merri- 
 mac is seen coming out from Norfolk. She moves in the direction of 
 Newport News, near which place lie two United States sailing frigates, the 
 Congress and Cumberland. The Merrimac had been scuttled on April 21, 
 1861, when the Union naval officers abandoned the Gosport Navy Yard. 
 The Confederates soon raised her and transformed her into an ironclad ram 
 of formidable power. Her hull was 275 feet long ; about 160 feet of the 
 central portion was covered by a roof of wood and iron, inclining about 
 thirty-six degrees. The wooden part was two feet thick ; it consisted of oak 
 plank, 4 by 12 inches, laid up and down next to the iron, and two courses of 
 pine ; one longitudinal of eight inches thickness, the other twelve inches thick. 
 The intervening space on top was closed by permanent gratings of 2-inch 
 
THE MONITOR AND THE VIRGINIA. 169 
 
 square iron, 21-2 inches apart, leaving openings for four hatches one 
 near each end, one forward, and one abaft the smoke-stack. The roof did 
 not project beyond the hull. The ends of the shields were rounded. The 
 armor was four inches thick. It was fastened to its wooden backing by i 3-8 
 inch bolts, countersunk and secured by iron nuts and washers. The plates 
 were eight inches wide and two inches thick. The hull, extending two feet 
 below the roof, was plated with i-inch iron. The prow was of cast-iron, 
 wedge-shaped, and weighed 1,500 pounds. It was about two feet under 
 water, and projected two feet from the stem. The rudder and propeller were 
 both exposed, with no appliances for protection. The battery consisted of 
 ten guns, four single-banded Brooke rifles, and six 9-inch Dahlgren shell-guns. 
 Two of the rifles, bow and stern pivots, were 7-inch, of 14,500 pounds ; the 
 other two were 6.4-inch, 32 pounds calibre, of 9,000 pounds, one being on 
 each broadside. The 9-inch gun on the side nearest the furnace was fitted 
 for firing hot shot. The ammunition for this gun was 9-inch solid shot. The 
 engines were the same which were on the vessel when she was sunk, and 
 were found to be defective. The crew numbered 320, made up principally 
 of volunteers from the army, and thirty officers. The vessel was in com 
 mand of Flag-officer Frank Buchanan, who had resigned from the Union 
 navy, to go with the Confederacy. 
 
 Thus defended against shot and shell, the Virginia presents the appear 
 ance of a huge turtle. The fire from the Cumberland, which is the first to 
 be attacked by the monster, has no effect upon its iron-plated sides and roof, 
 or rounded deck. Every shot from the Virginia tells upon the wooden sides 
 of the Cumberland. The firing is immediately followed by a deadly plunge 
 of the ram into the side of the wooden vessel. The broadside fired by the 
 Cumberland just as the Virginia rams her, cuts one of the Virginia's guns 
 off at the trunnions, the muzzle off another, tears up the carriage of her bow 
 pivot gun, sweeps away her anchor, boats, and howitzers, riddles her smoke 
 stack and steam-pipe, and kills or wounds nineteen men. Bravely done ! 
 This is the last broadside of the Cumberland. She is sinking ! Her gallant 
 commander, Lieut. George M. Morris, true to his honored name, de 
 livers a parting fire from the stern guns, as his ship is going down heroically, 
 with her colors flying. A hundred or more of the crew are killed in the 
 action, or drowned. The Virginia is aided by several armed steamers, two 
 of which come down the James River, just in time to engage in the conflict. 
 
 Having sunk the Cumberland, the Virginia turns upon the Congress, which 
 is already hotly engaged with the gunboats attendant on the ironclad. The 
 commanding officer of the Congress has witnessed the fate of the Cumberland. 
 He heads for shoal water and grounds ! The Virginia now selects a raking 
 position astern of the Congress, while one of the smaller steamers pours in a 
 constant fire on her starboard quarter. Two other steamers of the enemy 
 approach from James River, also firing upon the unfortunate frigate with 
 11 
 
170 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 precision and severe effect. The guns of the Congress are almost entirely 
 disabled, and her gallant commanding officer, young Lieut. Joseph B. Smith, 
 has fallen at his post. Her decks are strewn with the dead and the dying, 
 the ship is on fire in several places, and not a gun can be brought to bear 
 upon the assailants. In this state of things, and with no effectual relief 
 at hand, the senior surviving officer, Lieutenant Pendergrast, feels it his 
 duty to save further useless destruction of life by hauling down his colors. 
 This is done about four o'clock, P. M. The Congress continues to burn until 
 about eight in the evening, then she blows up. When word comes to the 
 Navy Department that the Congress hauled down her colors, the brave old 
 Commodore Smith immediately says in deep emotion : " Then Joe is dead." 
 His boy went down with this ship. 
 
 The Virginia, with her consorts, the Yorktown and Jamestown, now 
 turn their attention to the Minnesota. This vessel has come out from Old 
 Point to assist the Cumberland and Congress, but she also runs aground 
 about three miles below Newport News. In this condition she cannot bring 
 all her guns to bear ; but nevertheless, she is regarded as a more formidable 
 antagonist than the Cumberland or Congress. The Virginia is of too deep a 
 draught to get within effective range, but her consorts approach and fire 
 with damaging effect. Soon, however, the frigate gets one of her guns to 
 bear on them. The practice is telling. They haul off crippled and head to 
 wards Norfolk, with the Virginia, at nightfall. All efforts to get the Min 
 nesota afloat during the night and into a safe position are totally unavailing. 
 The morning is looked for with deep anxiety, as it will, in all probability, 
 bring a renewed attack from the formidable assailants. 
 
 At nine o'clock the same night, the newly finished ironclad Monitor ar 
 rives at Fortress Monroe from New-York, under command of Lieut. John L. 
 Worden. Her appearance is not anticipated. It may be that her existence 
 is unknown to the Confederates. About midnight she takes position by the 
 side of the Minnesota. As anticipated, next morning, at six o'clock, the Vir 
 ginia, with her consorts, comes out from Norfolk. She opens fire on the 
 Minnesota. She does not see the little Monitor lying behind the frigate. 
 Soon the Monitor appears. She is an object of curiosity, if not of ridicule. 
 She lies so low, and is so small, that surely she will not attempt to cope with 
 the Virginia. The commander of that vessel, which would have been more 
 than a match for the finest ship in the English or French navy, observes what 
 confronts him. It is an insignificant looking little nondescript. It resembles a 
 raft with a cheese-box on it. No such man-of-war was ever before seen. It 
 advances to meet the Virginia. Was there ever such impudence ! A 
 mingled feeling of curiosity and contempt runs through the officers of that 
 vessel. The very waves seems to laugh at the odd and audacious craft. 
 But it is soon found that the Virginia has a foe not to be despised ; one en 
 tirely worthy of Rer highest prowess. Promptly obeying the signal to at- 
 
BATTLE OF THE IRONCLADS. 171 
 
 tack, the Monitor runs down past the Minnesota, to lay herself close along 
 side the Virginia, between that formidable vessel and the Minnesota. It 
 is the contest of David and Goliath over again. The Virginia is accom 
 panied by the Yorktown and Jamestown. The two latter are crowded with 
 troops, come to board and capture the Minnesota. It is a gala day in Nor 
 folk. Everybody is in high glee over the expected victory and prizes. Will 
 the expectation be fulfilled? A shot from the Monitor arrests the advance of 
 the Yorktown, but the Virginia continues to approach. She is within a 
 hundred yards of the daring little antagonist. At this distance the engage 
 ment begins. It lasts several hours. It is a furious cannonade. It is hot 
 and close. The vessels fight within from fifty to two hundred yards of each 
 other. The Monitor carries but two guns, against the Virginia's eight. 
 The revolving turret enables the Monitor to be ready for the "occasion sud 
 den." It is blow for blow. This tends to equalize the conditions of the 
 duel. The Virginia finds the Monitor impenetrable to shot and shell. She 
 therefore attempts to run her down. She fails in this. The Monitor avoids 
 the blows of her enemy. She still deals point-blank shots at short range 
 against her ponderous antagonist. At length the Virginia stabs the Monitor 
 in the side. She thrusts in vain. No damage results. The Monitor spins 
 round like a top. She soon obtains her bearing again, and sends one of her 
 formidable missiles into her huge opponent. By this time the officers of the 
 Monitor have acquired complete confidence in her impregnability. They 
 no longer fire at random or hastily. The Monitor works round the Virginia, 
 repeatedly probing her sides. She seeks for weak points, and reserves her 
 fire with coolness, until she has the right spot. Now she steadies for a tell 
 ing blow. She takes the exact range. Crash ! crash ! crash ! three shots 
 are dealt in this deliberate way. Ho ! ho ! the Virginia will take no prize 
 to-day ! She is overmatched. She now resorts to retreat. She is swifter 
 than the Monitor. She will try the Minnesota again. She turns to renew 
 the attack on that vessel. The Monitor will not permit this. She comes up 
 and takes position between the two ships. She again makes the Virginia 
 feel her prowess. Where are the consorts of the latter? They may go back 
 with their boarders. It is now high noon. The four hours' conflict is over. 
 The Virginia is seriously damaged. Like a wounded giant, she moves off 
 for Sewell's Point, at full speed. The Monitor follows for some distance, 
 but she is outstripped in the race. She abandons the pursuit and returns to 
 the Minnesota. Viva ! viva I little Monitor ! 
 
 The story of this conflict is the romance of the war, where mechanism 
 and genius gave so much invincibility to the Northern cause. The Confed 
 erates were under the impression that the thrust of the Virginia's ram had 
 inflicted serious damage upon the Monitor ; but this was not the case. She 
 sustained no injury ; while, on the other hand, one Confederate authority 
 states that the Virginia lost her iron beak in her plunge at the Monitor. 
 
172 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The Virginia lost her ram and sprung a leak. The same writer boasts that 
 the Monitor ran off in a crippled condition. The Committee on Naval Affairs, 
 of which the writer has recently been chairman, reported upon this remark 
 able fight, in order to adjust a claim for prizes. The examination resulted 
 in an able paper from Judge Ballantine, of Tennessee, which sustains one 
 view ; and the opposite view is presented in the paper of Mr. John R. 
 Thomas, of Illinois, which asserts that the Monitor had not sensibly dis 
 abled the Virginia. Both reports are reconcilable with the facts ; for, al 
 though the Virginia was disabled in some regards and required some repair, 
 she was not altogether disabled. There can be no question as to the ability 
 and gallantry with which the two armed vessels were fought. But it will 
 always remain an open question as to the extent of damage done the Vir 
 ginia. The Monitor came out unscathed. 
 
 The merit of having invented or planned the armor of the formidable 
 Confederate iron-clad is due to Lieut. John M. Brooke, of the Con 
 federate States Navy. The meed of high praise need not be withheld from 
 an improvised and wonderful achievement in naval architecture which could 
 have destroyed a fleet of ordinary wooden vessels, because it was immediately 
 surpassed, as a factor in naval warfare, by the marvelous invention of the 
 Monitor. Both inventions are American. America may well be proud of 
 them. An American boy named Timby invented the revolving turret twenty 
 years before. This was in 1841, when he was only nineteen years old. He 
 caught the idea in crossing the ferry from New-York to Jersey City. In 
 passing Castle William, it occurred to him that a similar structure of iron, 
 on a revolving base, could bring all its guns to bear on any part of the 
 channel. He filed a caveat for his invention in the Patent Office on Jan. 
 1 8, 1843. The same year he exhibited a model before President Tyler and 
 his Cabinet. Mr. Jefferson Davis was one of the gentlemen who thought 
 well of the invention. Mr. Timby went to France with his model. He 
 exhibited it to the Emperor Napoleon III. But it remained for the genius 
 of Ericsson to apply the revolving turret in actual warfare. How well 
 he executed the design, the battle just described tells; that battle of the 
 Triton and the minnow in Hampton Roads, in 1862, in which the minnow 
 won. It would seem, from this miraculous result, that the great northern 
 cities of the sea-board escaped bombardment through the genius of Ericsson 
 and the intrepidity of the gallant Worden and his crew. History records no 
 event so providential in its bearing upon the destiny of this hemisphere. It 
 demonstrated the worthlessness of wooden navies. The governments of 
 Europe began at once to devise plans, in projectiles and armor, and to re 
 model their ships of war upon the new American patterns. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF THE WAR 1862. 
 
 CONQUESTS ON SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA COASTS MISSOURI RELIEVED 
 GENERAL SAMUEL R. CURTIS AT PEA RIDGE HIS SPLENDID SERVICES AND 
 VICTORIES BATTLES IN KENTUCKY FALL OF FORTS HENRY AND DONEL- 
 SON FLOYD AS A GENERAL AND A FAILURE TENNESSEE OPENED 
 NASHVILLE OCCUPIED AND ANDREW JOHNSON GOVERNOR - SHILOH AND 
 ITS RESULTS OPERATIONS IN TENNESSEE HALLECK SUBORDINATES 
 GRANT VIRGINIA CAMPAIGN McCLELLAN IN COMMAND HIS DIFFICUL 
 TIES IN FRONT EMBARRASSMENT AT WASHINGTON CHANGE OF BASK 
 TO THE JAMES RIVER NORFOLK OCCUPIED THE AUTHOR'S PERSONAL 
 OBSERVATIONS HON. JOHN S. MILLSON AT HOME THE BIG RAM "VIR 
 GINIA" BLOWN UP FITZ JOHN PORTER'S MOVEMENTS McCLELLAN, 
 MCDOWELL, POPE, BANKS, FREMONT, SUMNER, JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON, LONG- 
 STREET, JACKSON, EWELL, THE HILLS, AND OTHER GIANTS IN THE 
 FIELD MANOEUVRES AND DISASTERS GREAT SLAUGHTER MALVERN 
 HILL BATTLE RICHMOND NOT TAKEN McCLELLAN REMOVED SECOND BULL 
 RUN MARCH INTO MARYLAND WASHINGTON THREATENED McCLEL- 
 LAN RECALLED ANTIETAM SURRENDER OF HARPER'S FERRY BATTLE 
 OF CHATTANOOGA KIRBY SMITH IN KENTUCKY FRANKFORT TAKEN 
 AND CINCINNATI THREATENED THE SOJJIRREL CAMPAIGN AND A RACE 
 FOR CONGRESS BRAGG FORAGING IN KENTUCKY VAN DORN AND CORINTH 
 ROSECRANS AND BRAGG AT STONE RIVER GENERAL STUART'S CAVALRY 
 INVADE PENNSYLVANIA GREAT BATTLE AT FREDERICKSBURG BURN- 
 SIDE DEFEATED FARRAGUT AND BUTLER ON THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI 
 NEW ORLEANS CAPTURED. 
 
 DURING the year 1862, the conquests on the coasts of South Caro 
 lina and Georgia were considerably advanced. The most impor 
 tant of these, however, was the recapture of Fort Pulaski. It was 
 one of the two principal fortifications which defended the ap 
 proaches to Savannah from the sea, by the river. This achievement reflected 
 great honor upon the enterprise and courage of the military and naval forces. 
 Fort Pulaski is on a small island at the mouth of the Savannah River. 
 Outside is Tybee Island. On this island, Gen. Quincy A. Gillmore, com 
 manding the Union forces, erected works with siege guns bearing on the 
 fort. Capt. John Rogers, who was in command of the gunboats, contributed 
 
174 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 largely to the success of the operations. The bombardment of Pulaski took 
 place on the loth of April. It lasted eighteen hours, when the com 
 mander, Col. Charles H. Olmstead, of the First Georgia volunteers, sur 
 rendered. The capture of that fort put a stop to blockade-running at 
 Savannah. 
 
 An expedition was fitted out against the coast of Florida. The result 
 was the capture of Fernandina, Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and St. Mary's 
 on the east coast, and Cedar Keys on the west. The command of the whole 
 eastern coast of the state was secured. Darien and Brunswick, in Georgia, 
 were also taken possession of without resistance. 
 
 The spring of 1862 was signalized by several important Union victories 
 in the Western States. In Missouri, General Curtis and Gen. Jefferson C. 
 Davis drove back the Confederate forces under General Price, and took 
 possession of Springfield. These operations took place on the i2th and i3th 
 of February, and on the i8th General Price retreated across the Arkansas line. 
 He was closely pursued by General Curtis, a skillful West Point soldier of 
 rare endowments. On the I9th, Price formed a junction with the forces 
 under Gen. Ben. McCulloch. With this re-enforcement he turned about to 
 face the enemy at Sugar Creek, but soon gave way. On the 26th, Price and 
 McCulloch were driven from a strong position at Cross Hollows. There 
 they left their sick and wounded, after burning their barracks. Fayetteville, 
 in Arkansas, was taken, with a large number of prisoners and military 
 stores. Again the Confederates turned upon their pursuers, but they met 
 with a great defeat at Pea Ridge, in northwestern Arkansas. They were 
 commanded by General Van Dorn, aided by Generals Price, McCulloch, 
 and Mclntosh. The Confederates concede that the force under Van Dorn 
 amounted to 20,000 men, while they hold that the Union force under 
 General Curtis was 25,000. On the other hand, the Unionists claim that 
 Curtis commanded only 10,500 men, and that the force of the enemy was 
 twice as great. The battle was fought on the yth and 8th of March. It 
 was one of the first signs of the value of a trained military commander 
 and engineer. It resulted in the rout of the Confederates. They lost 
 1,000 in prisoners, and many killed and wounded. The Union loss was 
 212 killed, 926 wounded, and 124 missing. The Confederates retreated 
 behind the Boston Mountain, and were not pursued. The effect of this 
 victory seems to have been to push the seat of war west of the Mississippi, 
 and from the soil of Missouri to that of Arkansas. The general officers 
 under Curtis were Sigel, Jefferson C. Davis, and Asboth. Colonel Osterhaus 
 was in command of a division and rendered important service. 
 
 The Union forces under Gen. George H. Thomas gained a signal victory 
 on the 1 9th of January, over the Confederates under Gen. George B. Crit- 
 tenden, at Webb's Cross Roads, near Mill Springs, in southeastern Ken 
 tucky. Among the Confederate killed was General Zollikoffer. He was 
 
GENERAL GRANT'S FIRST GREAT EXPLOIT. 175 
 
 second in command. He had been a member of the Thirty-fifth Congress. 
 The forces which achieved this victory were sent out by General Buell, com 
 manding the Ohio Department. They consisted of the Ninth Ohio, Colonel 
 McCook ; the Second Minnesota, Colonel Van Cleve ; the Fourth Kentucky, 
 Colonel Fry ; the Tenth Indiana, Colonel Munson ; the Fourteenth Ohio, 
 Colonel Steadman ; and the Tenth Kentucky, Colonel Haskin ; with two 
 batteries under Captains Stanhart and Wetmore. 
 
 Fort Henry, on the Tennessee River, near its mouth, was captured by 
 Commodore A. H. Foote, on the 6th of February. The garrison consisted 
 of four or five thousand men. They abandoned the fort soon after the fire 
 from the gunboats commenced, and before the strong land force under Gen 
 eral Grant could get up to it through the mud and high water which impeded 
 its progress. They thus escaped, except eighty-three men, including Gen 
 eral Tilghman, but left behind a large amount of cannon, small arms, and 
 stores. Only two Unionists were killed and nine wounded; while the 
 Confederates lost but five killed and ten wounded. Commodore Foote and 
 his men received the thanks of Congress for this exploit, which opened the 
 Tennessee River to the forces of the Union. A fleet of gunboats, under 
 Commander Phelps, immediately advanced up the river as far as the Muscle 
 Shoals, in north Alabama. They destroyed the railroad bridges, and cap 
 tured or destroyed several steamers and other Confederate property. 
 
 The capture of Fort Donelson by the Union forces under General Grant 
 took place on the i6th of February. It required hard fighting. It involved 
 the loss of 1,200 men in killed and wounded on each side. Gen. John B. 
 Floyd, the commander-in-chief of the Confederates, together with General 
 Pillow, his second in command, departed, on the night of the i5th, taking 
 with him some two or three thousand men. He turned over the command of 
 the fort, with the bulk of his army, to Gen. S. B. Buckner ; and from Mur- 
 freesborough, 200 miles away, he describes this desertion of his command, in 
 his official report, as a heroic exploit. He states, that it was unanimously 
 agreed in a council of war that to renew the conflict, after the slaughter of the 
 day, would be vain. He thought, and announced, that a desperate onset upon 
 the enemy's right, where the morning attack had been made, might result 
 in the extrication of a considerable proportion of the command ; but it was 
 likewise agreed that it would result in the destruction of all who did not 
 succeed in effecting their escape. It is not for the writer of these annals to 
 make comparisons as to generals or battles. He proposes only to state re 
 sults, not to criticise or impugn the conduct of battles. But the writer has 
 yet to see any defense of General Floyd's action on this occasion. The fall 
 of Fort Donelson was one of the notable causes which helped to discourage 
 the Confederacy. General Floyd's conduct on this occasion, has always 
 seemed strange. While not unwilling to sacrifice the army under his com 
 mand) and having, as he said, u the right individually to determine" that he 
 
176 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 "would not survive a surrender/' why should he turn the command over to 
 Buckner, and retreat in the night? Mr. Davis, in his message, dated March 
 nth, to the Confederate Congress, showed great dissatisfaction with the con 
 duct of Floyd. He could not understand, with the incomplete returns at hand, 
 "upon what authority or principles of action the senior general abandoned re 
 sponsibility, by transferring the command to a junior officer." General Buck 
 ner surrendered about ten thousand men, with large military stores of heavy 
 guns, small arms, ammunition, and provisions. This capital achievement of 
 General Grant led to others. Bowling Green, in Kentucky, was abandoned. 
 It was taken by General Buell. Nothing now intervened to prevent the gun 
 boats from going up the Cumberland to Nashville, the capital of Tennessee, 
 situated in the heart of that populous and wealthy state. The legislature and 
 governor, anticipating the speedy fall of the city, retired to Memphis, taking 
 with them the state archives and the public money. 
 
 In March, the Union forces, by land and water, under the command of 
 General Pope at the head of 40,000 men, inflicted irreparable damage upon 
 the Confederate cause by the capture of New Madrid and Island No. 10, on 
 the Mississippi, about fifty miles below Cairo. These places were thoroughly 
 fortified and defended by several thousand men. By their capture, 5,000 
 prisoners, with more than a hundred pieces of heavy ordnance, thousands 
 of small arms, and a vast quantity of ammunition and commissary stores, 
 fell into the hands of the Union forces. Clarksville, a considerable town on 
 the Cumberland, half way between its mouth and Nashville, was taken by 
 the gunboats under Commodore Foote. It was taken without resistance, and 
 garrisoned by troops sent up by General Grant, under the command of 
 Brigadier-General Smith. From this point General Smith, under the convoy 
 of a gunboat and transports, proceeded up the river to Nashville. No op 
 position was made to his landing. On the same day, the advance of General 
 BuelPs force, from Bowling Green, Kentucky, arrived. The stars and stripes 
 had been raised on the capitol on the 24th of February, and Andrew John 
 son was a few days afterwards appointed military governor by President 
 Lincoln, with the rank of brigadier-general. Nashville is situated in a section 
 of country of unsurpassed fertility. It had been made by the Confederates 
 a principal depot for their arms and stores. These fell into the hands of the 
 government forces. They supplied General BuelPs army with an abundance 
 of necessaries, after the toilsome march from Kentucky. The wedge had 
 been deftly inserted. Its effect was to open the way to Memphis, and to 
 the whole lower Mississippi. Upon the 4th of June, Forts Randolph and 
 Pillow were evacuated by the Confederates, after a desperate struggle on the 
 river between the gunboats of the opposing forces. In this engagement a 
 Confederate ram well-nigh destroyed the principal boat of the government, 
 the Cincinnati ; but finally the rams and other boats of the enemy were 
 silenced or destroyed. 
 
THE BATTLE AT PITTSBURG LANDING. 177 
 
 Pittsburg Landing, or Shiloh, is situated a few miles above the old town 
 of Savannah, on the Tennessee River. A pivotal battle was fought here on 
 the 6th and 7th of April. It resulted in a decisive victory for the Union forces 
 under Generals Grant and Buell. There was a heavy loss of life on both 
 sides. At the close of the first day the Confederates, who were certainly in 
 stronger force, had driven the Unionists from nearly every foot of ground 
 occupied by them in the morning. They captured all their heavy artillery, 
 camp equipage, and 2,000 prisoners, including the commander of a division, 
 General Prentiss. General Grant, however, rallied his forces, who were 
 being driven back to the river, and held his ground until the timely arrival of 
 two gunboats from below, and of General Buell with a re-enforcement of 
 20,000 men. The gunboats, by shelling the enemy, and promptly landing 
 a portion of Buell's force, stop the advance of the foe. This revives the 
 spirits of the Unionists, just as night is coming on. Early the next morning 
 General Grant, with the aid of BuelFs corps, and of the division commanded 
 by General Lew. Wallace, which arrived during the night, is enabled to 
 take the offensive. A simultaneous advance upon the enemy is made along 
 the whole line. The Confederates make desperate efforts to hold their 
 ground ; but the odds are now against them. They are beaten back. Five 
 o'clock in the afternoon finds them retreating south, in the direction of 
 Corinth. No pursuit is made by the exhausted Union forces. Most of the 
 guns, flags, and camp equipage captured by the Confederates the first day, 
 are abandoned in their retreat. These spoils fall again into the hands of 
 the Unionists. But the Union prisoners, 3,956 in number, are sent off. The 
 Union loss was 1,735 killed, 7,882 wounded, and, as above stated, 3,956 
 prisoners; total, 13,573. The Confederate loss was 1,728 killed, 8,012 
 wounded, and 959 missing; total, 10,699. The Confederates lost in this 
 battle, their commander-in-chief, Albert Sidney Johnston. He was regarded 
 by Jefferson Davis and others as their ablest general. 
 
 On the 8th of June, Mr. Davis announces to the Confederate Congress, 
 " that it has pleased Almighty God to crown the Confederate Arms with a 
 glorious and decisive victory over our invaders." In the same message he 
 deplores the loss of General Johnston as irreparable. Mr. Lincoln, on the 
 loth, with better reason, issues a congratulatory proclamation, saying: "It 
 has pleased Almighty God to vouchsafe signal victories to the land and naval 
 forces engaged in suppressing an internal rebellion." Are there two Gods, 
 a God of the hills and a God of the valley? On the 8th of June, Gen. Wil 
 liam T. Sherman followed the retreating foe. He took the Corinth road. It 
 was badly cut up, in consequence of heavy rain. He found the way strewn 
 with abandoned wagons, ambulances, and camp equipage, and gave aid to 
 a crowded Confederate hospital. 
 
 Major-General Halleck, whose headquarters had been at St. Louis, now 
 came to Pittsburg Landing. He assumed the command of the army. He 
 
178 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 brought with him, or gave orders to follow him, re-enforcements under the 
 command of General Pope, amounting to 25,000 men. He immediately 
 prepared for an advance upon the enemy at Corinth. This was a fortified 
 place situated at the junction of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad with 
 the Mobile and Ohio, some miles south of the scene of the recent battle. 
 General Beauregard, who was second in command to General Johnston, took 
 the place of that officer. On the 2d of May, he issued a stirring bulletin to 
 his troops, in which he claimed the victory on the field of Shiloh. 
 
 The arrival of Halleck subordinates Grant. Serious complaints are made 
 against the former. According to General Sherman, General Grant thinks 
 of asking to be relieved from duty in that quarter. He, however, yields to 
 the appeals of Sherman, and remains as second in command. The entire 
 force under General Halleck is said to be 108,000. The Confederates 
 are also re-enforced. They have gathered an army of 80,000 men, in and 
 around their fortifications at Corinth. This place, naturally strong and 
 strongly fortified, is provided with every appliance of war. But it is doomed 
 to destruction by the hands that made it. About the last of May the Con 
 federates blow up and destroy millions' worth of military stores, which can 
 not be carried off in their retreat. In a dispatch from General Halleck to the 
 Secretary of War, dated May 30, it is stated that the enemy's position and 
 works in front of Corinth were unexpectedly strong. It is the opinion of 
 Halleck that the enemy cannot occupy a stronger position in his flight. An 
 immense amount of public and private property, stores, provisions, wagons, 
 tents, and other material have been destroyed by the enemy. For miles out 
 of the town the roads are filled with arms, haversacks, and equipments of 
 all sorts, thrown away by the flying troops. The deserters and prisoners 
 taken amount to nearly two thousand. The victorious Union troops march 
 into the town on the 3oth of May. The enemy is pursued by the cavalry, 
 under General Pope, for about twenty-five miles, but without results. 
 
 The results of General Halleck's campaign were less fruitful than might 
 have been expected. True, the Confederates were driven out of west Ten 
 nessee. They were forced to sacrifice large quantities of military stores with 
 great loss of prestige. But beyond these advantages to the Union cause, 
 none were tangible. The Confederates, under Bragg, turned back toward 
 the north instead of the south. They threatened Louisville. This move 
 ment caused a dispersion of the great army under Halleck. Buell was sent 
 in pursuit of Bragg, Grant remained in west Tennessee, and Halleck was 
 recalled to Washington to take the chief command of the army. 
 
 During these operations in west Tennessee and north Mississippi, Gen. 
 O. M. Mitchell, the astronomer, was in command of a division of General 
 Buell's army. He marched from Nashville, by way of Shelbyville and Fay- 
 etteville, to Huntsville, Alabama. The last named place he captured without 
 bloodshed. He first struck the Mississippi and Charleston Railroad four 
 
GENERAL McCLELLAN'S ARMY OF THE POTOMAC. 179 
 
 miles from the town. There he stopped, and took possession of a railway 
 train, with 159 prisoners. At Huntsville he quietly took possession of a large 
 amount of rolling stock, including seventeen engines and a great number 
 of passenger and freight cars. This enabled him to take possession of about 
 one hundred miles of the railroad, and thus to cut off Confederate com 
 munications between the east and the west. 
 
 At the opening of the year 1862, the army immediately under the com 
 mand of Gen. George B. McClellan was in Virginia, around Washington. 
 It numbered about two hundred thousand. That of the Confederate general, 
 Joseph E. Johnston, was something like one hundred and seventy-five thou 
 sand strong. It confronted the Union army from Acquia Creek to Win 
 chester. The campaign opened by movements on the part of the Union 
 forces against the left wing of the Confederates. The latter retired, without 
 making serious opposition. They desired a concentration of their forces at 
 Gordonville. They hoped to draw the Unionists away from their base of 
 supplies. Even Centreville and Manassas were abandoned. Long before 
 the Confederates had fallen back there had been a clamor for a movement 
 of McClellan's army. The President had issued a general order to that 
 effect, early in February. It was premature. On the nth of March, 1862, 
 the President issued another order announcing that General McClellan 
 having personally taken the field in command of the Army of the Potomac, 
 would be relieved from the command of the other armies of the Union ; 
 and that the generals in command of the latter would in future report 
 directly to the Secretary of War. This order was regarded as a great in 
 justice by General McClellan and his friends. Whether so intended or not, 
 it weakened him for the expected conflict. It was the beginning of the in 
 dignities which were consummated in his final removal from command. 
 
 The objective point of General McClellan was Richmond. It had been 
 his intention to flank the Confederates at Manassas by a movement on Ur- 
 bana. The retirement of the latter to Gordonville induced him to make 
 his advance from a base on the James or York rivers. He thought that by 
 taking his army to that base by water, he would reach it sooner, and with less 
 loss, than by fighting his way on the line Grant afterward took with such 
 terrible loss of men. Like McClellan's, Grant's movement was for a base on 
 the James River, in case of being unable to carry Richmond by assault. Had 
 McClellan followed the Confederates as Grant did, his campaign would have 
 been like that of the latter, with probably the like result, a base at City 
 Point on the James River. Before McClellan embarked for the peninsula 
 it had been decided in a consultation of corps commanders, that 45,000 
 men would be necessary for the defense of Washington. He afterwards 
 stated that he had left behind 70,000. This included the forces in the Shenan- 
 doah valley. With 85,000 men he arrived at Fortress Monroe. It is the 
 objective point of vantage. It is situated on a point of land between the 
 
l8o THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 York and James rivers. The peninsula formed by the junction of these 
 streams with the waters of Chesapeake Bay is about fifteen miles in width. 
 It is cut up by tributary streams which empty into the bay or these rivers. 
 Fortress Monroe, at Old Point, is on the extreme end of the peninsula, and 
 is separated from Hampton by a creek. Yorktown is a few miles from the 
 mouth of the York River, on its southern side, and within the peninsula. 
 Yorktown was strongly fortified. It was defended by fifty-six heavy guns, 
 which rendered it impracticable for the Union gunboats to ascend the river. 
 The country is flat, and in the spring the roads are impassable. It was 
 necessary to corduroy them, before moving the siege ordnance over them. 
 
 A movement up the James was not considered practicable. Transports 
 would have to run the chances of destruction by the Confederate iron-clad 
 ram, the Virginia. This famous vessel had been repaired and strengthened 
 since her encounter with the Monitor. It was doubtful whether the latter 
 was a match for her, and no other vessel of the Union navy would dare to 
 encounter her. Indeed, while part of McClellan's army was at Fortress 
 Monroe, this famous Confederate ram came out and cleared Hampton Roads 
 of all Federal shipping, thus showing the impracticability of a Union advance 
 on Richmond by the James River. 
 
 Under these circumstances, General McClellan formed the plan of land 
 ing McDowell's corps on the north bank of the York, and passing around 
 the fortifications at Gloucester Point, opposite that town. Thus he would 
 turn the enemy's left, and hem him in between the two rivers. His plans 
 are ready for execution, when he is astounded by the information that 
 McDowell's corps has been withdrawn from his command. On his earnest 
 appeal, a division of that corps, consisting of 11,000 men, is sent forward; 
 but this force is not deemed sufficiently strong to carry out the plan. 
 
 The history of the fitting out of this peninsular campaign shows that the 
 President and Cabinet entertained fears for the safety of the capital. It 
 had been intimated to the former that McClellan's movement would greatly 
 endanger the capital. President Lincoln was privately urged to remove 
 McClellan. Having no reason to doubt the ability of the general whom he 
 appointed, the President declined to remove him. He had hitherto resisted 
 the cabal which the author anathematized in his Bull Run speech. He long 
 sustained, against the clamors of the press and Republican politicians, his 
 faith in General McClellan. But it was believed by many that the Secre 
 tary of War, from whatever cause, not only failed to give a frank and 
 cordial support to that general, but sought to have him removed. A simi 
 lar jealousy of General Grant and General Sherman sprang up afterwards 
 in the mind of the same secretary. 
 
 The next movement of General McClellan was to lay siege to Yorktown. 
 Great preparations were made for this purpose. The heaviest siege guns 
 were trained to bear upon its fortifications. But just when the guns were 
 
THE BATTLE AT WILLIAMSBURG. l8l 
 
 ready to be brought into play, the Confederates, foreseeing the result, evacu 
 ated their works, not only at Yorktown, but entirely across the peninsula. 
 A month had thus been consumed. This place, with the aid of McDowell's 
 corps, might have been taken almost immediately. In the meantime the 
 Confederates strengthened the fortifications of Richmond. They brought up 
 re-enforcements from the south and west. The Union loss in the siege op 
 erations was 300 men. The Confederate loss was probably as great, together 
 with seventy-three cannon, some of large size. 
 
 Williamsburg, the old capital of Virginia, is situated in the midst of the 
 peninsula. It is about ten miles southwest of Yorktown. It is a small town, 
 but has historic interest as the seat of the old colonial government, and of 
 William and Mary College. Here the House of Burgesses used to meet. 
 Here Patrick Henry, " the forest-born Demosthenes," electrified the conti 
 nent, in 1 765, with his superlative eloquence. The Confederates made a stand 
 at this historic spot. There was hard fighting here on the 5th of May. The 
 Union side probably lost more men than the Confederates, owing to the 
 fact that the latter fought behind earth-works, and the Unionists in the open 
 field. The battle of Williamsburg was one of the most hotly contested en 
 gagements of the war. The Confederates were well supported by artillery, 
 while the Union troops fought solely with muskets. The Confederates had 
 slashed the timber for a mile in front of their works. Over this the Union 
 troops had to advance under a galling fire of musketry and cannon. It 
 rained the night before, and all day during the battle. The roads were so 
 badly cut up that they were impassable for even twelve-pound field pieces. 
 Only one light battery could be brought up where the fight was hottest. The 
 divisions of Heintzelman's corps, under Generals Hooker and Kearney, bore 
 the brunt of the battle. But some other Union brigades participated, 
 among them that of General Hancock. Heintzelman's corps suffered se 
 verely in killed and wounded. Here the famous New- York Excelsior Bri 
 gade, and the Second New Jersey Brigade, won their first warlike glory. 
 The main body of McClellan's army was not engaged in this battle. During 
 the night and following day, the Confederates evacuated their works around 
 Williamsburg, and then leisurely retired towards Richmond, leaving many 
 dead in the entrenchments, and wounded in the houses and hospitals of 
 that town. 
 
 Immediately following these events, the Confederates evacuated Norfolk. 
 This took place on the loth of May. The city was quietly occupied by the 
 Union forces under Gen. John E. Wool, who had organized a force for its 
 capture. The writer, in company with a score of members of Congress, 
 visited Norfolk a few days after its occupation by the Unionists. There was 
 a moodiness about its inhabitants as if they felt their doom impending. 
 After a quarter ot a century, the chill of that visit remains. The writer 
 then visited Mr. John S. Millson, by whose side he had the honor to sit in 
 
1 82 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth Congresses. Mr. Millson was a man of 
 good conscience, and of metaphysical refinement in argument. He fore 
 saw the disasters to the South in consequence of her precipitate action. 
 The writer found him in a rear room of his home. He was broken in 
 spirit and reserved in manner. He was another man. He had been a 
 self-confined prisoner, seldom going out of his house among the people by 
 whom he was once so beloved, but who no longer cherished his wisdom or 
 trusted his counsel. It was the writer's first observation of a conquered 
 city. It was worse than a battle-field. The leaden impression was doubled 
 by the gloom upon the faces of some hundreds of slaves, who were huddled 
 in a camp and famishing for rations. This was one of the fatalities of 
 domestic conflict. 
 
 Before Norfolk was evacuated the Confederate iron-clad ram Virginia 
 was abandoned and blown up by its commander ; and at the same time, the 
 strongly fortified works on Craney Island were abandoned. The Union 
 forces were thus left in complete control of the James River, and other Vir 
 ginia waters. In Norfolk, Craney Island, and other fortifications upon the 
 James River, the Confederates left one hundred and twenty-six cannon, in 
 excellent order. 
 
 While Heintzelman was engaging the enemy at Williamsburg, McClellan 
 sent General Franklin's division, on transports convoyed by gunboats, up 
 the York River to West Point, where that broad, deep stream is formed 
 by the junction of the Mattapony and the Pamunky. The force of ten or 
 eleven thousand men was landed on the south side, at a place called Brick 
 House Point, which lies immediately opposite West Point, the latter town 
 being in the fork of the two rivers. A battle was here fought on the ^th of 
 May, in which Franklin was the victor. This success made the lower part of 
 the peninsula untenable for the Confederates ; therefore they concentrated 
 their forces in Richmond, while McClellan cautiously advanced upon it. 
 
 The Union gunboats, including the Monitor, at once proceeded to break 
 the blockade of the James River. " This was soon accomplished up to 
 Drury's Bluff, within eight miles of Richmond. At that point the gunboats 
 were repulsed by the fire from the Confederate batteries, situated upon a high 
 bluff, far above the level of the river. 
 
 The army under General McClellan continued to advance steadily in the 
 direction of Richmond. By the i5th of May a portion of it had reached the 
 " White House," situated on the Pamunky River, about twenty miles from 
 the city. At this place the railroad from West Point to Richmond crosses 
 the Pamunky. But the "White House" acquired historic renown more 
 than a century before it became identified with the great events of 1862. It 
 had been the home of Mrs. Martha Custis, who became the wife of General 
 Washington. The property is said to be still in the family. It was here that 
 the future Father of his Country, when a gallant young officer in the service of 
 
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH McCLELLAN. 183 
 
 the colony, made love to the charming young widow. She was the possessor 
 of a large estate and of priceless virtues. It is said that the President's 
 mansion in Washington took the name ''White House," from her old Vir 
 ginia home on the banks of the Pamunky. 
 
 The Confederates retreat across the Chickahominy. That stream lies 
 north of Richmond, and flows into the James River, a few miles above Wil- 
 liamsburg. General McClellan following, the retreating enemy crosses the 
 Chickahominy at Bottom Bridge and the railroad bridge. The first of 
 these crossings is fifteen miles from Richmond, and the second about ten. He 
 continues to advance, until within seven miles of the city. Skirmishing now 
 begins along the lines. Heavy rains are rendering the roads, in that low, 
 marshy country, almost impassable for wagons and gun-carriages. Pending 
 these movements, General McClellan receives an order from the War De 
 partment, dated May i7th. It informs him that General McDowell will 
 co-operate with him, by marching directly across the country, from the 
 vicinity of Washington. He is directed to form a junction between his right 
 wing and the left wing of McDowell. McClellan sends forward Morrell's 
 division of Fitz John Porter's corps, on the 27th of the month, in the direc 
 tion of Hanover Court House. This place is situated eighteen or twenty 
 miles north of Richmond. The force is commanded by General Porter. 
 Two encounters are had with the enemy. The latter is driven off", after a 
 loss in killed and wounded of between two and three hundred on each side, 
 and of five hundred prisoners by the enemy. The principal battle is at 
 Peake's Station, fifteen miles from Bowling Green, to which place the army 
 of McDowell has advanced. Rendering difficult the junction with the latter, 
 the order comes from Washington to burn the bridges by which alone the 
 re-enforcement could come. At the last moment, when the corps is ready 
 to carry out the President's order to form the junction with McClellan, 
 another order comes, dated May 24th. This order directs McDowell to 
 suspend his movement toward Richmond, and to turn to the aid of Banks, 
 who is hard pressed in the Shenandoah valley by Jackson and Ewell. Banks 
 had been weakened by the withdrawal of Shields' division, which was sent to 
 join McDowell ; and now that division, with McDowell's corps, was to be 
 turned back. General McDowell promptly obeys the order ; but he takes 
 occasion to point out to the President the impossibility of reaching the valley 
 in time to render Banks any assistance ; and that in the meantime the great 
 opportunity of taking Richmond by co-operation with McClellan would be 
 lost. This withdrawal of the assistance of McDowell's corps is regarded by 
 General McClellan, and by Prince de Joinville who accompanied him, as fatal 
 to the campaign. Here again, may be perceived the awkward hands of the 
 unmilitary politician. 
 
 Meantime, Gen. Thomas J. Jackson ("Stonewall") and General Ewell 
 are concentrating for the capture of General Banks, whose force is now re- 
 
184 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 duced to about 6,000 men. Their plan is to get in his rear, and intercept 
 him in his attempt to retreat to Winchester. Banks, however, anticipates 
 their plans and, by a timely move and some desperate righting, manages 
 to make good his retreat to the Potomac. The authorities at Washing 
 ton are thoroughly alarmed by the movements of Jackson. Stanton, the 
 Secretary of War, makes an earnest appeal to the Northern governors to 
 forward, without delay, all the militia at their command. The governors 
 promptly respond, and within twenty-four hours several thousand fresh men 
 are ready to march to the defense of Washington. The pursuit of Banks 
 by Jackson was prompted by the purpose of preventing McDowell from 
 re-enforcing McClellan. The strategy was successful. The succeeding at 
 tempt of the Confederate general upon Harper's Ferry was repulsed, after 
 repeated assaults. 
 
 It soon became necessary for Jackson to look out for his own safe return. 
 Fremont was crossing the mountains from the west, while General Shields' 
 division menaced him from the east. At Cross Keys, near Harrisonburg, 
 a severe but indecisive engagement took place. The Confederates were re 
 pulsed and pursued by Fremont for a few miles, when the latter turned back, 
 by way of Harrisonburg, to New Market. The forces on each side were 
 twenty to twenty-five thousand men. Jackson retreated, having accom 
 plished his object of drawing off re-enforcements which were intended for 
 McClellan. 
 
 On the 25th of May, General McClellan issued an order, announcing to 
 his troops that he was about to cross the Chickahominy. He required them 
 to be ready for battle at a moment's notice. They were to carry three days' 
 rations in their haversacks, and to leave their knapsacks with their wagons. 
 They were enjoined to be cool, firm, and to preserve compact order ; to aim 
 low, and rely on the bayonet. On the same day he completes the repair of 
 the bridges across the Chickahominy. He orders an advance in the direc 
 tion of Richmond. He expects to provoke an engagement ; but McClellan, 
 supposing that General Jackson had come over from the valley and united 
 his forces with those of Lee, the general advance is not rapid. In the mean 
 time Casey's division and other Union troops have crossed the Chickahominy, 
 and are encamped at Fair Oaks, where they are afterwards suddenly attacked 
 and routed by the enemy in overwhelming force. The Confederates, finding 
 that McDowell's corps has not formed a connection with McClellan, decide 
 to attack the latter. A new arrangement is again made by the Washington 
 authorities. McDowell's corps is made a part of the Army of Virginia, to 
 be commanded by General Pope, and with headquarters in front of Wash 
 ington. 
 
 Resulting from the crossing of the Chickahominy was the great battle 
 which took place on May 3ist and June ist at Fair Oaks and Seven Pines. 
 Like that at Pittsburg Landing, it resulted in defeat to the Union forces on 
 
McCLELLAN IN FRONT OF RICHMOND. 185 
 
 the first day, with a recovery of the lost ground and the defeat of the enemy 
 on the second. And as in the one battle the Confederate commander, Gen, 
 Albert Sidney Johnston, was killed, so in the other the Confederate com 
 mander, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, was seriously wounded, and compelled 
 to leave the field. The Confederates fell back upon the works around Rich 
 mond after the fight. The Unionists were in no condition to attack these 
 formidable defenses. If the entire force under General McClellan could have 
 been brought over the Chickahominy on the second day, he might possibly, 
 but not probably, have carried Richmond by assault. But the order to cross 
 came too late, in view of the heavy rains, which swelled the stream. A 
 part of the force on the north side, under General Sumner, arrived in 
 time on the afternoon of the 3ist to prevent disaster. He turned the tide of 
 victory on the day following, just as General BuelFs appearance on the field of 
 Pittsburg Landing changed the fortunes of that day. There may have been 
 reasons for leaving Casey's division exposed to the attack of so strong a force, 
 when the bulk of the army had not passed over the river, which are not ap 
 parent to the casual reader. The Confederate loss in killed and wounded 
 was estimated at 8,000 ; the Union at 5,000 men. 
 
 Active operations against Richmond are now suspended until near 
 the middle of the month of June, when, on the i3th, Gen. J. E. B. Stuart 
 is sent on a reconnoissance in rear of the Union position, at the head of 
 i ,500 cavalry. He crosses the Chickahominy. He sweeps round to Ash 
 land and Hanover Court House. There he encounters small bodies of 
 Union cavalry. They give way before his superior force. Whatever gov 
 ernment property comes in his way is carried off or destroyed. Turning 
 then to the east, he destroys some transports near the mouth of the Pa- 
 munky River, as well as commissary stores. After making a narrow escape 
 of being captured, he returns safely on the i5th to the main army before 
 Richmond. This bold reconnoissance of the enemy convinces General 
 McClellan that there is danger of having his communications with the York 
 River broken, and that it may be necessary to rely upon the James. 
 
 Gen. u Stonewall " Jackson, on the 26th, in execution of the plan adopted 
 by a council of war, moves against the right flank of McClellan, which 
 rests on the north, or left bank of the Chickahominy. This movement leads 
 to a battle at Mechanicsville, a village ten miles north of Richmond. The 
 Union forces there consist of General McCalPs Pennsylvania Reserves, 
 aided by the commands of Generals Morrell and Sykes, amounting to 13,000 
 men. To these are added, while the battle rages, Duryea's Zouaves and 
 some other troops, amounting to two or three thousand men The Union 
 ists are well posted and fortified, and with well-directed artillery they repel 
 the fierce assaults of the superior force of Confederates, now commanded by 
 Gen. Robert E. Lee, during several hours, until nightfall. Then the latter 
 draw ofT. The Union loss is eighty killed, and 150 wounded ; while the Con- 
 
386 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 federates, under Lee, Longstreet and the two Hills, from their more ex 
 posed condition, lose a thousand or more men. 
 
 General McClellan believes that the force of the enemy in and around 
 Richmond is 200,000 men, while his own is only 95,000. He is doubtless 
 mistaken in this supposition, but acting on it, he decides upon the dangerous 
 experiment of changing his base from the York River to the James. Upon 
 the latter he can be supported by the gunboats ; and, if necessary, he can 
 take refuge in the transports which had been sent up that stream under 
 their protection. The Confederate commander fails, at first, to comprehend 
 the purpose of General McClellan ; so that while the latter is having his 
 forces moved south, across the Chickahominy, Lee is sending forward re- 
 enforcements to the north side of that river. The result is, that the main 
 bodies of the two armies are separated by a stream which has been rendered 
 impassable by the destruction of the bridges behind the retreating Unionists. 
 Mechanicsville is situated upon the northern bank of the Chickahominy ; 
 and when General McCall, the commander of the Union forces at that 
 point withdrew and moved down the stream, the Confederates, mistaking the 
 purpose, cross over, some to follow him, and others to move northward to 
 the Pamunky. They cross, expecting to find vast stores of provisions, and 
 intending to destroy the connections of the Unionists by the way of York 
 River. These counter movements of the opposing forces take place on the 
 27th. But it is not without a desperate battle at Games' Mills, in which vic 
 tory alternates from side to side. Although neither claim to have gained the 
 day, the Unionists, under General Foster, make good their retreat across 
 the river, and destroy the bridges behind them. The Confederates are 
 thus held in check by the necessity of rebuilding the bridges ; while the 
 Unionists gain a day in their march through White Oak Swamp to the 
 James River. 
 
 The Confederates now flatter themselves that the whole of McClellan's 
 army will be captured. It is not until they have advanced to the White 
 House, where they are disappointed in finding the place abandoned and all 
 army supplies removed or destroyed, that they realize the truth that McClel- 
 lan's whole army is on the south side of the Chickahominy, falling back in 
 good order to the James River. The bridges must be rebuilt before they can 
 pursue, and this consumes a day. The Union forces under Sumner and 
 Franklin which had been left at Fair Oaks, evacuate their works at that 
 place on the morning of the 29th, and move back a short distance on the 
 Williamsburg road, to the railroad at Savage Station. In the afternoon they 
 are attacked with great fury. The enemy are repelled by the steady fire of 
 the artillery, and the firm line of Hooker's division. During the night Sum 
 ner and Heintzelman, covering the rear, continue their march to the other 
 side of White Oak Swamp. At this point, on the following day, a severe 
 battle is fought, in which the Confederates are defeated. 
 
McCLELLAN'S CHANGE OF BASE AND REMOVAL. 187 
 
 On the afternoon and evening of the next day, July ist, the battle of 
 Malvern Hill is fought. The Union forces are under the immediate com 
 mand of Gen. Fitz John Porter. This is one of the most desperate conflicts 
 of the war. The Confederates are repulsed and driven back with fearful 
 loss ; and at one time it seems as though the great purpose of the campaign 
 would be realized in the capture of Richmond. But as McClellan antici 
 pates that the Confederates will soon be heavily re-enforced, it is not his plan 
 to pursue them. Instead, he falls back to Harrison's Landing on the James 
 River, and there forms an entrenched camp, where he remains until his army 
 moves back again to the defense of Washington. The contest at Malvern 
 Hill closed the celebrated " Seven Days' Battles," in which the Union troops 
 lost 15,849 men, and the Confederates 19,849. Shortly after his Penin 
 sular Campaign, General McClellan was removed from the army. 
 
 The failure to take Richmond by the way of the peninsula induced General 
 Halleck, who became, in July, commander-in-chief, to withdraw the Army of 
 the Potomac from that position, and to place it at Acquia Creek and Fred- 
 ericksburg. The correspondence between Generals Halleck and McClellan 
 shows that the latter thought it impracticable to resume the attack on Rich 
 mond without a re-enforcement of 35,000 men ; while the former held it to 
 be impossible to send such a force without exposing Washington and Mary 
 land to imminent danger. 
 
 In the meantime, as has been stated, a new army is formed of the forces 
 under Fremont, Banks, and McDowell. It is called the Army of Virginia. 
 General John Pope is placed in command of it. He arouses great expecta 
 tions. The Confederates, finding McClellan leaving the peninsula, form the 
 bold design of marching into Northern territory. They propose to capture 
 Washington and Baltimore. Their plans contemplate ulterior conquests, 
 which would lead to the acknowledgment of Southern independence. The 
 first collision of the hostile forces in this northern advance movement 
 is at Cedar Mountain, Mitchell's station, on the Orange and Alexandria 
 Railroad, about seventy miles southwest of Alexandria. The Confederates 
 under Jackson are the assailants. After driving the Union forces for a mile 
 or more, the former are repulsed and held at bay, until the latter, under 
 Banks, are re-enforced. The Confederates then draw off, and are pursued as 
 far as the Rapidan, over which stream they retreat safely. The Unionists 
 lose 1,500 in killed, wounded and missing. The Confederate loss is consid 
 erable ; but it is placed much below the loss of the Unionists. 
 
 A few days after this battle a detachment of Confederate cavalry is 
 captured, bearing an important letter from General Lee. It explains his 
 purpose to make an attack on General Pope, before the Army of the Potomac 
 under General McClellai could unite with him. This scheme of the enemy, 
 which might have been anticipated, causes Pope to fall back and avoid a 
 battle as long as possible. But before he reaches Manassas, where the 
 
1 88 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 government has provided army stores valued at a million, the Confederates, 
 under Ewell, slip in and seize them ; thus furnishing themselves with ample 
 supplies, more than they can consume. These stores equip them for the 
 Maryland raid, or campaign, and they yet destroy vast quantities which they 
 cannot use. 
 
 On the 3Oth, a great battle is fought. It is known as the Second Bull 
 Run battle, in which the losses on each side are heavy. The Unionists are 
 defeated. They are driven across Bull Run. Some further fighting occurs 
 on the 3ist of August and the ist of September, the result of which is, that 
 General Pope is forced to take refuge in the fortifications around Washington, 
 with a loss of fifteen to twenty thousand men. This was a humiliating 
 conclusion of a campaign which was opened six weeks before, with the 
 boastful manifesto that General Pope was accustomed to see the backs of his 
 enemies. " It is not for him that putteth on his armor to boast, as for him 
 that taketh it off." 
 
 The Confederates immediately march into Maryland. They threaten 
 Washington. They move up the Potomac. They cross that river at No- 
 land's Ford, near Point of Rocks. They continue their march to Fred 
 erick. 
 
 The Administration regret having placed Pope in command. Their re 
 liance for the defense of Washington fails now, in the presence of Lee's 
 advancing columns. They acknowledge their error. They restore McClel- 
 lan. That patriotic officer knows no humiliation, where his country's safety 
 is at stake. He promptly rallies the defeated and dispirited Army of Virginia, 
 and, with the aid of some new recruits and his veterans of the Army of the 
 Potomac, which are brought up from the peninsula, he immediately takes up 
 the line of march in pursuit of Lee. The first serious encounter is at Sharps- 
 burg, on September 15. In this battle the fighting is stubborn on both sides. 
 It results in victory for the Union forces, although accompanied by the loss 
 of 443 killed, and 1,806 wounded. The Confederate loss in killed and 
 wounded was probably as large, besides 1,500 prisoners. 
 
 The great battle of Antietam is now fought. It is named from the small 
 stream of that name, a tributary of the Potomac. Upon its banks fighting be 
 gins on September the i7th. Both sides claim to be the victors, but the sub 
 stantial fact remains that the Confederates retreat across the Potomac. They 
 thus abandon their grand expedition into Maryland and Pennsylvania, which 
 was to embrace the capture of Washington and Baltimore. General McClel- 
 lan states that during his brief campaign in Maryland, he captured " thirteen 
 guns, seven caissons, nine limbers, two field-forges, two caisson-bodies, thirty- 
 nine colors, and one signal-flag," and says: " We have not lost a single 
 gun or color." These statements can leave no doubt that the Unionists won 
 the day. McClellan admits that in the two battles he lost a total of 14,794, 
 in killed, wounded, and missing. He states that 3,000 of the enemy were 
 
ANTIETAM WON AND HARPER'S FERRY LOST. 1 89 
 
 buried upon the ground by the Union forces, besides an estimated number of 500 
 buried by the enemy before retiring. He supposes the wounded were in the 
 usual proportion to the killed. He says that 5,000 prisoners were taken ; 
 and concludes that the Confederate losses, including stragglers, must have 
 amounted to at least thirty thousand. The Confederates place their loss 
 much lower. The foregoing statements refer entirely to the results of the 
 righting on the north side of the Potomac ; but in estimating the achieve 
 ments of the opposing forces, there is to be reckoned the capture of Harper's 
 Ferry by the Confederates, with 11,583 prisoners, forty-seven guns, and other 
 munitions of war. This disgraceful surrender was the subject of investiga 
 tion by a court of inquiry. The court decided that it was caused by imbe 
 cility on the part of the officers in charge General Miles, who was mortally 
 wounded, and Colonel Ford, of the Ohio volunteers. The latter was dis 
 missed the service. 
 
 It is hard to insert in this chapter as cold a fact as that in the past sentence. 
 It is hard to say of genial Colonel " Tom Ford," of Ohio, that he disgraced 
 himself in this surrender. It would not be so remorselessly said, if the repu 
 tation of one of Ohio's most gallant officers of the war had not been most 
 unjustly involved in that affair. The writer refers to Col. William H. 
 Trimble. He was the son of Allen Trimble, an early governor of Ohio, 
 and well known to Kentucky. The thoughts of Colonel Trimble were those 
 of patriotic duty. Upon a lofty plane, supported by a principle only not 
 religious, and by a courage that knew no fear, he was, to some extent, 
 involved in the surrender, but by no fault of his. The wheat is often among 
 the chaff. 
 
 Colonel Ford was a man of great physique. He was a rare Republican 
 speaker upon that western tribune the stump. He never failed to tell an 
 anecdote well, whether it had the logical application or not. The writer 
 differed with his Know-Nothing views, and suffered from his trenchant Re 
 publican tendencies and talks, but he could not resist his abounding bonhomie, 
 which never failed to ingratiate an average audience. Colonel Ford has been 
 known to speak for hours and hours, standing on account of his corns 
 in his stocking feet. He could face any audience. Yet the finest scenery 
 vouchsafed to Americans, and the most thoroughly strategic point in our four 
 years* war, failed to inspire him with the elements of soldiery and manhood. 
 
 The Confederates abandon Harper's Ferry immediately after Antietam. 
 This is another proof that they were defeated and driven back ; but the cap 
 ture of the place, with so large a number of prisoners, makes a large offset 
 against their losses. 
 
 The expulsion of the Confederates from west Tennessee and north Mis 
 sissippi in the last days of May, after the battle of Shiloh and the capture of 
 Corinth, has been recounted. Their next rallying point was at Chattanooga, 
 under Gen. Braxton Bragg, with an army of 45,000 men, divided into three 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 corps. These were commanded, respectively, by Major-Generals Wm. J. 
 Hardee, Leonidas Polk, and E. Kirby Smith. General Smith, with 15,000 
 men, struck off from Knoxville into eastern Kentucky, and thence down into 
 the heart of the state. At Richmond, the county-seat of Madison County, 
 he encountered an inferior force of Unionists, who offered battle ; but the 
 latter were defeated, after a hard fight, lasting from the early morning until 
 night. The Confederate general marched thence to Lexington, a wealthy 
 town of ten or twelve thousand inhabitants in the "blue grass" region. 
 No opposition was or could be made to his entrance. He issued a procla 
 mation declaring that he came not as an enemy, but as a friend and liberator 
 of the state from the despotic rule of the North ; that discipline would be 
 maintained in his army ; and that the food necessary to maintain it would be 
 paid for. On the 6th of September, he takes possession of Frankfort, the 
 capital of the state. The governor and legislature, in anticipation of his 
 coming, remove, with the public archives, to Louisville. The banks of 
 Richmond, Lexington, and Frankfort also send their treasures, amounting 
 to a million of dollars, to the northern borders of the state. The governor, 
 James F. Robinson, issues a proclamation calling on the people to rally and 
 expel the invader, for the honor and integrity of the government. The 
 people of Cincinnati and the river counties of Ohio are greatly excited, 
 and in response to the call of Governor Todd, defensive measures are 
 adopted without delay. Gen. Lew. Wallace is placed in command of Cin 
 cinnati, Covington, and Newport, and martial law is proclaimed. 
 
 The writer remembers well two incidents of this time : First, he gave 
 to Governor Crittenden an urgent invitation if driven from his home at 
 Frankfort to come to the writer's house and home in Columbus, Ohio. 
 The governor's response was characteristic for its courtesy and pluck : 
 "Never can I leave Old Kentucky, sir never, when she is in trouble.'* 
 The other incident is connected with the excitement in middle and south 
 western Ohio. The author was then a candidate for Congress ; and being a 
 Democrat was a " suspect." Thousands of citizens rally to defend the Ohio 
 borders and Cincinnati. It is called the Squirrel Campaign. Shot-guns 
 are the weapons. Old powder-horns that belonged to the time of Simon 
 Kenton and Jonathan Zane are brought from their hiding-places. The op 
 posing Republican candidate for Congress is Judge Samuel Shellabarger, 
 who volunteers while the writer remains at home doing much recruiting for 
 the army, and for Congress. The author aids in raising a regiment for 
 Col. Wm. T. McMillern, ex-postmaster at New Orleans. The regiment 
 is raw. It is surrounded before it has gone far into Kentucky and sent home 
 on parole by order of Gen. E. Kirby Smith, " to vote for the Democratic con 
 gressman." This order did the writer some damage ; but as Judge Shella 
 barger was not reaping many laurels on his squirrel adventure, the damage 
 was compensated by the absence of that gifted competitor. Affright over 
 
BATTLES AT CORINTH AND STONE RIVER. 191 
 
 the escapade of the Ohio recruits into the "blue grass" country soon sub 
 sided, and the Democrat was elected on the Lincoln platform of the Union. 
 
 Meanwhile, General Bragg, with the residue of the army under his com 
 mand, moves forward to the support of Gen. E. Kirby Smith. On the 5th 
 of September he enters Kentucky. He strikes the Louisville and Nashville 
 Railroad at Bowling Green. Munfordville, a point on the road some 
 twenty-five *>r thirty miles further north, is held by 4,50x3 Union troops. 
 But after a weak defense, in which the loss of life is inconsiderable, the 
 place is surrendered, and the garrison made prisoners. The railroad bridge 
 over Green River is burned, by which the connection between Louisville 
 and Nashville is broken. Apart from the desire to gain Kentucky to the 
 Southern cause, another main object of the expedition of Bragg was to ob 
 tain supplies of provisions. The resources of the South in meat and grain 
 were nearly exhausted, while Kentucky abounded in these necessaries. 
 Bragg was closely followed by General Buell with a superior force, and 
 was driven back out of the state, by way of Cumberland Gap. The Con 
 federate general adroitly avoided a battle. He succeeded in carrying off 
 some four thousand wagon-loads of provisions, and thousands of fat cattle. 
 
 During these operations in Kentucky, the Confederates under General 
 Price having rallied their scattered forces, threatened active hostilities 
 against General Grant, who now succeeded to the chief command on the 
 Mississippi, with General Rosecrans second in command. A severe en 
 gagement occurred at luka, on the I9th of September, in the State of 
 Mississippi, in which the Confederates were defeated by the Union forces 
 under the immediate command of Rosecrans. The losses were about equal. 
 The Confederates lost three generals killed, namely, Lytle, Berry, and Whit- 
 field. It was expected by the Confederate commander, that General Van 
 Dorn would be able to reach the field of operations before the impending 
 battle should come on. But in this he was mistaken. That officer was not 
 able to reach the scene of hostilities until some days later, when a combined 
 attack upon the strongly fortified works at Corinth was agreed on. General 
 Rosecrans had added greatly to its strength. He was prepared for the as 
 sault, which was expected to be made by the forty thousand Confederates 
 under Van Dorn and Price. A desperate battle was fought on the 3d and 
 4th of October. It resulted in the defeat and rout of the assailants, with great 
 loss. General Rosecrans states that his troops buried i ,423 of the enemy's 
 dead, left on the field, that he captured 2,268 prisoners, and that the 
 Confederate wounded must have exceeded 5,000. Among the prisoners 
 were 137 field officers, captains, and subalterns, representing sixty-nine regi 
 ments. There were captured, also, 3,300 stands of arms, thirteen batteries, 
 fourteen stands of colors, and other trophies. 
 
 The prolonged battle of Stone River, nearMurfreesborough, was fought by 
 the Union forces under General Rosecrans, and the Confederates under Gen- 
 
I :: THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 end Bragg, on die last day of the year 1862 and the first days of 1863. Gen 
 eral Rosecnns had been appointed to the command of the Army of the Ohio in 
 October, and ordered to Cincinnati to take the command. Having gathered 
 up his scattered forces, and added to them the raw levies which were raised 
 ."...: : _- : , ...::.:::;:.. he takes v.v :::v line of march through Kentucky, driving 
 the Confederates before him. H encounters no considerable force of the 
 enemy until he arrives in the vicinity of Nashville. At this point he is 
 confronied bv the large force under the command of General Bragg. This 
 able officer gradual! v draws hack until he reaches Stone River, near Murfrees- 
 borough, thirty miles southeast of Nashville. During the first day's fight, 
 on December 3ist* the Union forces are badly beaten and driven before the 
 victorious enemy ; but, as happened at Shiloh and on other battle-fields dur 
 ing the war. the contest is renewed on the following day, and finally, after 
 three days" hard fighting, results in victory for the Union forces. The Union 
 loss \vas S.-f$5 in killed and wounded, and 3.600 missing. The Confederates 
 must have lost as many, besides being driven from the field and pursued by 
 the victors. 
 
 After the battle of Antietam. the Army of the Potomac, under General 
 McOellan, remained stationary for more than a month. In the meantime 
 the Confederate General Stuart crossed the Potomac and invaded Pennsyl- 
 vania. with a force of 2.500 cavalry. Thev entered Chambersburg, burnt 
 the government store-houses and machine-shops, and returned safely into 
 Virginia with i.ooo captured horses. Great complaint was made against 
 General McOellan by the public, and he was censured for his inactivity, by 
 the Administration. The general-in-chief, by order of the President, on the 
 6th of October addressed a note to him. directing him to cross the Potomac 
 and give batde to the enemy, who was then posted in the Shenandoah 
 Valley and along the Blue Ridge. But for some cause no movement was 
 made until October 26th ; and on the ^th of November, General McClellan 
 was superseded by General Bumside. The order for his removal reached 
 him at Rectortown. on the Manassas Gap Railroad. It was borne to him by 
 Gen. Catharinus P. Buckingham, then assistant Secretary of War. It was 
 the most disheartening order of the war. It was a great surprise to Mc 
 Oellan and the army. It was the consummation of the old plot. It "was 
 doubtless a great mistake, prompted as much by popular clamor, as by a 
 conviction of its propriety on the part of the Administration. 
 
 General McOellan, -when superseded, was moving in the direction of 
 GordoosviDe. He intended to cut off the Confederate army from its con 
 nections with Richmond. General Bumside. however, turned in the direc 
 tion of Fredericksburg. There he was confronted by the Confederate army, 
 which was strongly entrenched south of the city upon elevated ground. Here 
 a desperate and bloody battle was fought on the i3th and I4th days of 
 December. It resulted in the defeat of the Union forces with heavy loss. 
 
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER OPENED. 
 
 General Burnside states his loss at 12.321. in killed, wounded, and 
 On the night of the I4th he retreated to the north side of the river without 
 further molestation. The Confederate loss was inconsiderable. Tbev 
 fought behind their entrenchments, while the Unionists were the ir*M?1iirf* 
 In February. 1862. Commodore Farragut led a naval expedition tor 
 the capture of New Orleans. Commodore David D. Porter was *^*^Hf 
 in command. Gen. B. F. Butler, with about fifteen thousand men, ac 
 companied the naval force. The Confederates had possession of the old 
 United States forts, Jackson on the right, or west bank of the Mississippi, 
 and St. Philip on the left. They had aimed them with 126 guns. These 
 fortifications are situate about seventy-five mTW below New Orleans, **H? 
 twenty-five miles from the mouth of the river. Farragufs fleet consisted of 
 seven steam sloops of nine to twenty-six guns, ten gunboats of four to tvelic 
 guns, and a sailing sloop of seventeen guns. His mortar fleet consisted of 
 twenty schooners, each mounting one large mortar and two small guns. He 
 had also five other JJiwr^ mounting twenty-eight guns. It was not Tmtn 
 April Sth, that all the vessels were got over the bar. The bombardment 
 commenced on the i Sth. It was ( tm*~mmird almost iiiff ifciisly until the 24th. 
 After a terrific cannonade, the fleet passed above the torts, kaiing them in a 
 crippled condition. Farragut proceeded up the rmr to New Orleans. He 
 demanded of the mayor the surrender of the city. After some J^^^^Tr ti^ 
 A*n*nA was complied with, and General Butler, with his mifitaif force, took 
 possession and established martial law. Forts St. PnHip and J^-lm^ sur 
 rendered to Porter on the 27th. after some further inJsttnrr Daring the 
 conflict with the torts the Confederate iron-dad fleet came down the river to 
 their assistance. But to the last one these formidable floating batteries woe 
 caponed or destroyed. The passage of these torts, MMjpmled by the Confed 
 erate fleet, is regarded as one of the most heroic achievements of the wax. 
 After taking powy.inn of New Orleans and MVjMrwt parts of 
 
 ConMncxlmc Farragut penetrated op the \frnsivuf yi with his gimFxarfy and 
 
 having passed the strong fortifications at \ : cksburg. aided the 
 an unsuccessful ***** "M * HTMMB that stroogiv iuttifitd 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE END OF THE WAR. 
 
 VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN OF 1863 OTHER MOVEMENTS OF GRANT BANKS AT 
 PORT HUDSON BURNSIDE SENT WEST HE ARRESTS VALLANDIGHAM 
 HIS WONDERFUL STRATEGY IN CAPTURING THE DEMOCRATIC ORATOR 
 THE TRIAL THE AUTHOR'S EVIDENCE HOOKER DEFEATED IN VIR 
 GINIA LOSS OF STONEWALL JACKSON POPULAR CLAMOR FOR A MOVE 
 MENT VINDICTIVENESS OF THE RADICALS AND ST ANTON MEADE IN 
 COMMAND LEE MOVES NORTH A BOLD DESIGN ON THE CAPITAL AND' 
 NORTHERN CITIES-GETTYSBURG A WATERLOO OTHER BATTLES IN TEN 
 NESSEEATLANTA FALLS SHERMAN MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA 
 THE CAMPAIGN OF i864-'6s THE TENDENCY TO CONCENTRATE ALL FORCE 
 FOR THE GRAND DENOUEMENT RICHMOND FALLS APPOMATTOX RE 
 SOURCES AND COST OF THE WAR THEIR IMMENSITY AND THE COMPEN 
 SATIONS. 
 
 ON the last day of the year 1862, General Sherman was removed 
 from the command of the Army of the T ennessee, and General 
 McClernand, of Illinois, appointed to take his place. 
 The campaign of 1863, against the Confederate army irt 
 Mississippi, was planned and entered upon by General Grant in November, 
 1862. He proposed to send Gen. W. T. Sherman and General McCler 
 nand down the Mississippi River with a strong force, to be aided by a fleet 
 of gunboats, to assail the fortified city of Vicksburg in front and rear, while 
 he, with the body of his army, was to operate in the state north and east of 
 Vicksburg. It is probable that this plan would have been attended with 
 immediate success, but for the enterprise of General Van Dorn. That 
 Confederate leader came up behind Grant as he was advancing south, and 
 on December 2oth, captured and destroyed his vast stores of arms, provi 
 sions, clothing, and ammunition at Holly Springs, a place situated on the 
 Mississippi Central Railroad, about forty miles southeast of Memphis. The 
 stores destroyed here were valued at between four and five millions of dol 
 lars. Their destruction had the effect of arresting the operations against 
 Vicksburg. The commander at Holly Springs was Colonel Murphy. 
 Grant, in a general order, denounced the surrender as disgraceful. This 
 and other dashes of the enemy upon his rear, caused him to fall back 
 
SIEGE AND FALL OF VICKSBURG. 195; 
 
 upon Holly Springs. He had already reached Oxford, thirty miles further 
 south. The delay occasioned by Van Dorn's success gave General Pem- 
 berton time to march into Vicksburg with a large force of Confederates, to 
 meet and thwart the operations of Sherman. The latter, in conjunction 
 with Commodore Porter, commenced operations against the city, in the 
 expectation that General Grant would co-operate ; but after some severe 
 fighting, the enterprise had to be abandoned. The loss of the Unionists 
 in this attempt upon Vicksburg was 191 killed, 982 wounded, and 756 
 missing. 
 
 The capture of Arkansas Post was made on the nth of January. It is 
 situated a few miles up the river from its mouth, and was defended by a 
 large Confederate force. The movement was planned by General Sherman 
 and Commodore Porter before General McClernand took command of the 
 army. To those officers belongs the honor of its execution. The loss of the 
 Unionists was 600 in killed and wounded. The Confederates lost only sixty- 
 five in killed, and eighty- three wounded ; but their whole force of 7,000 men 
 and officers was surrendered, with 8,000 stands of arms, twenty cannon, and 
 a large amount of stores. 
 
 General Grant, whose headquarters were at Memphis, now began the 
 campaign which resulted in the siege and capture of Vicksburg. This great 
 event of the war the capitulation of Pemberton and his army was con 
 cluded on the 4th of July, 1863. Its effect was to open the Mississippi 
 to northern commerce, to divide the Confederacy into two parts, and, taken 
 in connection with the Gettysburg victory of the same day, greatly to revive 
 the hopes of Northern people that the restoration of the Union was at hand. 
 The result of the campaign, as stated by General Grant, was the defeat of 
 the enemy in five battles outside of Vicksburg, the occupation of Jackson, 
 the capital of the State of Mississippi , and the capture of Vicksburg, its gar 
 rison and munitions of war, with 37,000 prisoners, including fifteen general 
 officers, while at least ten thousand of the enemy were killed and wounded, 
 and thousands straggled off, never to be collected again. Besides railroad 
 cars, locomotives, steamboats, and cotton, the arms and munitions of war 
 surrendered were sufficient for an army of sixty thousand men. The Union 
 losses in the series of battles around and at Vicksburg were 1,243 killed, 7,095 
 wounded, and 537 missing ; total, 8,875. President Lincoln, in a brief letter 
 to General Grant, made his "grateful acknowledgment for the almost ines 
 timable service " he had done the country. He admitted that in the progress 
 of the campaign, where he feared a mistake had been made in the course 
 pursued, the general was right, and he was wrong. The achievements in 
 this campaign permanently established the supremacy of General Grant in 
 military affairs. They promoted him to the chief command, and afterward 
 added civic honor to his laurels. The fall of Jackson, the capital of the 
 State of Mississippi, followed that of Vicksburg within two weeks. It 
 
1 96 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 involved a loss by the Confederates of an immense quantity of military 
 stores. 
 
 In March, General Banks, with an army of 15,000 men, and accompa 
 nied by a naval force under Admiral Farragut, laid siege to Port Hudson. 
 This was a strongly fortified position on the Mississippi, about twenty-five 
 miles above Baton Rouge. The investment was, however, rather formal, 
 than substantial. After an unsuccessful bombardment by the fleet, the en 
 terprise was suspended. The Union troops crossed the river, into the 
 Teche country, in pursuit of the enemy. In this expedition a great quantity 
 of Confederate munitions of war was captured and destroyed without much 
 resistance. 
 
 The siege of Port Hudson was again commenced by Banks on May 2ist. 
 Some progress had been made in pushing the approaches, when, on the 
 7th of July, the Confederate commander, Gen. Frank Gardner, heard 
 through some Union soldiers, that Vicksburg had fallen. He thereupon 
 addressed a note to General Banks, stating that if it were true that Vicks 
 burg had surrendered, his position at Port Hudson would be no longer tena 
 ble, and that he would agree to terms of surrender. On being assured by a 
 dispatch from General Grant that the information was correct, he promptly 
 agreed to surrender. The terms were agreed on by a commission of officers, 
 on July 8th. The surrender embraced 6,233 prisoners, fifty-one pieces of 
 artillery, and a large supply of ammunition and small arms. 
 
 At the beginning of the year the Union cause was not in a prosperous 
 condition in the East. After the battle of Fredericksburg, the Army of the 
 Potomac, under General Burnside, remained comparatively quiet for some 
 weeks. Then a movement was made to cross the Rappahannock above Fred 
 ericksburg in mid-winter, which failed, owing to the impassable condition of 
 the roads. The soldiers of the Army of the Potomac ever after humorously 
 called this movement " Burnside's Mud March." After this a serious 
 quarrel was developed between Burnside and his commanders. He recom 
 mended the dismissal of Generals Hooker, Newton, and Brooks ; and that 
 Generals Franklin, W. F. Smith, Sturgis, and others be relieved from duty. If 
 the President refused to sanction these recommendations, General Burnside 
 tendered his resignation. The President declined to sanction the dismissal 
 and removal of the officers named, and also declined to accept the resignation. 
 Burnside was soon after transferred to the West, and placed in command of 
 the Department of the Ohio. He was succeeded in the Army of the Poto 
 mac by Gen. Joseph Hooker, whose dismissal from the army he had recom 
 mended. 
 
 General Burnside, in the beginning of May, 1863, was stationed at Cin 
 cinnati. Ohio was not in flagrant war, in any sense, yet this defeated gene 
 ral began belligerent operations at once. He sent a portion of his staff in 
 citizen's dress to Mount Vernon, in that state, to report Mr. Vallandigham's 
 
GENERAL HOOKER AT CHANCELLORSVILLE. 197 
 
 speech ! As the testimony turned out, and as the author of this book testi 
 fied on oath, fortified by Vallandigham's statement, the words alleged against 
 the latter were spoken by the writer. The arrest of Vallandigham followed 
 on the 5th of May, 1863. It was not a brave exploit, though eminently 
 strategic. It was described at that time by the author, with Caesar's brevity, 
 thus: "Night special train house guarded near V.'s residence depot 
 under guard quick, cautious movement doors broken bedroom en 
 tered prisoner captured placed in cars and gone all in thirty min 
 utes ! " The mind that planned this dash on the bedroom of a Democrat had 
 just felt the stings of defeat at Fredericksburg ! 
 
 The author had been summoned by telegraph to Cincinnati, to appear 
 at the trial forthwith. It was a rude and impudent missive. He was com 
 manded to leave on the night train. He went through Dayton, the residence 
 of the arrested statesman. The excitement was intense. So it was at 
 Hamilton. The depot had been burned. Arriving at Cincinnati at daylight 
 he had a conference with General Burnside. There was little talk about the 
 arrested man, as the General said that word might be sent to Mrs. Vallan 
 digham that her husband would soon be released. But there was much 
 talk about the late Virginia battles ; and, to do General Burnside justice, he 
 yearned to go back, as he said, to take a subordinate command under General 
 McClellan, on whom he passed unmeasured encomiums. He asked the 
 writer to present his wishes to President Lincoln. 
 
 In the latter part of April, General Hooker commenced operations 
 against the enemy, who was entrenched on the opposite side of the Rappa- 
 hannock. In the battles of the Wilderness and Chancellorsville, like that at 
 Fredericksburg in the winter, while the commander of the Union army had 
 perhaps the advantage in the number of men, the Confederates had the 
 advantage of acting on the defensive. They fought their assailants on 
 their own chosen ground. It is true, also, that General Hooker brought 
 only a part, as it is said less than half, of his force into action. He crossed 
 the Rappahannock about twelve miles above Fredericksburg with the main 
 body of the army, and sent General Sedgwick with the Sixth Corps across, 
 a few miles below that town, to take and hold the heights where Burn- 
 side had failed. The intention was to hold these heights while Hooker 
 would push toward them in rear of Fredericksburg, and thus force Lee out 
 of his works, or capture him. These movements were made with great 
 celerity. Sedgwick took the heights, and Hooker simultaneously reached 
 the strong position at Chancellorsville. Here, while Hooker was about to 
 push on, Sedgwick, instead of remaining in the captured works, finding, 
 apparently, a small force in his front, marched out to join the advancing 
 columns of Hooker. At this moment, Lee threw a crushing force against 
 Sedgwick and drove him back to the river ; then by a rapid march he 
 advanced with his whole force on Hooker. Jackson (" Stonewall") struck 
 
198 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the first blow. It fell on Schurz's division of the Eleventh (Howard's) 
 Corps. That division was in the advance. Instead of being on the qui 
 vive, the troops were in bivouac with arms stacked. The result was that they 
 were completely routed ; and two divisions sent out under Sickles, leading 
 the movement in rear of Fredericksburg toward Sedgwick, were for a while 
 cut off from the main army. The plan thus miscarried, and Hooker was put 
 on the defensive at Chancellorsville. He entrenched with both flanks resting 
 on the river in his rear, in the shape of a horseshoe. This position was im 
 pregnable, and its defenders were in high spirits. It was repeatedly assaulted 
 by the Confederates with great loss. But the movement having miscarried, 
 Hooker, after holding the position a few days, withdrew his army to its old 
 encampments in front of Fredericksburg. His loss in killed is stated at 
 1,512, in wounded, at 9,518, and 2,500 missing; total, 13,530. General 
 Hooker claimed that he had inflicted heavier blows than he received ; that 
 he had taken from the enemy 5,000 prisoners, fifteen colors, seven pieces 
 of artillery, destroyed depots filled with vast amounts of stores, destroyed 
 his communications, and placed hors de combat eighteen thousand of the 
 enemy's chosen troops. This statement may be an exaggeration, and yet 
 the Confederates in every great battle, even when they were victorious, had 
 relative losses, which tended to their exhaustion. The Union commanders 
 could afford to lose. They had unlimited resources. A great government 
 and people were behind them. The Confederates were relatively small in 
 resources. As the result of no one of their victories did they gain ground 
 that they could hold longer than a few days or weeks; whereas, as this 
 brief narrative will show as conclusively as a more elaborate history, they 
 were losing ground from the beginning to the close of the struggle. 
 
 Among the greatest losses sustained by the Confederates in these battles 
 near Fredericksburg, was that of General " Stonewall" Jackson. It is said 
 that he was wounded on the 2d of May by the firing from a regiment of his 
 own troops ; and that they mistook him and his staff for Union cavalry. His 
 wounds in the shoulder and hands were not mortal in themselves, but they 
 predisposed his system to pneumonia, of which he died, at Bowling Green, 
 on May loth. General Lee wrote him a brief yet beautiful letter on the 
 4th, in which he said : " Could I have directed events, I should have chosen, 
 for the good of the country, to have been disabled in your stead." At the 
 very moment General Jackson was shot, a scouting party of five soldiers, of 
 the Fifth regiment of the New- York Excelsior Brigade, were on the Orange 
 plank road, outside the picket line. It was a clear moonlight night. They 
 saw and heard Jackson's cavalcade approaching. They were on the lookout 
 to ascertain whether the troops massing in front (Jackson's corps) was Sickles, 
 with his two divisions which had been cut off, as stated, by the break of the 
 Eleventh Corps. If Sickles should come in by this way, he would be taken for 
 the enemy, and be fired upon by the Union line of battle, unless his identity 
 
" STONEWALL " JACKSON'S DEATH. 199 
 
 should be ascertained. These scouts have just heard the commands given to 
 several Confederate regiments by name. By the movements ordered they 
 know that the latter are being massed in column. At this moment the 
 scouts hear and see the horsemen approaching. They immediately turn to 
 give information that it is the enemy who is in front. Thereupon a few shots 
 are fired by the pickets of the Second New Jersey brigade, on the left of the 
 plank road and to the rear of the scouts. At the same moment a volley is 
 fired by the Confederate pickets from the opposite direction. Some of the 
 bullets come whizzing over the heads of the scouting party. One of the 
 latter, who is at the author's elbow as he pens this incident, says that the 
 firing on both sides was so nearly simultaneous that it was impossible to tell 
 which side fired first. Therefore, it is as reasonable to say that General 
 Jackson got a soldier's mortal wound from the enemy's line of battle, as to 
 attribute his death to an accident of his own men, who should have seen 
 him and his staff in that clear moonlight, passing out to reconnoiter the 
 front. The moment after this firing takes place the Union pickets fall back 
 precipitately, and a regular line of battle fire is opened on both sides. Be 
 fore the little party went out on the hazardous duty of reconnoitering ap 
 proaching troops, in front of regiments in the order of battle, word was 
 passed along the line not to fire until they reported back, or there was reason 
 to believe they were captured. This precaution has been disregarded under 
 the galling fire pouring in from the front. The scouting party are thus be 
 tween two fires. Which way would they flee? They can lie down in the 
 ditch beside the road and be comparatively safe. But delay in giving word 
 that the enemy is massing for an assault may bring great disaster to the army. 
 A dash must be made through the leaden storm. There is one black space 
 in the blazing line behind these intrepid soldiers. Their own regiment, 
 true to its promise, withholds its fire. They make the dash through the 
 open timber for that dark line. They gain it unscathed ! They give their 
 important information. Hooker masses his artillery on the ridge behind 
 this line. At two o'clock in the morning, and again at daylight, the Con 
 federates advance on the charge. The artillery sweeps their ranks with 
 terrible slaughter. Jackson's famous corps is repulsed and almost decimated. 
 Hooker names these scouts for decorations. The writer's friend wears on 
 his breast the " Medal of Honor " for that night's work. 
 
 The experience of President Lincoln in the direction of military affairs in 
 Virginia had not justified him in departing from his maxim, that "a man 
 should not swap horses when crossing a stream," and when the current is 
 sweeping him away. He superseded McClellan in the summer of 1862, 
 because he had failed to capture Richmond with an inferior force. He 
 soon found out that he had made a bad exchange by substituting Pope in 
 the chief command. He restored McClellan just in time to save the North 
 from invasion and to drive back the invader. But, growing impatient of delay, 
 
20O THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 he again changed McClellan for a soldier untried in great commands. It is 
 but just to the late amiable Senator from Rhode Island General Burn- 
 side to say that he reluctantly accepted the chief command. He admitted 
 his incapacity to command so great an army, and preferred to serve under 
 McClellan. The disaster at Fredericksburg justified his modest estimate of 
 his own abilities. It induced the President to exchange again, but with no bet 
 ter success. The unsuccessful results of the week's fighting in the Wilderness 
 and around Chancellorsville, convinced the President that " Fighting Joe 
 Hooker " had not the military genius which was to save the country. What 
 now is the alternative? Another exchange. It is but justice to President 
 Lincoln to say, however, that this chronic habit of changing commanders 
 with every change in the seasons, or the moon, was not the result of weak 
 ness of judgment or whim on his part. It arose from an excessive defer 
 ence to popular clamor, expressed by the newspapers and politicians. His 
 War Secretary, Edwin M. Stanton, was a fierce and vindictive man. He had 
 his dislikes and jealousies of every man of real talent and military merit. He 
 lost no opportunity for making them feel his power. This man, though a 
 secession sympathizer at the beginning of the war, as Judge Black proved, 
 and as the author personally confirms, had acquired, by dint of vindictive 
 hatred of his old friends and associates, and by a degree of vigor unex 
 ampled in the performance of official duties, a wonderful hold on the con 
 fidence of Northern men, and especially upon those of extreme views 
 regarding the South. He especially disliked McClellan, Grant, and Sherman. 
 All great events are more or less affected by such private hatreds or partialities. 
 
 Early in June, General Lee began to prepare for an important move 
 ment. Before the loth of the month his forces were in motion in the 
 direction of the valley of Virginia. On the i4th, having passed through 
 Snicker's Gap, they invested Winchester, which was held by General 
 Milroy with 7,000 men. Some resistance was made, when that officer called 
 a council of war, which decided to abandon the place and retreat to 
 Harper's Ferry. The attempt to execute this movement was discovered by 
 the enemy. Most of the retreating Unionists were captured, with their 
 arms and baggage. Martinsburg, a few miles farther north, also fell into 
 the hands of the enemy ; after which they were free to send raids into Mary 
 land and Pennsylvania, and help themselves to clothing, horses, and what 
 ever they wanted, at their own prices in Confederate money. Otherwise, 
 they behaved with an exemplary prudence that might well have been imi 
 tated in many parts of the belligerent land. Gen. George G. Meade, on 
 June 28th, superseded General Hooker, who, totally unexpectant of a change, 
 was pushing on his columns through Maryland to give battle to Lee in the 
 vicinity of Gettysburg. 
 
 The movement, above recorded, led to the march of the Army of the 
 Potomac in pursuit of Lee. It eventuated in the great battle of Gettysburg. 
 
LEE AND MEADE AT GETTYSBURG. 2OI 
 
 This protracted struggle, commencing on the first day of July and ending on 
 the third, was one of the most sanguinary of the war. It resulted in the defeat 
 of the Confederates, with heavy losses on both sides. It was a defeat ; because 
 it was a failure of the bold and comprehensive purposes of the Confederate 
 authorities. They designed the capture of Washington, Baltimore, and 
 Philadelphia, and other conquests farther north. In place of these results, 
 which might have been fatal to the cause of the Union, General Lee, with 
 his splendid army, was fearfully crippled. He was driven back to Virginia. 
 General Meade states his own losses to have been 2,834 killed, 13,709 
 wounded, and 6,643 missing; total 23,186. On the 31 st of July, General 
 Lee said in his official report, that he was not then able to give a correct 
 statement of his casualties, " which were severe, including many brave men 
 and an unusual proportion of distinguished and valuable officers." 
 
 General Meade, in his report dated October ist, summed up the results of 
 this campaign, in the defeat of the enemy, their compulsory evacuation of 
 Pennsylvania and Maryland, their withdrawal from the upper valley of the 
 Shenandoah, the capture of many guns, forty-one standards, 13,631 prisoners, 
 and 34,987 small arms. He fails to say how many of the enemy were killed 
 and wounded. The reports of the Sanitary Commission show that 7,262 of 
 the severely wounded were left on the field, to be cared for by the Union 
 forces. All who could bear transportation probably a greater number 
 were carried off in the retreat. It is said, also, that the Unionists buried 
 4,500 of the Confederate dead, and that the Confederates themselves spent 
 the 4th in the same pious work. At this rate, their losses in killed, 
 wounded, and prisoners must have amounted to nearly forty thousand. It 
 has been said that a large militia force of Pennsylvania and New-York was 
 engaged in this battle. This is not true. To the Army of the Potomac alone 
 belongs this splendid victory. Hooker had the previous winter given to it 
 an unsurpassed organization and unlimited confidence ; and his successor, 
 General Meade, had no superior in generalship. 
 
 During the month of September there was, in the West, a concentration 
 of the forces of both belligerents in the vicinity of Chattanooga. It became 
 evident that a great battle was approaching. The Union forces under the 
 command of General Rosecrans held that town. The enemy had evacuated 
 it and retired to the mountain fastnesses. The main body of the Union 
 army came by way of the southwest, along the valleys of Lookout Moun 
 tain, and the Chickamauga, and other tributaries of the Tennessee River. 
 The battle of Chickamauga began on the i9th of September. It was 
 renewed on the 2Oth. It resulted in the defeat of the Union forces, but not 
 without inflicting losses on the victors equal to those suffered by the van 
 quished ; while the latter were permitted, on the 2ist, to retire from the 
 field without serious interruption. The loss of the Unionists in the two days' 
 battles was 1,644 killed, 9,262 wounded, and 4,945 missing or prisoners, to- 
 
 13 
 
202 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 gather with thirty-six cannon, 8,540 small arms, and other war material. 
 General Bragg admitted his losses to have been heavy. They have been 
 stated by Union authorities at 18,000 men. 
 
 In October following this defeat of the Union forces, General Grant was 
 appointed to the chief command of the departments of Tennessee, Cumber 
 land, and Ohio, and General Rosecrans was relieved. Gen. W. T. Sher 
 man was placed in command of the Army of the Tennessee, and General 
 Thomas in command of the Army of the Cumberland. 
 
 Now comes the grand struggle for the control of the railroads which pass 
 through Chattanooga, and of the Tennessee River on which the town stands, 
 together with the fertile regions to which they give access. This struggle led 
 to another great conflict in the vicinity of that town. It is known as the battle 
 of Chattanooga. In this brjef sketch only results can be stated. General 
 Grant had the powerful aid of General Sherman, who came up from the south 
 west in time, together with Thomas, Hooker, Howard, and other able offi 
 cers. General Bragg commanded the Confederates. He had charged in 
 his report that General Polk had disobeyed orders at the battle of Chicka- 
 mauga. This disobedience, as he alleged, had prevented the annihilation of 
 the Union army. In consequence of this grave charge, Polk was relieved 
 from command and arrested. This was in September. Bragg had sent Long- 
 street to Knoxville to besiege Burnside. His second in command was Gen 
 eral Hardee. Grant availed himself of this state of things to attack the Con 
 federate commander. He achieved a complete victory. General Grant says 
 that his losses in these battles around Chattanooga were 757 killed, 4,529 
 wounded, and 330 missing ; total, 5,616. He estimated the loss of the enemy 
 at less than his own, owing to the fact that he was protected by entrench 
 ments, while the Unionists were the assailants. He says, however, that the 
 enemy's losses at Knoxville were many times greater than his own, which 
 would make the aggregates about equal. The Confederates lost, from Octo 
 ber 20 to December i, in deserters and prisoners alone, 6,142, together 
 with forty cannon, 2,336 rounds of artillery ammunition, 6,175 stands of 
 small arms, with much other war material ; but their greatest loss was the con 
 trol of the river and railroads, by which their resources were fatally crippled, 
 and their communications with the West were cut off. General Grant, in an 
 address to the armies of the Cumberland, the Ohio, and the Tennessee, near the 
 close of the year, summed up the results of the campaign by telling them that 
 in a short time they had recovered from the control of the enemy the Tennes 
 see River from Bridgeport, near Chattanooga, to Knoxville ; that they had 
 dislodged him from his great stronghold upon Lookout Mountain, driven 
 him from the Chattanooga valley, wrested from his grasp the possession of 
 Missionary Ridge, repelled with heavy loss his repeated assaults upon 
 Knoxville, and compelled him to raise the siege there and to retreat beyond 
 the limits of the state. 
 
LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT IN CHIEF COMMAND. 203 
 
 By the end of the year, great inroads were made upon the Confederacy. 
 General Grant held the railroads from Chattanooga to Nashville, and from 
 Memphis and Charleston to Tuscumbia and Florence. The Mississippi 
 River was open to the Gulf. The capital of Arkansas was in possession of 
 the government. The Confederates were expelled from Tennessee and Ken 
 tucky. General Meade confronted Lee at Culpepper Court House. Win 
 chester, Martinsburg, and Harper's Ferry, together with the sea-ports of the 
 Atlantic and Gulf coasts, from Old Point in Virginia to Texas, were, with 
 two or three exceptions, in possession of the Union forces. At the beginning 
 of the conflict, all the territories controlled by these places, with their lines of 
 communication and war resources, were in the hands of the Confederates. It 
 is one of the wonderful feats of persistent human nature, that the Confed 
 erate leaders were able to keep up the struggle on such a gigantic scale as 
 they did, after losing such strategic and pivotal advantages in locality, prestige, 
 and power. True, they could still draw recruits from the lost territory ; but 
 their only chance of obtaining supplies of provisions from within the Union 
 lines, was by the capture of baggage-trains and depots. It is discreditable 
 to the vigilance of the Union commanders, that the Confederate foragers 
 were so often successful in such raids. It was a common humorous re 
 mark, that the Unionists furnished the elements of war for the Confederates. 
 
 Many interesting events of this year, leading up to other great events, 
 or ending in failure, must be passed over. Of the latter description were 
 the combined naval and military operations against Charleston. 
 
 Early in the year 1864, General Sherman, advanced into the interior of 
 the State of Mississippi, as far as Meridian. He destroyed in his march 
 the military stores of the Confederates. He broke up the railroads more 
 effectively than had ever been done before. But Gen. W. S. Smith, who 
 was to have formed a junction with him at Meridian, failed to appear. It 
 turned out that he failed to leave Memphis until about the time of Sherman's 
 arrival at Meridian, and that he had met and been defeated by Forrest. In 
 consequence of this mishap, Sherman abandoned the pursuit of the Con 
 federates. The latter were commanded by General Polk, who retreated south- 
 eastwardly . Sherman then returned with his force of about thirty thousand 
 men, to Vicksburg. 
 
 On the 2d of March, 1864, General Grant was raised to the rank of 
 Lieutenant-General. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Armies 
 of the United States on the I4th. His headquarters were at Washing 
 ton. The Army of the Potomac, under the immediate command of Gen 
 eral Meade, had its headquarters near Culpepper Court House since Decem 
 ber, 1863. May 4th, General Grant crossed the Rapidan and advanced upon 
 Lee's lines. At this time there was a concerted movement upon Richmond, 
 one up the James River, one up the Shenandoah, and Grant's direct 
 one. The object was to prevent a concentration of the Confederate forces, 
 
204 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 as had often happened when the main attack had been made at one point 
 only. Being within the curved line of defense, it was not difficult, when 
 a single point was assailed, for the enemy to concentrate his forces there. 
 This advantage was lost when all points were assailed at once. 
 
 It is curious to note how contending armies are prone to gravitate to par 
 ticular points for mortal combat. When duelling was the fashion at the capi 
 tal, the parties were wont to meet at Bladensburg. During the wars between 
 the Moors and Spaniards, which lasted seven centuries, most of the battles 
 were fought at the point known now as the Bridge of Alcolea. It is at the 
 mountain gateway between the plateaus of the south and north. When the 
 writer was in Spain there was a crucial battle there, almost by chance, 
 between the national forces and Queen Isabella's army, by which Serrano, 
 as victor, became President of the Junta, and General Prim minister of war 
 of a temporary republic. Such localities for battles are not, in fact, fortuitous. 
 They depend, as a New- York colleague, Mr. Abram S. Hewitt, once said 
 of the harbor of New-York, not on man but on nature and God : "It is," 
 said he * ' the work of that same Almighty power which ordered the arrange 
 ments of nature, that water could be made to flow from the great lakes to 
 New-York." The stratifications of geology and the upheavals of the earth 
 by internal fires, make the pivots on which human skill in killing our kind 
 turn, when arranging strategy for war. It is not strange that in our Civil 
 War we had two battles in different years at Bull Run, two in the vicinity of 
 Chattanooga, and three in the vicinity of Fredericksburg. No sooner had 
 General Grant, in May, 1864, made a movement in the direction of the 
 Rapidan, than General Lee began to concentrate his forces on the old battle 
 fields of Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, and Fredericksburg. 
 
 On the 5th of May, 1864, Grant began one of the most remarkable series 
 of great battles recorded in history. For ten days the fighting was almost in 
 cessant. The number of killed and wounded on each side amounted to 
 twenty-five or thirty thousand. The Union loss in killed and wounded was 
 23,800, and in prisoners, 3,900. The loss of the Confederates in killed and 
 wounded is unknown, but it must have been great. They lost 8,000 
 prisoners, besides stragglers. They held their own each day, but night 
 by night they were gradually drawn, by flanking movements, from the 
 ground occupied by them. Thus they fell back from the Rapidan to Spott- 
 sylvania Court House. In their fortified position at this place, the Confed 
 erates were taken by surprise on the foggy morning of May 12, by a dashing 
 charge of Mott's division the remnant of the old Third Corps of Han 
 cock's corps, and driven from their strong line of entrenchments with the 
 loss of many prisoners. Lee made several desperate attempts the same day 
 to regain this position, all of which were repulsed with terrible slaughter by 
 Mott's veterans. There is now in the War Department, at Washington, a 
 relic of that day's fight, the stump of a white-oak tree, that was cut down 
 
GRANT AND LEE ENCOUNTER EACH OTHER. 205 
 
 by Union bullets in front of an angle of the breastworks, where the Confed 
 erate dead lay piled in heaps. What a monument to desperate valor ! Sev 
 eral Confederate officers of high rank were killed or captured that day. The 
 Unionists had to deplore the loss of General Sedgwick some days before. 
 
 The campaign continues. It is a march towards Richmond by the flank 
 on both sides both sides entrenching as they go. At length, on the 2oth, 
 General Grant leaves the enemy in his entrenchments. He moves rapidly 
 in the direction of Richmond, in the hope of drawing him out. He takes 
 possession of Milford and Guinea stations on the Richmond and Fred- 
 ericksburg Railroad, still he finds Lee in his front. Before the end of 
 the month Grant fights his way to the vicinity of the ground fought 
 over two years before by McClellan, between the Pamunky and Chicka- 
 hominy rivers, and makes the White House, on the Pamunky, his base of 
 supplies. It is in one of the many sharp encounters in this locality that the 
 able Confederate, Gen. J. E. B. Stewart, is mortally wounded. On the 
 first and third days of June, severe battles are fought at Cold Harbor, ten 
 or twelve miles northeast of Richmond. In the first of these the Confed 
 erates are the assailants. They are repulsed with heavy loss. In the 
 second, General Grant attacks the Confederates, purposing to drive them 
 across the Chickahominy. The enemy is driven within his entrench 
 ments, but no decisive advantage is gained. The Union loss was about 
 7,500 during these days. The Confederate loss was probably not so great. 
 On the second day Lee fought behind entrenchments. 
 
 By the I2th of June, General Grant, finding it impossible to dislodge 
 Lee from his works on the Chickahominy, determined to cross to the south 
 side of the James River. He then marched across the peninsula toward 
 City Point. Here he crossed without opposition on the i5th, as General 
 Butler had already won that position by a brilliant dash up the river. The 
 Eighteenth Corps embarked on transports at the White House. It was 
 conveyed down the York River and up the James to Bermuda Hundred, 
 which was also held by General Butler. This change of base, from the 
 front of Richmond, unlike that of General McClellan over the same 
 ground two years before, was made almost without opposition. The lack 
 of opposition now, is a sure proof of decay in the vital aggressive powers of 
 the Confederacy. During the terrible and sanguinary fighting of General 
 Grant on the north of Richmond, General Butler, operating from the Appo- 
 mattox and the James, temporarily cut off the communications of the Con 
 federates with the south, by destroying the Petersburg and Weldon, and the 
 South-side railroads. He also held Beauregard's army in check at Peters 
 burg and Bermuda Hundred. But Petersburg was not taken, and no essen 
 tial damage was done to the railroads. 
 
 The leading corps of General Grant's army cross the James on the i/ith 
 of June. He proceeds to assault the Confederates in their works at Peters- 
 
206 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 burg. Hard fighting occurs nearly every day during the latter half of 
 the month, with no decisive results, and with heavy loss to the assailants. 
 There is a lull in active operations during the month of July, except in 
 the construction of a mine under one of the Confederate fortifications, at 
 great cost of labor. This enterprise was projected by Lieutenant Colonel 
 Pleasants, of Pennsylvania. Although it was successfully executed, and four 
 tons of powder were exploded, destroying the fortification and opening a 
 wide passage into the Confederate lines, it came to worse than nothing. 
 The plan was to open a cannonade along the whole line, while the storm 
 ing party was to rush in when the mine was sprung, and before there 
 was time for the enemy to recover from the astounding confusion. The 
 cannonading commenced immediately ; but the storming party was prob 
 ably more surprised than the enemy. The able and courageous commanders 
 of the Confederates had re-enforcements at hand. The result was, that in 
 stead of capturing Petersburg, the Unionists lost 4,000 men in their un 
 successful assault. 
 
 Fighting continued during the summer and autumn. It was attended with 
 varied success, but, on the whole, little progress was made toward the cap 
 ture of the Confederate capital. The Union losses were far greater than 
 those of the Confederates. It seemed as if the resources of the Federal Gov 
 ernment were inexhaustible, while those of the Confederates were rapidly 
 dwindling away. It had long been apparent to calm observers that the over 
 throw of the Confederacy was now only a question of time. Its resources 
 and territory had grown less and less from year to year, and from month to 
 month ; and it was now manifest that the end was near. 
 
 General Sherman, in command of the combined armies of the Cumber 
 land, the Tennessee, and the Ohio, moved out from the vicinity of Chat 
 tanooga on his Georgia campaign, about May 5th. Gen. George H. 
 Thomas commanded the Army of the Cumberland, composed of 60,773 offi 
 cers and men, with 130 guns. The Army of the Tennessee contained 24,465 
 officers and men, with ninety-six guns. It was commanded by General 
 McPherson. The Army of the Ohio, composed of 13,559 officers and 
 men, with twenty-eight guns, was commanded by General Schofield. The 
 force under General Sherman, therefore, consisted of 98,797 officers and men, 
 with 254 cannon ; of which 88,188 consisted of infantry, 6,149 of cavalry, and 
 4,460 of artillery. 
 
 The Confederate army opposed to Sherman was commanded by Gen. 
 Joseph E. Johnston. It consisted, on the ist of December, 1863, as stated 
 in Johnston's report, dated Oct. 20, 1864, of 36,826 infantry and artillery, 
 and 5>6 J 3 cavalry; total, 42,439. At the beginning of the campaign in 
 May, his force had been increased by 44,900, of which " about 4,000" con 
 sisted of cavalry. During the progress of the campaign considerable addi 
 tions were made to this force, so that when he turned it over to General 
 
SHERMAN'S MARCH FROM ATLANTA TO THE SEA. 207 
 
 Hood, on the i7th of July, it amounted, in spite of heavy losses, to about 
 41,000 infantry and artillery, and 10,000 cavalry. He admits a loss of 
 u about 10,000 killed and wounded, and 4,700 from all other causes." In 
 his "address to the army, on taking leave of it, he said: "The enemy 
 has never attacked but to be repulsed and severely punished " ; and yet, 
 had he not retreated, bravely, to be sure, before that enemy, from 
 post to post, all the way from Dalton, in the vicinity of Chattanooga, to 
 Atlanta? General Johnston was superseded by General Hood, on the 
 ground that the former had disobeyed orders in failing to attack the 
 enemy while the latter was in favor of an aggressive campaign. The aggres 
 sive policy, however, was even more disastrous than the other. It resulted, 
 in six weeks, in the loss of Atlanta, with many thousand men. 
 
 The Union losses in killed, wounded, and missing, during the campaign 
 from Chattanooga to the capture of Atlanta, on September ist, are stated to 
 have been 30,400. The Confederates, before evacuating, destroyed nearly 
 all their immense mass of military stores ; still, twenty-seven cannon, some 
 thousands of small arms, and other property, were found secreted by the 
 victors. This central position was the last stronghold of the Confederates 
 in Georgia. Its capture opened the way to Savannah, with but slight oppo 
 sition, for General Sherman and his victorious army. 
 
 Before beginning his " March to the Sea," General Sherman decided upon 
 making Atlanta a military fortress, and upon the expulsion of the whole 
 population of that city. The necessity for this harsh measure is not appar 
 ent ; but it was executed with as much gentleness as the nature of the case 
 would admit. The people were permitted to go to their friends further 
 south, or within the Union lines, as they might prefer. In the latter case, they 
 were to have free transportation ; and in the former their migration was to be 
 facilitated, until they could reach the Confederate lines. A truce with General 
 Hood for ten days was agreed upon, while the involuntary migration of the 
 people was going on. It is stated by General Sherman that, as the result of 
 this military order, 446 families were moved south, embracing 705 adults, 
 860 children, and 470 servants. They took with them an average of 1,651 
 pounds of furniture for each family ! all of which was transported under 
 escort, by order of the General, to the Confederate lines, at a place called 
 " Rough and Ready," some twenty miles south of Atlanta. One of Gen 
 eral Hood's staff, in a note to Lieut.-Col. Willard Warner, of General Sher 
 man's staff, bears testimony of the uniform courtesy and kindness with 
 which he had executed the unpleasant task of superintending this forced re 
 moval of the people. The former expressed the hope that he might some 
 day have an opportunity to reciprocate the kindness of Colonel Warner. Such 
 instances of honor and good faith between public enemies furnish some 
 palliation of the horrors of war. They illustrate the remark of Lord Chester 
 field, that a gentleman will perform a disagreeable duty in a way to make the 
 
2O8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 sufferer from it his friend, while another will make an enemy in bestowing 
 a favor. 
 
 After some weeks were spent by General Sherman in resting and recruit 
 ing his army, he made a feint of pursuing General Hood, who was moving 
 northward and westward. The latter made several energetic attempts 
 to break up railroad communications between Atlanta and Chattanooga. 
 These efforts were attended with some success. But his attacks on Ala- 
 toona, Resaca, and at other points were repelled with loss ; and he finally re 
 treated into northern Alabama. He was followed by Sherman, not with 
 the idea of overtaking, but with the hope of inducing him to believe that 
 pursuit was intended, while Sherman's real purpose was to move in the oppo 
 site direction. To keep up the delusion of Hood, Sherman detached the Fourth 
 and Twenty-second corps, and sent them off to re-enforce General Thomas in 
 Tennessee. Having determined to march to the sea, and to subsist on the 
 country, Sherman sent back to Chattanooga the inmates of the hospitals, 
 and all stores not necessary for his purposes. He became indifferent, also, 
 to the preservation of his railroad connections with Tennessee, and of Atlanta 
 itself, which had been the objective point of his spring and summer cam 
 paign. The force with which General Sherman enters upon this extraordi 
 nary campaign consists of five corps, the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, 
 Seventeenth, and Twentieth. These he consolidates into four grand divi 
 sions, commanded, respectively, by Generals Jefferson C. Davis, Osterhaus 
 (in the absence of General Logan), Blair, and Slocum. 
 
 The writer would fain pause upon the last two names. One is of the dead, 
 the other of the living ; both beloved and honored, for patriotic devotion to 
 the Union cause. He would pause, also, to say gentlest words of General 
 Sherman, the master-mind of this march to the sea. Not because he appre 
 ciates the strategical ways and means of this dashing and remarkable 
 commander. He never forgot that the Confederates were his own people. 
 The author of this book to the surprise of its readers, perhaps now 
 states that it was he who nominated Sherman to President Lincoln as the 
 first choice of Ohio for a brigadier-general, when that officer returned from 
 the South, where he had been teaching in a military school. Why Presi 
 dent Lincoln called the Ohio congressmen together for the selection of offi 
 cers, is one of the inexplicable methods of war by civil service ; and how 
 the author a decided civilian made such a happy choice, is now mani 
 fest as a case of intuitive perception of martial ability and moral greatness. 
 
 The army of Sherman raises its banners and moves toward the sea ! It 
 is divided into two wings. The Fifteenth and Seventeenth corps are under 
 the command of Gen. O. O. Howard, and the Fourteenth and Twentieth, 
 are under General Slocum. The army consists of about 60,000 men. It 
 is provided with thirty days' rations. These are conveyed in 2,500 wagons, 
 drawn by six mules each, or 15,000 altogether. There are, besides, 600 am- 
 
HOOD'S DASH ON NASHVILLE, AND DEFEAT. 209 
 
 bulances, each drawn by two mules, the cavalry, artillery, and the horses 
 of the higher officers. The soldiers are ordered to carry two days' rations 
 in their haversacks. 
 
 Promptly the grand cavalcade moves off from Atlanta on the i6th of 
 November, by four roads. It marches at the rate of ten to fifteen miles 
 per day. The distance to Savannah is 293 miles. It is expected that 
 the army will arrive there in about thirty days. General Sherman is 
 anxious to keep the enemy in doubt as to his destination. He indi 
 cates Augusta as an objective point. But this ruse seems to be unne 
 cessary, as no serious opposition is offered to his march. General Hardee 
 commands the Confederates. Some sharp fighting takes place, but nothing 
 deserving the name of a great battle. That officer, with some 20,000 men 
 falls back. He takes refuge in Savannah. Fort McAllister is invested. 
 It is surrendered on the i3th of December. There being but one outlet 
 left, there is imminent danger of his being captured with the city itself. It 
 is highly probable that this will be the result, if General Sherman sends one 
 of his corps to the opposite bank of the Savannah, fronting the city. But 
 while the feasibility of the scheme is under discussion, Hardee, with his 
 army, goes out quietly. He retreats across the river into South Carolina. 
 The evacuation occurs on the night of December 2oth ; and being dis 
 covered the next day, General Sherman, on the 22d, marches in. On that 
 day he sends a dispatch to President Lincoln, tendering him a Christmas 
 present of Savannah and its stores of cotton-bales. 
 
 General Hood, having abandoned his field of operations in Georgia, in 
 despair of successfully opposing the march of General Sherman, turns his 
 attention to General Thomas, in middle Tennessee. He leaves the Ten 
 nessee River on November 2ist, and takes up his line of march for Nash 
 ville. On the 4th, Forrest destroys an immense deposit of supplies worth 
 six millions at Johnsonville, on the river, with the gunboats left for its 
 protection. Hood, in his march, occupies Pulaski and Columbia, principal 
 towns in that fertile country, without encountering serious opposition. The 
 forces under General Thomas fall back toward Nashville as Hood advances. 
 General Schofield, with 15,000 men, makes a stand at Franklin, fifteen 
 miles south of Nashville, but finding that he is confronted by a superior 
 force and is about to be attacked on his left flank, he deems it expedient 
 to draw back upon Nashville. Hood rashly follows. He assumes a 
 position in front of Schofield, but at a distance of three miles. His object 
 is to send a force around to the north and west of Nashville. He does this 
 and cuts the railroad connection with Louisville, and blockades the river. 
 
 On the 1 5th of December, General Thomas, in order to defeat the scheme 
 of Hood, attacks his left wing, resting on the river, and drives him back 
 eight miles, capturing two wagon trains, a thousand prisoners, and sixteen 
 cannon. On the i6th, the battle is renewed at all points, and the Confed- 
 
2IO THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 erate lines are broken and routed, with the loss of thousands of prisoners. 
 The pursuit is continued on the i7th and iSth, with further losses by the Con 
 federates of prisoners, cannon, and other munitions of war. A panic seizes 
 the Confederate force. It scarcely pauses until it crosses the Tennessee 
 River, a hundred miles south of Nashville. It is pursued by only a 
 small detachment of Thomas' army. In his official report, dated Jan. 
 20, 1865, General Thomas states that during the series of actions which 
 took place between September yth, and January 2oth, he captured 13,189 
 prisoners, including seven general officers and i ,000 others ; and that he 
 lost not exceeding 10,000 men. But to the losses of the enemy should be 
 added, sixty-four cannon, 3,079 small arms, and a great amount of other 
 war material. During the same period, 2,207 deserters surrendered, making 
 the loss of men from Hood's army, in prisoners and deserters, 15,396, besides 
 the killed and wounded, which must have amounted to several thousand. 
 
 The expedition of General Banks up the Red River occurred in the early 
 part of the year. It should have been referred to on a prior page. He left 
 New Orleans in March with 10,000 men. He was accompanied by Com 
 modore Porter with a formidable fleet of gunboats. Alexandria, Natchi- 
 toches, and Shreveport were successively captured ; the Confederates under 
 Gen. Richard Taylor, a son of ex-President Zachary Taylor, falling back 
 before the advancing Union army. But just above Shreveport the Con 
 federate general makes a stand. Two battles are fought, the first at Pleasant 
 Hill, in which the victory is conceded to the Confederates ; and the second at 
 Mansfield, in which the Union general, while claiming to have successfully 
 repelled the enemy, finds it necessary to retreat down the river. He is hotly 
 pursued. He is compelled to surrender the control of the river and country. 
 He claims that he has inflicted as great losses as he has sustained. The 
 gunboat fleet, or some of the largest of the boats, have a narrow escape from 
 capture or destruction, in consequence of the low water in the river making it 
 impossible for them to pass over the falls. The engineering skill of Lieut 
 enant-Colonel Bailey, a volunteer officer, acting engineer of the Nineteenth 
 Army Corps, comes to the relief of the naval commander. It tides him over 
 the blockading rafts and driftwood, by the construction of a series of dams. 
 General Steele, who had a considerable force at Little Rock, was expected to 
 co-operate with General Banks, but he was detained by the pressing attentions 
 of General Price, the Confederate commander in that department. 
 
 The capture of the forts in Mobile Bay and the destruction of the for 
 midable Confederate iron-clad fleet, which had been built at great expense 
 for the purpose of raising the blockade, take rank among the important as 
 well as the most heroic events of the war. Admiral Farragut, in July, re 
 ceived an addition of four iron-clad monitors to his wooden fleet. With 
 the promised co-operation of a military force to be sent by General Canby, 
 he essays, on August 5th, to pass up the bay between the two strong forti- 
 
FARRAGUT IN MOBILE BAY. 211 
 
 fications, Fort Morgan on the main land to the east, and Fort Gaines on 
 Dauphin Island to the west. The deep channel runs near the main land at 
 this point. Farragut moves up on that side. His four monitors pass within 
 two hundred yards of Fort Morgan. The wooden ships, lashed two by two 
 abreast, are arranged outside of the line of monitors, and are thus protected 
 from the guns of Fort Morgan. Fort Gaines, on the island, is four miles 
 away. The flag-ship is the Hartford. She is a wooden vessel, and the 
 heroic Admiral, in order to be in a situation to view the whole scene to 
 advantage, lashes himself to the maintop. 
 
 When the fleet comes abreast of the fort, it is assailed with great fury by 
 the powerful casemated work ; but so rapid is the reply from the monitors with 
 their heavier ordnance, that the artillerists in the fortifications are driven from 
 their guns. The fleet passes up with comparatively trifling damage, except 
 the loss of one of the monitors, which runs upon a torpedo. But having 
 passed this ordeal, the Union fleet encounters the iron-plated fleet of the 
 enemy, including a ram called the Tennessee, 209 feet in length and 48 feet 
 in breadth of beam. This powerful engine of destruction is more than 
 a match, single-handed, for any vessel belonging to Farragut's fleet. But 
 the huge ironclad is at once assailed on all sides by the monitors and the 
 wooden ships, and finally succumbs after a desperate struggle. The other 
 Confederate vessels are then either run down or taken, a few only escap 
 ing down the bay. General Granger arrives on the 4th with a competent 
 military force. He lays siege to Fort Gaines. The Confederate commander, 
 Colonel Anderson, being cut off from the hope of re-enforcement, surrenders. 
 The commander of Fort Morgan promptly follows his example. The Union 
 forces thus gain complete command of Mobile Bay and harbor. 
 
 During the year 1864 the navy which never failed to do its part under 
 the honest administration of Gideon Welles rendered invaluable service 
 to the country, and especially to its commerce, by the destruction of the 
 Anglo-Confederate privateers, the Alabama, the Florida, and the Georgia. 
 The sinking of the Alabama under the command of Captain Semmes, off 
 Cherbourg, on the coast of France, by the Kearsarge under Capt. John A. 
 Winslow, was a naval achievement which thrilled the Nation. It reflected 
 great honor upon the officers and men of the victorious ship. The Alabama 
 was the larger vessel of the two, and she was more heavily armed. 
 
 Notwithstanding the vigilance of the Atlantic fleet, Wilmington, North 
 Carolina, afforded great facilities for blockade-running. It became an 
 object of importance to the government to close that port effectually against 
 the entrance of the enemy's vessels, as well as against all intercourse with 
 the outer world. This could not be done without the co-operation of 
 the army. But the constant demands for troops at all points inland, caused 
 this pressing matter to be neglected until December, 1864. Then a power 
 ful fleet of ironclads, under Admiral Porter, accompanied by transports, 
 
212 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 with 6,500 troops, under Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, sailed from Hampton 
 Roads for New Inlet, one of the entrances to the Cape Fear River. The 
 troops were landed on December i5th, at a point where the Confederates 
 had constructed a strong fortification, known as Fort Fisher. 
 
 General Butler devised the plan of breaking down the walls of Fort 
 Fisher by loading a vessel with powder and exploding it within a few 
 hundred yards of that formidable structure. To this end, two hundred and 
 fifteen tons of powder were put into the gunboat Louisiana, which had been 
 disguised as a Confederate blockade-runner. She was towed as near as prac 
 ticable to the shore. The explosion was terrific, of course, but the noise 
 had less effect upon the sand-protected walls of Fort Fisher than the sound of 
 the rams' horns had upon the stone walls of Jericho. Indeed, nothing was ef 
 fected by this original but costly device. This futile attempt was made on 
 the 24th of December. It was followed up by a bombardment by the fleet. 
 This is said to have surpassed everything of the kind recorded, up to that 
 time, in naval annals. Admiral Porter states that in one hour and fifteen 
 minutes the fort was completely silenced. The next day, three brigades of 
 General Butler's force were landed two and a half miles above the fort, but 
 they were repulsed by the enemy. They retreated to the transports ; and 
 the General thereupon gave up the assault as impracticable, except by enter 
 ing upon a regular siege. Admiral Porter was strongly opposed to abandon 
 ing the attack. His opinion was shared by the government and the country. 
 The result was the supersedure of General Butler by General Terry, who, 
 in command of 8,000 men, sailed from Fortress Monroe early in January. 
 On the 1 5th of that month, Fort Fisher was captured, with 2,500 men and 
 seventy-two guns. This result was effected by another tremendous bom 
 bardment by the fleet, and a brilliant assault of Ames' brigade, after a des 
 perate conflict within the works. 
 
 General Sherman crossed the Savannah River on the 6th of January. He 
 commenced his march through the Carolinas. In South Carolina he was 
 followed by the Confederate General Hardee, who had retreated before him 
 through Georgia. Charleston was evacuated and Columbia was occupied 
 after some resistance. The latter city was burned, in spite of all efforts to 
 save it, burned perhaps, as is stated, by accident. After a short rest at 
 that point, General Sherman continues on his march into North Carolina. 
 About forty miles east by south of Raleigh, the capital of that state, at Ben- 
 tonville, he encounters the Confederates under Gen. J. E. Johnston. At 
 this place, on March 2d, a severe battle is fought. It is one of the last of 
 the war. It results in the repulse of the Confederates, with the loss of 
 nearly 2,000 on each side, in killed and wounded. Sherman then advances 
 to Raleigh. He takes possession of it, with slight resistance. Johnston 
 retreats up the country, and at Durham opens negotiations for a surrender. 
 Near there, on the iSth of April, the conditions are agreed to. Liberal 
 
THE END OF THE CONFEDERACY. 213 
 
 terms are conceded to the Confederates. They are disapproved by the gov 
 ernment, and the same terms granted to Lee are accepted. 
 
 Meantime, while Sherman is pushing north from Savannah, and as the 
 spring approaches, the forces in Virginia under the immediate eye of Gen 
 eral Grant are gradually closing in upon his great antagonist, General Lee. 
 The railroads leading to Richmond are cut. The Confederate detachments 
 and foraging parties are captured. Stronghold after stronghold is sur 
 rendered until, in sheer desperation, the Confederate Congress, forgetting 
 the original object of the war, which was to uphold slavery, resolves in 
 favor of arming the slaves, and giving freedom to all who may thus serve the 
 Confederacy. The Confederates now see the Union lines slowly but surely 
 tightening around them, and that an effort to break them must be made im 
 mediately, or all will be lost. Accordingly, General Gordon, in command 
 of a strong force, sallies forth and attacks Fort Stedman, near Petersburg. 
 It is a strong place, but the garrison is small, and this key of the Union 
 works falls into his hands. This was on the 25th of March. Elated with 
 his success, he assails Fort Hascall, but is repulsed by Hartranft with great 
 slaughter, and retreats within his lines, leaving 3,000 of his men hors de 
 combat, and 1,800 prisoners. 
 
 General Grant, seeing a possible union of the forces of Lee and Johnston, 
 determines to attack the enemy all along his lines in front of Petersburg. 
 Sheridan is Grant's right arm in all the subsequent operations. On the 
 3ist of March, a collision occurs at Hatcher's Run. It is at first disastrous 
 to the Unionists, but re-enforcements coming up, the partial defeat is turned 
 into a victory. It happened that the writer was at this time a guest of his 
 constituent, General Griffin, of Ohio, and had then his first and only obser 
 vation of the results of battle. In this encounter Lee, seeing the purpose 
 of the Union general, becomes the assailant. In like manner he attacks 
 Sheridan at Five Forks. A similar result to that of Hatcher's Run follows. 
 The Union cavalry forces are driven for some distance, but they rally 
 and, in turn, repulse the assailants. During the night, re-enforcements of 
 infantry come up, and the next day, April ist, the Confederates are routed 
 and driven into their lines by Sheridan. On April 2d, General Grant 
 assaults the Confederate works along the whole line, with great fury. He 
 carries them, and, at last! at last! Petersburg and Richmond are in his 
 hands ! That day General Lee dispatches a messenger to Mr. Davis, an 
 nouncing the terrible disaster he has suffered, and informing him that Rich 
 mond is no longer tenable. Mr. Davis is in church when the messenger 
 arrives. The note is conveyed to him as he sits in his pew. He quietly 
 withdraws, with feelings which can be imagined. Richmond is evacuated 
 that night, or before the day dawns on the 3d. The archives of the Con 
 federacy have been packed up for some time ; and now the first and last Con 
 federate President, with his Cabinet, and the whole body of auditors, clerks, 
 
214 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and attendants, take a final leave of their capital. They go off by the Rich 
 mond and Danville Railroad to Greensborough, North Carolina, and thence, 
 after a short pause, they go to Charlotte, in the same state, where they dis 
 perse. General Lee holds out a few days longer, but on the 9th, he makes 
 a final surrender of the Confederate cause ; and, as already stated, nine days 
 after, Gen. J. E. Johnston follows his example. Thus died Secession. 
 
 If one would know what immense sacrifices were caused by the war, let 
 him read the Quartermaster-General's reports for that period, up to and in 
 cluding Nov. 8, 1865. No figures of speech can give an idea of the stupend 
 ous nature of this great conflict, like the figures of arithmetic and the 
 details of the material used in its prosecution upon merely one side of the 
 contest. In the last of the series of annual reports of the operations of 
 the Quartermaster's Department of the army, for the year ended June 
 30, 1865, there is a total of nearly five hundred millions, $459,630,- 
 905.16, appropriated for that branch of the service. All of this amount 
 was spent up to the 3oth of June, 1865, except twenty-seven millions. This 
 money was expended to provide means of transportation by land and water 
 for the troops and their material of war. It furnished the horses for artil 
 lery and cavalry, the horses and mules of the wagon trains, provided and sup 
 plied tents, camp and garrison equipage, forage, lumber, and all materials 
 for camps and for the shelter of the troops. It built barracks, hospitals, and 
 storehouses, provided wagons and ambulances, harness, except for cavalry 
 and artillery horses, built or chartered transport ships and steamers, docks 
 and wharves, constructed roads, railroad and other bridges, bought clothes 
 for the army, and was charged generally with the payment of all expenses 
 attending military operations, not assigned by law or regulation to some other 
 army department. That department transported the stores of all other depart 
 ments from the depots to the camps, upon the march and to the battle-field, 
 until they were finally issued to the troops. By adding to the vast expendi 
 ture of the Quartermaster's Department, that of the pay, ordnance, subsist 
 ence, and medical departments, the reader may have some adequate idea 
 of the resources which were drawn upon for the restoration of the Union. 
 These expenditures were necessary to the comfort, health, and efficiency of 
 the troops. The success of the army in the end, after four years or gigantic 
 struggle, indicates what had been done in that behalf by the accomplished 
 Quartermaster-General, Montgomery C. Meigs. 
 
 As an example of the scientific and mechanical energy of the North, take 
 Atlanta as the key of the Confederate defenses in the last year of the war. It 
 is secured after a campaign involving a line of operations three hundred miles 
 in length, which is maintained for months, through a hostile country, so 
 effectually as to enable an army of 90,000 men with over 40,000 animals, to 
 subsist not only while advancing, but, what is much more difficult, while lay- 
 
THE QUARTERMASTER'S ACHIEVEMENTS. 215 
 
 ing siege for weeks to that advanced position, with a long line of communi 
 cation to be guarded. In no other country were railroads brought to perform 
 so important a part in the operations of war. Never were performed such 
 rapid feats of construction as those which illustrated the campaigns in 
 America. Not merely in the reconstruction of bridges which were dupli 
 cated, in the production of locomotives, the laying of telegraphs, the build 
 ing of steamers, the making of guns, and in furthering and consummating 
 the blockade, but in a thousand other ways, did the North give evidence 
 of that strength against which the Southern legions surged in vain. 
 
 It does not detract from the chivalric courage of the Confederate soldier, 
 however humble his station or high his rank, that he succumbed before the 
 vast mechanical forces of the North. The South was not distinguished for 
 inventive mechanical genius. It was only in a few localities that she had the 
 facilities to construct what was indispensable to war. Her mechanical instru 
 mentalities were few and far between, for the South was a country of planters. 
 Her ways, one would have supposed, would have been the ways of pleasant 
 ness and all her paths of peace. But there was a sentiment of chivalry 
 about the nature of her sons which led them inconsiderately to dash, Quix 
 otically, against the locomotive, which is the emblem and the proof of the 
 chemical and mechanical forces of our time. If the South at last lost her 
 cause, it was because she had never gained that skill in invention which has 
 no parallel in the world, and which has had its home in the North, and 
 principally in the New England States. 
 
 What can surpass i ,769 miles of military railways repaired, maintained, 
 stocked, and operated by the agents of but one of the many army departments ? 
 What quantities of iron were needed in the repair of so many miles of track ; 
 and what great quantities of iron had been burned and twisted by the contend 
 ing forces. Even rolling-mills were established by the Union troops in such 
 cities as Chattanooga, mills capable of re-rolling the rails which had been 
 seemingly destroyed, at the rate of fifty tons of railroad iron per day. Three 
 hundred and sixty-five locomotive engines and 4,203 railway cars, at an ex 
 penditure of twenty-two millions of dollars, were operated by General Mc- 
 Callum, in the last year of the war. The number of army railway men em 
 ployed in April, 1865, when the war was closing, was 23,533. The military 
 telegraph lines were kept up at an expense of $75,00x5 a month. The number 
 of miles in operation during the last year of the war was 8,201 on land, and 
 121 submarine. During the whole time of the war 15,000 miles of military 
 telegraph were constructed and operated. In the year 1863, the telegraphic 
 expense averaged as high as $38,500 per month. The total expenditure of the 
 telegraphic business from the istof May, 1861, to the3oth of June, 1865, was 
 $2,655,500. The quantity of forage, fuel, and regular supplies consumed is 
 simply incalculable and stupendous in amount. Years must intervene be 
 fore the claims growing out of this enormous consumption, and for the labor 
 
2l6 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 in suppressing the greatest insurgency known to history, shall be entirely 
 ruled out by a statute of limitations. Whether in the field or at the depot, 
 there was no intermission to the labor and responsibility of Montgomery C. 
 Meigs, the Quartermaster-General of the Union Army. He is not generally 
 reckoned among the heroes of the war, and many regard him as only a little 
 higher than the Chief Commissary, and perhaps the latter not much above the 
 sutler. But the record of merits and services of the officers in this depart 
 ment during the war, in caring for the material and the men, and the money 
 for the support and sustenance of the armies in every part of their wonderful 
 and wide field of operation, over the period of four years, is a history of 
 faithful, laborious, zealous, successful, and honorable labor, which has no 
 parallel in the annals of other wars, in other ages and other countries. 
 
 It is almost impossible for human calculation to estimate even approxi 
 mately the waste, losses, and miseries attendant upon the civil conflict of which 
 the author has attempted a faint sketch in this and the three preceding chap 
 ters. These can be understood only by looking, not merely at the immense 
 columns of the Union army and its 2,800 battles, but at the immense columns 
 of figures which indicate the immensity of the expenditure. The number of 
 men in the United States armies from 1861 to 1865 was 2,859,132. This, 
 of course, includes terms of service as short as thirty days, a large propor 
 tion of " three months'* men, and two years' terms, besides an immense 
 number of veteran re-enlistments, after three years' service. The amount 
 of bounties paid was $285,941,036. The number of casualties in the 
 volunteer and regular armies reported by the Provost-Marshal-General was 
 61,362 killed in battle, 34,727 died of wounds, 183,287 died of disease, 
 making the total number of deaths 278,386. The total number of deser 
 tions was 199,105. These figures are taken from the official report on the 
 subject. A partial statement of the number of casualties in the Confederate 
 service shows the number of deaths from wounds or disease to have been 
 133,821 ; and a partial statement of the number of desertions shows the total 
 loss from that cause to have been 104,428. The number of United States 
 soldiers captured was 212,608, and the number of Confederates captured, 
 476,169. The number of United States soldiers paroled in the field was 
 16,437, and the number of Confederate soldiers paroled in the field, 248,- 
 599. The number of United States soldiers who died as prisoners of war 
 was 29,725, and of Confederates, 26,774. A special report of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to the United States Senate, dated June 10, 1880, gives an 
 itemized statement of the gross expenditures of the government from July i , 
 1861, to June 30, 1879; showing the expenditure other than for the war, 
 and the expenditure growing out of the war. 
 
 The gross expenditure was $6,844,571,431 
 
 The ordinary expenditure was ...... $654,641,522 
 
 The war expenditure was, therefore, ..... $6,189,929,909 
 
ESTIMATED ECONOMICAL COST OF THE WAR. 217 
 
 The aggregate, of course, includes the public debt, and interest on it for 
 that period, but not the interest paid since June 30, 1879. Nor does it in 
 clude the vast sums paid since June 30, 1879, for pensions and arrears of 
 pensions, and for pay of retired army and navy officers. These additional 
 expenditures will amount to at least $800,000,000 more. 
 
 The average number of men in the United States service during the 
 four years of war would fall but little below one million. They mostly be 
 longed to the class of laborers and mechanics ; and nearly all had been con 
 tributing to the common weal by occupations of one kind or another. Their 
 earnings, in peaceful avocations, would have averaged $1.50 per day, and for 
 312 working days, $468,000,000, or $1,872,000,000, during their four years 
 in the army. 
 
 An approximate statement of the cost of the Civil War may, therefore, 
 be given thus : 
 
 Expenditures prior to June 30, 1879, ..... $6,189,929,909 
 Interest on public debt, pensions, etc., since June 30, 1879, 800,000,000 
 Producing capacity of i ,000,000 laborers for four years, . 1,872,000,000 
 
 Total expenditure and waste, ..... $8,861,929,909 
 
 To this sum must be added the accounts for the destruction of property 
 North and South, and for the producing capacity lost in the South of at least 
 three-quarters of a million of men for four years. It will be safe to state the 
 losses on these accounts at $2,000,000,000. This gives a grand total of 
 national loss, amounting to $10,861,929,909! This estimate leaves out of 
 view the losses of the white people of the South by the overthrow of slavery, 
 as the effect of abolition was not to destroy property, but merely to transfer 
 the title to the slave and make him his own man. 
 
 It has been thought by sanguine men, looking for the dawn of a better 
 and millennial day, that arbitration would be the grand factor in the arrange 
 ment of disputes among nations, but it does not appear that the great wars 
 have made the ambitions of kings and princes more peaceful and virtuous. 
 The making of great guns which are outdoing and penetrating the thickest 
 armor, and the appliances of steam and chemistry for explosive purposes, 
 may lead to such a destruction of human life and human property as to halt 
 the movement of the nations in their warlike designs. The refinement of 
 horrors and blood may lead the nations to peace. But no element should be 
 so important in estopping these preparations and conflicts as the mighty cost 
 in money as well as of life. The Austro-Prussian war destroyed forty-five 
 thousand men at an expense of three hundred and fifty millions of dollars ; 
 the Italian war the same number of men at almost the same cost ; the 
 Crimean war destroyed seven hundred and eighty-five thousand men at an 
 expense of seventeen hundred millions. The war which is approaching in 
 14 
 
2l8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Europe or Asia, or both, may, as some one has said, confound all statistics 
 and appall all arithmetic. The war in our country from 1861 to 1865 may 
 yet appear no larger than a speck on the horizon no larger, perhaps, than 
 Herat appears to-day in Central Asia, around which are mustering the 
 hordes of India and England, and of Russia and her confederate tribes. 
 When the war-cloud appeared upon our horizon, in 1861, there were men 
 and the author was among them who preferred the bonds of love without 
 the armor of force ; who found in the Sermon on the Mount a wisdom be 
 yond that of President or priest. The author never went so far, perhaps, 
 as Charles Sumner, in his speech on the true grandeur of nations, when he 
 pronounced all international war to be civil war, and the partakers in it to 
 be traitors to God and enemies to man ; or when he quoted Cicero to show 
 that he preferred an unjust peace to a just war, and Franklin to show that 
 there never was a good war nor a bad peace. Mr. Sumner declared that in 
 this age there can be no peace that is not honorable. In carrying out this 
 comprehensive and Christian thought, the writer was living up to a demo 
 cratic principle laid down by Madison before the War of 1812. It was this : 
 That war is only rarely tolerable as a necessary evil, to be kept off as long 
 as, and when it takes place, to be closed as soon as possible. 
 
 In closing this chapter, the writer would fain inculcate the teachings 
 of the Prince of Peace Him who spake from the mountains of Judea, as 
 never man spake. Nay, not from the mountains, but from one lone, 
 unknown mountain. All lights are but subordinate around the central light 
 which came from the mountain whence the great Sermon was spoken. Its 
 name is unknown ; its locality has no geography. All we know is, that it 
 was u set apart." The mountains of our Scriptures are full of inspiration 
 for our guidance. Their teachings may well be carried into our political 
 ethics. 
 
 Along with these teachings and to the same good end, are the teachings 
 of history, patriotism, chivalry, and even economic selfishness. Yet these 
 worldly teachings are often blind guides to duty. They are but mole-hills 
 compared with the lofty mountain whose spiritual grandeur sheds the light 
 of peace, order, and civilization to a suffering world. When these principles 
 obtain in our hearts, there will come a glorious era for the world. Then, 
 the reminders of our sad and bloody strife will not be in vain, if they cause 
 the Nation to rise in supernal dignity above the party passions of the day. 
 Then, that party which vindicates right against might, freedom against force, 
 popular will against lust of power, rest against unrest, and God's goodness 
 and mercy around and above all, will, in that sign, sway and direct the des 
 tinies of America. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 PERSONAL LIBERTY ABUSED AND VINDICATED. 
 
 A WAR FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNION RADICAL OPPOSITION PERSECU 
 TIONS BY ANTI-SLAVERY RADICALS GENERAL GRANT'S LETTER OF 1861 
 HIS DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE WITH SLAVERY A WAR OF SUB. 
 JUGATION THE EXTREMES SOUTH AND NORTH PROCLAMATION OF 
 MARTIAL LAW IN 1861 ARBITRARY ARRESTS IN 1862 AND AFTERWARDS 
 HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENDED OUTRAGEOUS ORDERS OF SECRETARIES 
 STANTON AND SE WARD ARRESTS MARSHALS, SPIES, AND COMMISSIONS 
 STANTON DICTATOR GRAND EFFORT OF DANIEL W. VOORHEES IN CON- 
 GRESS DARK HOURS FOR THE REPUBLIC CAPITAL FATTENING ON CON- 
 TRACTS AND SPOILS, AND LEAGUED WITH FANATICS GOVERNOR SEWARD 
 IN HOME AFFAIRS PERSONAL LIBERTY DISCUSSED BINNEY'S PAMPH 
 LETS AND THE RESPONSES THE MILLIGAN CASE THE SUPREME COURT 
 AS A BREAKWATER MILLIGAN SENTENCED TO DEATH - VALLANDIGHAM'S 
 CASE PARALLEL HIS PROTEST THE TRUMBULL LAW GRAND ARRAY 
 OF COUNSEL IN MILLIGAN CASE LOGIC OF THE DECISION THE MRS. SUR- 
 RATT TRAGEDY VIOLATIVE OF THE DECISION GENERAL BUTLER DE 
 NOUNCES IT MILITARY ARRESTS IN CONGRESS GALLANT FIGHT OF 
 HENRY WINTER DAVIS FOR PERSONAL LIBERTY HE SUCCEEDS LIBERTY 
 DEATHLESS MAGNA CHARTA DAVIS ITS CHAMPION SKETCH OF HIS 
 LIFE AND SERVICES THE OLIVE-BRANCH NOT OFFERED YET LESSONS OF 
 HISTORY SPURNED THE WAR LIKELY TO END WITH PRACTICAL DISUN 
 ION THE SECOND DECADE BEGINS WITH RECONSTRUCTION OF DISMANTLED 
 STATES HOPE FOR THE PEOPLE BEAUTY FOR ASHES. 
 
 IN this chapter will be presented the attitude and action of the two great 
 political parties of the North during the Civil War, in regard to the 
 liberty and rights of American citizens. 
 It has been shown in preceding chapters that the war could have 
 been avoided by the adoption of the Crittenden proposition in the Thirty-sixth 
 Congress. It was not out of any regard for slavery as an institution that the 
 friends of peace and Union offered to amend the Constitution in the mode 
 proposed by Mr. Crittenden. The purpose of those who favored such an 
 amendment was to eliminate from national discussion all questions relating 
 to slavery. They desired to leave that decaying institution to exhaust its 
 
220 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 vitality in a natural death. They were content, as a famous Ohio platform 
 said, to live in the hope of its ultimate extinction. Being incompatible with 
 the enlightening influences of a progressive age, it could not long survive. 
 Its death being a question of a few years, or at most a generation, was it not 
 wise statesmanship to seek to avoid a conflict that might dismember the 
 Union ? Such a conflict must imbrue the whole land in blood, and certainly 
 maintain, if not generate, sectional animosities both bitter and lasting. 
 
 The conflict of arms was far from being irrepressible, whatever might be 
 the character of the moral conflict between the spirit of liberty and the 
 spirit of slavery. And even after it had commenced, its continuance was 
 not, at any time, an absolute necessity for accomplishing a peace with union 
 
 if slavery were left as for seventy-five years of constitutional govern 
 ment it had existed, namely, a state institution a domestic relation. 
 These are the views which actuated the Democracy of the North in accepting 
 the Crittenden proposition. They sought above all things to avert a war 
 of sections. It became a capital tenet of Democratic faith, that war could 
 be avoided, and, after the war came, that peace and union were at all times 
 within reach, on terms of compromise honorable and equitable to both sec 
 tions. It is in this light that the course of the Northern Democrats is 
 to be judged, preceding and during the secession war. They would shed 
 no blood either to maintain or to destroy the institution of slavery ; but all 
 that they had would be freely given to maintain the Union, and the supremacy 
 of the Constitution of their fathers. They ask no special credit for de 
 stroying slavery, the war effectually did that, and they were not aloof from 
 its perils. They scorn the charge that they desired to maintain it as an in 
 stitution. They wanted slavery to die in peace, rather than in war. The 
 idea of a temporary sacrifice to slavery with a view of maintaining the Union, 
 was always paramount in the Democratic councils. It would be waste and 
 excess, to detail the acts of the factions which precipitated the whole people 
 into a state of war. It is sufficient to say that war was forced upon the 
 country, while the great mass- of the people desired peace. Is evidence 
 required on this point? Let the letter of General Grant just published 
 
 dated, Galena, April 19, 1861, speak the sentiments of the party of 
 which he then was a member. After referring to the reprehensible con 
 duct of the states in so prematurely seceding, he says : " In all this I can but 
 see the doom of slavery. The North does not want, nor will they want, to in 
 terfere with the institution, but they will refuse for all time to give it protection, 
 unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance." The Democratic 
 party felt that each age would work out its own reforms ; and that those which 
 come according to general desire are the best and most enduring. 
 
 The rising generation have often heard it charged that the Democratic 
 party gave its sympathy to secession. Was there any justification for that 
 charge? Had the seceding states atay grounds for expecting that North- 
 
THE POSITION OF NORTHERN DEMOCRATS. 221 
 
 ern Democrats would ever submit to a dismemberment of the Union? 
 Let the response to the pealing of Sumter's guns give answer. Were 
 they Democrats, who urged the "wayward sisters" to depart from the 
 Union? Were they Democrats, who asserted that Union with the South 
 was "a covenant with hell?" Were they Democrats, who called the flag 
 of the Union "a flaunting lie," and wanted to tear it down? Were they 
 Democrats, who hounded on the war, and then bought southern negroes to 
 fight the battles in which they would not risk their own lives? How 
 many regiments of Georgia and South Carolina negroes carried the flag of 
 Massachusetts in the fore-front of battle ? How many abolitionists of that 
 state were hiding from the draft, or paying men of alien birth to enlist as 
 their substitutes? It was such craven creatures as these, who charged 
 Northern Democrats with secession sympathy. Who, in the North, had long 
 been willing to destroy the Union ? By what irony of events was it, that 
 these creatures who were at all times more disloyal to a constitutional 
 Union than the most violent secessionists wormed themselves and their 
 plots into national affairs, and prolonged a war in which they had no part, 
 except to incite the conflict and fan the flames of passion? 
 
 There is no comprehending the ascendency of the radical element in the 
 conduct of the " War for the Union," except on the principle that in war, and 
 especially an internecine war, the worst passions obtain the mastery. The 
 Federal Administration, had it disregarded the whisperings of the fanatics, 
 could have restored peace to the land, and " the Union as it was." It could 
 have done this before a shot was fired or a bayonet crossed. Was it any 
 wonder, then, that the Democratic party, which had sprung to arms at the first 
 call of " save the Union ! " was, at every step of the struggle, outspoken for, 
 and anxious to make, peace? Was it any wonder, that with peace always 
 attainable, the Democratic party opposed every extreme, unnecessary meas 
 ure of the radical party, which was prosecuting the war on the false pre 
 tence of saving- the Union, while seeking above all things to destroy slav 
 ery, irrespective of the fate of the Union ? Democrats in the ranks of the 
 Union armies were constantly told that their party was disloyal to the 
 Union. Thousands of these soldiers were led to give credence to the charge, 
 because the army did not understand, what the Democratic leaders knew, 
 namely, that the war was prolonged for party purposes. But the reader 
 must see that it was the Republican leaders who were the Northern 
 disunionists. The Union armies were fighting for the restoration of 
 Federal authority, while the Republican leaders were conducting an aboli 
 tion crusade, a war of conquest, of subjugation, and constitutional amend 
 ment, by force and arms. Between a war for the Union, and the war 
 as conducted by a Republican Administration that was daily succumbing 
 to the fanatics, there was a vast difference. It is by the length of this 
 difference that the present and future generations must estimate the status 
 
222 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties during the Civil 
 War and the period of reconstruction which followed it. No candid man 
 of intelligence, who participated in or observed the trying ordeals of the 
 struggle, will say that the soldiers in the Union armies would have fired 
 a shot, had they believed that peace could have been restored with the 
 Union as it was, under a national pledge not to interfere with slavery in the 
 states or territories. The men who wanted to violently interfere with that 
 institution would have been left to settle the abolition question the best way 
 they could, or else fight it out among themselves. To recruit armies for 
 such a contest would have been impossible. 
 
 Having made this preliminary statement as explanatory of the stand 
 taken, and gallantly maintained, during and after the war by the Democratic 
 party, in behalf of the civil liberties of the people, the author will now pro 
 ceed to the subject of this chapter. 
 
 When it began to be surmised that the destruction of slavery was the 
 main object of the Republican party in prosecuting the war against the 
 South, the Democratic leaders exposed the duplicity of that party. As 
 long as it was a war for the Union, all party issues had been suspended ; 
 but now that the radical policy began to assert itself as dominating in 
 the conduct of the war, the Democrats feared that the effect would be 
 to drive the seceded states into the attitude of carrying on a struggle for the 
 defense of constitutional rights. Here was a predicament. It called for 
 grave reflection. There was abundant evidence of a desire for peace in the 
 South. The people of that section had been carried into secession by sur 
 prise. They had cooled down. After all, was it true that the Northern 
 people had determined to invade the rights of the Southern States ? Some 
 of the people of the South began to think that their representatives had been 
 too precipitate in their action. They had heard from the North that the war 
 was for the restoration of the Union, with no other intention than to restore 
 the former Federal relations. The Republican and Democratic parties had 
 both united in proclaiming that this was the one solitary object of sending 
 the national forces into the South. In this condition of affairs a peace com 
 mission could have settled the troubles at any time during the winter of 1861- 
 '62. From this time forward, Democratic patriotism was sorely tried. It had 
 to stand between the reckless madness of the Southern leaders, and the fanati 
 cal determination of the radical Republicans. The latter had determined to 
 destroy slavery ; or else to blast all hopes of a restored Union. If the Demo 
 crats should withdraw their support from the Administration, then, beyond 
 doubt, the Union would be forever gone. A* the lesser evil, they gave all 
 their strength to the prosecution of the war, while daily and hourly urging 
 measures for peace. On both sides, North as well as South, the further 
 prosecution of the war grew daily less popular. In the North, the volun 
 teers had to be rejected by tens of thousands when the cry was, " Fight for 
 
ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL ARRESTS. 223 
 
 the Union." When to this cry was added the command "Fight for the 
 negro," there was great need of conscription. 
 
 In order to carry on such a war, it was necessary to deceive the people. 
 This could be best accomplished by incessantly charging that those who fa 
 vored a speedy termination of the contest were traitors, and abettors of rebels. 
 Undoubtedly there were a few persons here and there in the Northern states, 
 who believed in secession, and who sympathized with the South ; but they 
 had neither the numerical strength nor the courage to endanger or impede, 
 by any hostile action, the success of the Union armies. There were laws 
 on the statute-book, and courts to administer them, for treasonable and the 
 like offenses. The fact that no case was prosecuted under these laws in the 
 courts of justice, during the war, is the best proof of the insignificance of 
 such secession sympathy. But, in order to stir up the worst passions, it was 
 determined in the radical councils, to create an impression that Democratic 
 condemnation of the object for which the war was really being conducted, 
 was moral if not legal treason. In pursuance of this policy, it was declared 
 that martial law in the North had become a necessity for the successful prose 
 cution of the war. This policy was inaugurated almost with the Adminis 
 tration itself. It received, against strenuous Democratic opposition, the sanc 
 tion of Congress, by the act of Aug. 6, 1861. It came to the climax of 
 outrage on Sept. 24, 1862, in the Presidential proclamation, issued that day, 
 for a draft on the militia of the states. Many arbitrary arrests were made 
 from the start, without any charge of violation of law. The decision of the 
 Chief Justice of the United States denying the validity of such arrests had 
 been contemptuously disregarded as early as May, 1861. Military com 
 manders, as early as that date, had, at their own discretion, proclaimed 
 martial law. They refused in the open circuit of the Chief Justice to rec 
 ognize his writ of habeas corpus! Was it any wonder, among a people so 
 devoted to an honest and effective prosecution of the war for the Union as 
 those of the Northern states were when Fort Sumter received its baptism of 
 fire, that a draft became necessary the following year under such a perfidious 
 policy? 
 
 But the Secretary of War did not wait even for the formality of a 
 Presidential proclamation. He began early to carry out the vindictive 
 policy of his partisans. Not content with ordering the arrest of innocent 
 citizens by the military arm, he issued an order on Aug. 8, 1862, to 
 " all United States marshals, and [in contemptuous disregard of all limits 
 upon Federal authority] all superintendents and chiefs of police of any 
 town, city, or district," to arrest and imprison any person or persons who 
 might be engaged, by any act of speech or writing, in discouraging volun 
 teer enlistments, or in any way giving aid or comfort to the enemy, or for 
 any disloyal practice against the United States. These officers were at lib 
 erty to decide for themselves as to what was a " disloyal practice." They 
 
224 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 were required to make an immediate report to Major L. C. Twiner, Judge 
 Advqcate. The arrested persons were to "be tried before a Military 
 Commission." The expenses of their arrest and imprisonment were to be 
 "certified to the Chief Clerk of the War Department for settlement and 
 payment." It had come to this, that, in order to carry on the anti-slavery 
 crusade, every man and woman in the North, who, by any act of speech or 
 writing, might express any sentiment in condemnation of such a war, was 
 to be subject to arbitrary arrest, with or without charge of any kind, by 
 marshals, police, spies, and detectives. They were to be tried by military 
 commissions, when state and Federal courts were everywhere open for the 
 administration of justice. Thus early in the war, not only was the privilege 
 of habeas corpus suspended in every state in which Federal authority was 
 recognized, but trial by jury was abolished by the precept of an American 
 Cabinet minister. The Administration had felt its way to this point. The 
 operation of the great writ had at first been suspended in Maryland and the 
 District of Columbia. The people of the North had acquiesced, until, at 
 last, Mr. Stanton became the military dictator of the whole North. 
 
 From this time onward, the Democratic party leaders had to fight the 
 battle of civil liberty. Before them was the prison with its shackles ! 
 Nobly and fearlessly they performed this duty. At the same time, they put 
 their whole strength to the crushing out of the insurrection that had given 
 opportunity to the party in power to carry out to the bitter end all its fanat 
 ical hates and schemes. Under this order of Mr. Stanton's, thousands upon 
 thousands of as loyal citizens as ever drew breath were arrested in the most 
 brutal manner, without charge or specification of offense. All the national 
 fortresses and military prisons were, from this time on, crowded with citi 
 zens, who were denied any appeal to the courts of justice, or even the tender 
 mercies of a military commission. Arrest, confinement, and denial of justice 
 was now the radical policy. This was the policy to overawe those who 
 desired the Union of their fathers. It was under these circumstances, 
 that Mr. Voorhees, of Indiana, then, as now, an eloquent tribune of the 
 people arose in the House of Representatives, on Feb. 18, 1863, to de 
 nounce that policy. He said, after discussing the framework of our gov 
 ernment and its three departments : " The present Executive of this govern 
 ment has usurped the powers of the legislative and judicial departments of 
 the Constitution, to an extent which is totally subversive of republican insti 
 tutions, and not to be borne by a free people." Referring to the proclama 
 tion above cited, he said : "It gave access to the vaults of the prison, but 
 not to the bar of justice. It is a part of the nature of frail man to sin against 
 laws, both human and divine ; but God Himself secures him a fair trial be 
 fore punishment, and tyrants alone repudiate the justice of the Almighty. 
 To deny to an accused person the right to be heard in his own defense, is 
 pre-eminently the attribute of the worst ages of brutal despotism. Condem- 
 
LIBERTY DETHRONED. 225 
 
 nation without trial, and punishment without limitation, is the exact defini 
 tion, to my mind,, of the most atrocious tyranny that ever feasted on the 
 groans of the captive, or banqueted on the tears of the widow and fatherless. 
 And yet, on this spectacle of horror and shame, American citizens have been 
 gazing more than a year ! The great bulwark which generations in bloody 
 toil have erected against the wicked exercise of unlawful power, has been 
 torn away with a parricidal hand. Every citizen in the Republic the 
 farmer at his plow, the mechanic in his shop, the merchant at his counter ; 
 every calling and profession of life, from the proud man in his mansion to 
 the humble one in his cabin all stand this day risked and exposed, utterly 
 and entirely at the mercy of one man, and of the fawning minions who 
 crouch before him for pay. It would be the natural supposition of every in 
 telligent mind, that an argument to prove that there is a warrant in the Con 
 stitution for this state of affairs would be an insult to the genius of the 
 Revolution in which our liberties were won, an outrage to the memory of 
 the great dead of that period, and a mockery to the common sense of the 
 world. But the spirit of abject servility, which always invites the arrogant 
 assumptions of power and precedes the downfall of liberty, is performing 
 its loathsome office on every hand. We hear on every side the old cry of the 
 courtier and the parasite. At every new aggression, at every additional out 
 rage, new advocates rise up to defend that source of patronage, wealth, and 
 fame the department of the Executive. Technical and obscure rules, 
 cunningly devised special pleas, skillful and deceptive sophistry, all combine 
 in the hands of the supporters of the Administration, to tear away from the 
 people the protection of the laws of their own making. Such assistance has 
 always waited on the most malignant efforts of tyranny. Nero had his poet 
 laureate, and Seneca wrote his defense for the murder of his mother. The 
 present dark hour affords ample evidence that human nature is the same that 
 it was two thousand years ago." 
 
 There lies upon the author's table a volume by John A. Marshall. It is 
 called the American Bastile. It is a history of the illegal arrests and im 
 prisonment of American citizens during the Civil War. Mr. Marshall, in the 
 language of Giusti, writes bitter things, "because his soul is bitter for thy 
 sake, O Freedom." It has the significant motto : Psv^ffdo $a>s. At last the 
 light dawns ! Into this repertory of bitter things, we look ; and lo ! the con 
 trast of the illustrations. On one page is the old Liberty Bell, albeit cracked, 
 but still in form and its legend plain. On the other side is the little bell of 
 which Mr. Secretary Seward vaunted when he said to Lord Lyons, the Brit 
 ish Minister, " My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the 
 arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again, and order the impris 
 onment of a citizen of New-York ; and no power on earth, except that of the 
 President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do as much?" 
 Then follows a list of over a hundred of the victims of the bastile ; from 
 
226 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Colonel Lambdin P. Milligan to Francis Key Howard. Among them 
 is Edson B. Olds, the author's predecessor from Ohio in Congress, whose 
 long imprisonment in Fort Lafayette was the special reproach of the Admin 
 istration. At the end of the volume is an engraving of the key of the French 
 Bastile the key which was presented to Washington by Lafayette. The 
 engraving tells the story in a symbolic way of the memorable abuses of 
 the American Lettres de Cachet. How strange that they should have been 
 illustrated in a Bastile called " Fort Lafayette ! " 
 
 It was, indeed, a dark hour for the Republic. In the South a similar 
 condition of affairs existed, but from a very different cause. The more intel 
 ligent portion of the people of that section began to realize that all their 
 interests would have been safer in the old Union. Already, they had enough 
 of war and its slaughters. Pride of manhood alone sustained their armies. 
 They were ready to abandon the conflict on any honorable terms. Con 
 scription was resisted ; the strength of the South was exhausted ; the cause 
 was already lost. Desperation alone sustained the conflict, and that desper 
 ation was due largely to the implacable hatred of the ultra-secessionists and 
 the Northern radicals. They defeated every effort to tender the South the 
 olive-branch of peace and re-union. The worst type of selfish interest gave 
 overpowering strength to the excesses of Northern radicalism. The de 
 mands for war material, and the enormous disbursements of this period 
 averaging about two millions of dollars a day gave a rich harvest to cap 
 ital, wherever invested. Government contracts gave fortunes to thousands of 
 men who fattened on the carnage of war. What cared they for the blood 
 shed, or the destruction of sacred constitutional rights ! Was not war more 
 profitable to them than the richest dividends of the most prosperous peace?" 
 It was not the manufacturers, nor the contractors, nor the vast array of civil 
 retainers, nor their sons that were dying on the battle-fields, or retiring from 
 bloody conflicts maimed and broken in health. What cared these men and 
 the radical conspirators how long the war might be protracted. If their ne 
 farious schemes would be successful in the end, that was all they cared for. 
 The natural resources of the country were inexhaustible. So was the sur 
 plus of foreign labor. The war might be fought until the rank and file of 
 the American people, North and South, had exterminated each other. The 
 country would still remain. The ill-gotten wealth would remain. The in 
 dustrial aliens would come to occupy the places of the dead. The radical 
 policy was war ! war ! until the South should lie prostrate at the feet of the 
 zealots. No constitutional safeguard was allowed to stand in the way of 
 this policy of pelf and extermination. 
 
 If there is one right of which the American citizen has the most reason 
 to be proud, it is that of personal liberty. It includes free speech. Yet 
 this was the very first right invaded by the Federal Secretary of War. In 
 internal affairs he was the government. The President and Secretary of 
 
SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS. 227 
 
 State merely executed his orders. In the conduct of our foreign affairs, the 
 author has justly eulogized the administration of Mr. Seward. It was a 
 marvel of astuteness and ability ; but, for his home action, there is not one 
 word to be said of justification. It was only when the war was approaching 
 its end, that President Lincoln and Mr. Seward evinced a spirit of regard for 
 civil liberty. They then began to show the liberalities of their better nature. 
 Contrast this spirit with that which actuated the bulk of the Republican 
 leaders. Mr. Seward and Mr. Lincoln will pass for angels of peace in the 
 closing scenes of the terrible conflict. They then illustrated the maxim, 
 Inest dementia forti* on which Grant and Sherman acted. 
 
 As stated by Mr. Voorhees, the suspension, during the war, of. the privi 
 leges of habeas corpus, and the declaration of martial law throughout the 
 Union, were sustained by technical construction. The executive powers in 
 regard to these matters were discussed by the ablest jurists of the day. As 
 a matter of course the Attorney-General of the United States gave an 
 opinion in harmony with Mr. Stanton's desires. Even that Nestor of the 
 American bar, Mr. Horace Binney, of Philadelphia, gave his great reputa 
 tion in support of the theory that the President had a constitutional right to 
 suspend the operation of the writ of habeas corpus at that time. His views 
 were published in an elaborate pamphlet in December, 1861. It was fol 
 lowed by another in April, 1862. These publications drew out a most 
 learned discussion of the question. Other distinguished jurists took part, 
 mostly in the negative. The discussion was exhaustive. No one can read 
 the pamphlets and replies without being convinced that if ever a people made a 
 greater effort than those who framed the Constitution of the United States, 
 to preserve to the citizens the right of trial by jury and security from arbitrary 
 or military arrests, history has failed to record the fact. Yet, fortified by the 
 opinion of Horace Binney, the radicals proceeded in their terrible onslaughts 
 upon civil liberty. They pushed through Congress under the lash of party 
 an act of indemnity for all violations of constitutional rights of which the 
 Administration was or might be guilty during the war. , 
 
 It was not until December, 1866, that the Supreme Court had an oppor 
 tunity to put the stamp of infamy on these high-handed proceedings. This 
 was done at that time in the celebrated case, Ex parte Milligan. It is 
 reported in 4th Wallace, United States Supreme Court reports. Lambdin P. 
 Milligan and other citizens of the State of Indiana, had been victims of one 
 of the many arbitrary acts of the military satraps who obtained sway every 
 where under the orders of Secretary Stanton. Mr. Milligan was a peaceable 
 and respected resident of the State of Indiana. On the 5th of October, 
 1864, he was arrested at his own home. He had never been in the United 
 States military or naval service. Indiana was then, as always, a loyal state. 
 No state sent braver regiments or a larger quota of her sons to do battle for 
 the Union. Then, as now, the great majority of her people were Demo- 
 
228 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 crats. Most of her soldiers were Democrats. They were not fighting to 
 free negroes. They were battling for the restoration of the Union. They 
 fought for peace, and for the restoration of good feeling, North and South. 
 They knew by this time that, in effect, they were fighting for the negro, but 
 they had no choice left. If they now abandoned the field the Union would 
 be -lost, so they fought on. The South deserved to lose its slaves, but it was 
 not to enforce that desert that the mothers of Indiana had sent their sons 
 to the field. The Democrats of Indiana were among the most loyal to the 
 Union and the Constitution. They were free and fearless. They freely de 
 nounced the abolition tendencies and turn that the war Jiad taken. They did 
 not hide iri caves, nor conspire in secret, when they expressed their senti 
 ments. The spies and informers of Mr. Stanton were everywhere. They 
 swarmed in Indiana. They started stories of conspiracies. When were 
 spies and informers ever at a loss for a story to please their employers ? Mr. 
 Milligan had been among the most fearless in denouncing the tyranny of the 
 times and the tendency of the Administration. He must, therefore, be made 
 a terrible example, in order to deter others. On the day above stated, he 
 was arrested, by order of Brevet-Major-General Hovey, the military com 
 mander of the District of Indiana. He was confined in a military prison at the 
 capital of the state. Major Burnett, the Judge Advocate of the Military 
 Department of the Northwest, then preferred charges against the prisoner, 
 as follows : 
 
 1. Conspiracy against the government of the United States. 
 
 2. Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the 
 United States. 
 
 3. Inciting insurrection. 
 
 4. Disloyal practices. 
 
 5. Violation of the laws of war. 
 
 These were elaborated by corresponding specifications. 
 
 A military commission was appointed to try Mr. Milligan on these 
 charges. He was placed on trial on the 2ist of the same month. He 
 objected to be tried before such a tribunal. He, of course, denied its jurisdic 
 tion over him, as a citizen of a state in which neither war nor insurrection 
 existed, and in which the civil courts, both state and national, were open. As 
 a matter of course, in those times, his plea was at once overruled. He 
 was promptly found guilty of all the charges. He was sentenced to suffer 
 death by hanging, at the hands of the provost-marshal. This sentence hav 
 ing been approved, Mr. Milligan was ordered to be executed on Friday, the 
 1 9th of May, 1865. It seems incredible now, that such an act could have 
 been done, and the intelligent and freedom-loving North have submitted. It 
 seems more incredible that such a destruction of the muniments of liberty 
 should have been attempted for the purpose of sustaining the Constitution 
 and its Bill of Rights. But since the forced expulsion of Vallandigham out 
 
MR. MILLIGAN APPEALS TO THE COURTS. 229 
 
 of his own state, and beyond the military lines, what might not be ex 
 pected? That patriot's last words to his fellow-citizens from a military 
 prison at Cincinnati, on May 5, 1863, still echoed throughout the land : 
 
 " I am here," he said, u in a military bastile for no other offense than my 
 political opinions, and the defense of them and of the rights of the people and 
 of your constitutional liberties. Speeches made in the hearing of thousands 
 of you in denunciation of the usurpation of power, infractions of the Constitu 
 tion and laws, and of military despotism, were the sole cause of my arrest and 
 imprisonment. I am a Democrat for Constitution, for Law, for the 
 Union, for Liberty this is my only ' crime.' For no disobedience to the 
 Constitution, for no violation of law, for no word, sign, or gesture of sym 
 pathy with the men of the South who are for disunion and Southern inde 
 pendence, but in obedience to their demand, as well as at the demand of 
 Northern abolition disunionists and traitors, I am here in bonds to-day. 
 Meantime, Democrats, be firm, be true to your principles, to the Constitu 
 tion, to the Union, and all will yet be well. As for myself, I adhere to 
 every principle, and will make good, through imprisonment and life itself, 
 every pledge and declaration which I have ever made, uttered, or main 
 tained from the beginning. To you, to the whole people, to time, I again 
 appeal. Stand firm ! Falter not an instant ! " 
 
 These heroic utterances were heard from Maine to California, and 
 yet the baleful work went on. It was not alone the arrest of such inno 
 cent and free-spoken persons wrongfully, but the freedom of the press was 
 violated. Newspapers were stopped, especially at the East, where such staid 
 papers as the Journal of Commerce, and such conservative journals as the 
 New-York World were seized for simply anticipating the news. Their re 
 porters were held in durance. The bastiles were crowded with victims, un 
 tried and helpless. The Milligan case was so atrocious in tyrannical vindic- 
 tiveness, that it gave hope within the crowded bastiles. It became the lead 
 ing case for settling all questions of military jurisdiction. On the loth of 
 October, 1864, Mr. Milligan filed a petition to the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the District of Indiana. He presented the facts of his case, and 
 sustained them by documentary evidence. The petition further set forth 
 that while held in the manner stated, and for more than twenty days after his 
 arrest, a grand jury of the United States Circuit Court was convened at 
 Indianapolis. It had been duly impaneled, charged, and sworn. It had held 
 its sittings, and finally adjourned without having found any indictment or 
 presentment against him. The prayer was that under the act of Congress of 
 March 3, 1863, known as the Trumbull bill (the same which the writer had 
 invoked in Vallandigham's case), the petitioner might be brought before 
 the United States Court, there to be proceeded against according to the law 
 of the land, or discharged from custody altogether. This act of Congress 
 authorized the President to suspend during the rebellion the writ of habeas 
 
230 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 corpus throughout the United States, but it did not attempt to authorize a 
 declaration of martial law, under which alone a civilian could be tried by a 
 court martial or military commission. The most that a subservient Con 
 gress dared to do by that act, was to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus, 
 for a limited time, in cases of arbitrary arrest. The act required that lists of 
 all parties so arrested should be furnished to the judges of the United States 
 Circuit and District courts of the district in which the prisoners were held. 
 These lists were to be submitted to the grand jury, that they might inquire 
 into the charges made. If that body terminated its session without proceed 
 ing by indictment or otherwise against any prisoner named in the list, it was 
 made the duty of the judge of the court to order the prisoner to be brought 
 before him and to discharge him from custody. 
 
 At the hearing of the Milligan petition, the United States being rep 
 resented by its District Attorney, the judges of the Circuit Court divided in 
 opinion with a view of sending the case at once to the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. The main question of division was, in respect to the 
 jurisdiction of the military court. When the case reached the Supreme 
 Court, Messrs. Joseph E. McDonald, Jeremiah S. Black, James A. Gar- 
 field, and David Dudley Field appeared for the petitioner. This was a 
 splendid array of counsel in defense of Magna Charta and its muniments. 
 Attorney-General Speed, ex- Attorney General Stanbery, and Mr. Benjamin 
 F. Butler appeared for the United States. Will it be believed, that in this 
 case of life and death, in which the life and liberty of every American citi 
 zen lay trembling in the scale of Justice, will it be believed, that in such 
 a case the counsel of this great government of the people made a strenuous 
 effort to throw out the petition, on the technical ground that the case was not 
 one within the meaning of the word " cause," in the act of April 29, 1802, 
 which provides for a certification of disagreeing opinions of judges of the 
 Circuit courts, to the Supreme Court of the United States! Will it be 
 credited that the further ground was assumed, that the Supreme Court of the 
 United States should infer that Milligan had already been executed by 
 order of the President of the United States ! It now appeared that in May, 
 1865, the President of the United States had approved the sentence of the 
 military commission, and that the Secretary of War had directed that it should 
 44 be carried into execution without delay." This was at the December 
 term, 1865. The war was over, but the principles of liberty remained for 
 inquisition, stern and pitiless. All the light was thrown upon these and 
 other more substantial points by the galaxy of legal luminaries who were 
 engaged in the argumentation. They had in their hands the exhaustive re 
 searches of all the learned jurists who had examined the questions of habeas 
 corpus and martial law. The elaborate discussions on Mr. Binney's pam 
 phlets were published, as stated, in 1861 and 1862. Never had the question of 
 personal liberty been so thoroughly discussed, from the time of Magna Charta 
 
MARTIAL LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 231 
 
 down. No court had ever before received such aid in its elucidation. What 
 was the result ? How could it be otherwise than that at that term Mr. Mil- 
 ligan was ordered to be released from custody? At the following term, Mr. 
 Justice Davis delivered the well matured opinion of the Court. It amply 
 vindicated the conduct of the Democratic members and Senators who 
 throughout the war had denounced the arbitraiy acts of the Administra 
 tion and its supporters, as being subversive of every sacred constitutional 
 right, and destructive of every principle of civil liberty which the state 
 and Federal governments were founded to preserve and maintain. This 
 discussion seemed to add new splendor to the calm and steady effulgence of 
 a court which was constituted to be above the wrangles of faction and the 
 prejudices of party. It revealed a splendor not altogether lost in the con 
 tamination of that fallible judicial reason which a decade afterwards gave its 
 sanction to the great outrage of the Electoral Count. 
 
 There had been much discussion as to whether the Executive or the Con 
 gress had the power to suspend the operation of the writ of habeas corpus; 
 but that was a question of little importance while a radical Congress was urg 
 ing on the Executive to the most ultra acts of despotism. As a constitutional 
 question, it is not yet settled. There have been powerful arguments by great 
 lawyers in support of each side of the question. It is a reasonable inference, 
 that if a time shall ever come again in which the privileges of the writ are 
 suspended, there will be the same partisan accord between the legislative 
 and executive branches of the government, as there was during the past 
 period of war and turmoil. But the decision in the Milligan case has set 
 tled, for all time, that neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Judiciary 
 can, rightfully, disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty incorporated 
 into the Constitution, except in so far as the power is given to suspend the 
 privilege of habeas corpus in time of insurrection or invasion, when the 
 public safety demands that extreme measure. The logic of the decision is, 
 that in such case the parties arrested are to be brought before the civil 
 courts at the earliest moment consistent with the public safety. For, it is 
 only at the seat of war or insurrection that martial law can exist. For, as 
 the court decided : A citizen not connected with the military service, and 
 resident in a state where the courts are open and in the proper exercise of 
 their jurisdiction, cannot, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas 
 corpus is suspended, be tried, convicted, or sentenced, otherwise than by 
 the ordinary courts of law. The Supreme Court hold that the constitu 
 tional guaranty of trial by jury was intended as well for a state of war as 
 in time of peace, and that it is equally binding on the people and the Fed 
 eral authorities at all times and under all circumstances. Chief Justice 
 Chase and Associate Justices Wayne, Swayne, and Miller concurred in the 
 decision of the Court. They, however, filed an opinion presenting their 
 view that martial law might, in cases " of justifying peril ... in 
 
232 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign wars, " be called 
 into action by Congress or by the President in recess, when the action 
 of Congress cannot be invited "within districts or localities where ordinary 
 law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights." But 
 the decision of the Court contains no such doctrine. It is positive in 
 the assertion that martial law cannot exist over the citizen in a state or 
 locality, even in time of war, where the civil courts are open and in the 
 exercise of their jurisdiction. 
 
 In the District of Columbia, in the capital of the country, under the 
 shadow of the Supreme Judiciary, while all the local courts were open, a 
 fearful tragedy was being enacted, a few months after the Supreme Court 
 had discharged Mr. Milligan from the death to which he had been con 
 demned. It will ever remain a dark spot on the fame of the Nation, that 
 this tragedy of martial violence was enacted after every vestige of war 
 and insurrection had disappeared. It is needless to say that it was the exe 
 cution of Mrs. Surratt, under the judgment of a military commission, and 
 outside of the courts which alone had jurisdiction then and there over life 
 and liberty. Even that incarnate spirit of war and jurisprudence, General 
 Butler, who had so strenuously contended for the legality of martial rule in 
 Indiana in 1864, denounced its operation in the District of Columbia 
 in 1865. " It was," said he, " judicial murder." The members of the military 
 commission that tried the parties charged with complicity in the assassina 
 tion of President Lincoln, were murderers in the sight of the law ! To this 
 crowning infamy did the passions of war and radical hate, and a reckless 
 contempt of the sacred guaranties of the Constitution bring the Nation. 
 
 In arguing for the petitioner in J5x-parteM.i\\\gan., General Garfield, then 
 a Republican member of Congress, said : 
 
 "Near the close of the Thirty-eighth Congress, when the miscella 
 neous appropriation bill, which authorized the disbursement of several mil 
 lions of dollars for the civil expenditures of the government, was under dis 
 cussion, the House of Representatives, having observed with alarm the 
 growing tendency to break down the barriers of law, and desiring to pro 
 tect the rights of citizens as well as to preserve the Union, added to the 
 appropriation bill the following section : 'And be it further enacted, That no 
 person shall be tried by court-martial or military commission in any State or 
 Territory where the courts of the United States are open, except persons 
 actually mustered, or commissioned, or appointed in the military or naval 
 service of the United States, or rebel enemies charged with being spies/" 
 This section was merely the assertion of the law of the land from the found 
 ation of the Union down. The Senate acknowledged its justice ; yet they 
 struck out the section. The bill came back from that body. Important as 
 it was, the bill failed in the House, notwithstanding all the radical efforts 
 
MILITARY GO VERNORS 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PROTESTS. 233 
 
 up to the last moment of the session, to pass it without that section. 
 44 The record of its failure," said General Garfield, "is an emphatic declara 
 tion that the House of Representatives have never consented to the estab 
 lishment of any tribunals, except those authorized by the Constitution of the 
 United States and the laws of Congress." But all the same, the sentences 
 of the Washington Military Commission were carried out on the yth of 
 July following, while the courts were open, and on the day that a judge 
 had returned to him his writ of habeas corpus with a denial of its effect. 
 
 During the second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, the question 
 of military incarcerations came up in various forms. It began with Mr. 
 Ganson, of New- York. He offers a resolution directing the Committee 
 on Military Affairs to examine into the matter, and make a general jail de 
 livery of the Old Capitol and Carroll prisons. This resolution passes with 
 out discussion, on the i8th of January, 1865. Its passage is a surprise. 
 At once, Thaddeus Stevens moves to reconsider. A debate springs up. 
 Mr. Ganson gives the instance which provokes his resolutions. The writer, 
 in a speech, asks why the Trumbull law had not been executed, in the 
 Vallandigham and other cases. There are other cases, as he informs the 
 House, in which the Secretary of the Treasury, under some peculiar " higher 
 law" unknown to our statutes, has, for purposes connected with the revenue, 
 or to protect the issue of greenbacks or shinplasters against counterfeiting, 
 caused persons to be arrested by the military power. 
 
 "There are now men in the Capitol Prison," said the author, then a 
 debater, " almost within the sound of the voice of at least some of the 
 members of this House, who are kept there month after month on the mere 
 order of the Solicitor of the Treasury, on the charge of forgery. Appli 
 cations have been made by their friends again and again to have their per 
 sons removed to the proper jurisdictions in the states and districts, where 
 the law is unimpeded by the military authority, and yet no attention has been 
 paid to the request. They still remain there. There is a case from my own 
 district of an old man who has been suspected of counterfeiting. He could 
 be released at any moment by the Solicitor of the Treasury. Is there no 
 relief for these abuses ? Shall we not be permitted to inquire about them 
 with a view to future legislation ? " Other members instance case after case. 
 Then Henry Winter Davis takes the floor. He places the matter on the 
 highest ground. This is his first but not his last protest. He demands that 
 the committee should examine the facts and spread them before the Ameri 
 can people, and then let them say whether there exists any law upon the 
 statute-book of the United States that authorizes the confinement of any 
 American citizen not in the military service, in a loyal state, upon the judg 
 ment of a military commission, or, without judicial sanction, at the pleasure 
 of subordinate officers of the government, or even by the order of the Presi 
 dent of the United States. 
 
 15 
 
234 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 This is bold ground. It is worthy of the parliamentary heroism in the 
 time of the Stuarts and their prerogative. It is audacious, especially for a 
 member of the dominant and arrogant party. General Garfield raises his 
 voice also in indignant remonstrance. He, too, is hailed as the friend of civil 
 liberty. It is vindicated by nearly a unanimous vote 136 to 5. The debate 
 on this theme took a more significant shape at the ending of the session. 
 Henry Winter Davis rose again to the height of a grand argument in favor 
 of " the right of every citizen to his personal liberty." It was he who 
 offered the section cited by Mr. Garfield in the Milligan case as an amend 
 ment declarator}' of our Bill of Rights. He held that on it depended the 
 very endurance of republican institutions. When the bill came back from the 
 Senate without that section, he said that no money should be appropriated 
 with his consent, as the expense of so grave a reflection upon the funda 
 mental principles of the government. This was the climax of a long debate. 
 It happened not a half-hour before the death of that Congress. The wildest 
 passions were rife. The bill failed. Henry Winter Davis scorned to yield, 
 even for the passage of some charities in it. "I am determined," said he, 
 " that not one item of this bill shall pass without the whole of it." He re 
 affirmed the facts herein stated. The bill had been passed, as he showed, 
 to stop these outrageous arrests. To use his own trope, he would allow 
 the bill to stand in the records like a broken dike, in the midst of the rising 
 flood of lawless power. It would show to future generations how high the 
 flood of lawless power had risen in only three years of civil war. It was an 
 awakening to those who were then with us. Now, exclaimed this gifted 
 Maryland orator, who reproduced the elegance of Pinckney, with the 
 cogency of Wirt : u The conference committee on the part of the House 
 have come to the determination, so far as the constitutional privileges and 
 prerogatives of this House will enable them to accomplish the result, that 
 this bill shall not become a law if these words do not stand as part of it 
 the affirmation by the representatives of the states and of the people of the 
 inalienable birthright of every American citizen ; and on that question they 
 appeal from the judgment of the Senate to the judgment of the American 
 people." Amidst the wildest applause, the three years of arbitrary arrogance 
 and flagrant violation of our Magna Charta was buried beneath the repro 
 bation and scorn of the American House of Representatives ! What a tri 
 umph an earnest, liberty-loving minority may achieve, if bravely led and 
 inspired with a profound and intelligent love of liberty. A dwarf behind an 
 engine may remove mountains. The closing hours of the last Congress of the 
 war lifted aloft a standard, with a legend worthy of the great liberators of man 
 kind who have contended for human rights established by written codes. 
 Many hundred years ago, the Goths brought their fueros, or bills of right, 
 from the cold forests of the North to the sunny plains and rugged mountains 
 of the old granary of the Roman world, Algiers. The spirit of Tell and 
 
MAGNA CHART A. 235 
 
 Liberty still remains as a monument through a thousand of years of Swiss 
 republican existence. The Sierras of Spain still echo the words of the 
 patriot Riego. His hymn is the Marseillaise of the Peninsula. After he 
 was hunted, long after he had saved constitutional liberty and favored 
 amnesty for all, he gave to the world the noblest exemplar of patriotism 
 since the days of Brutus. 
 
 The traveler sometimes visits an island meadow in the River Thames, 
 near Windsor, now used as a race course. It is known as Runnymede. 
 The traveler does not go there to see the racing, but because that meadow 
 marks an era in the progress of human freedom. There, 666 years ago, on 
 the morning of the 1 2th of August, the iron-clad barons met King John. 
 They wrested from him the same rights which were violated by the Federal 
 Administration and ostracized by the Indemnity bill of Congress. These 
 rights were written in the Latin of that day, " Nullus liber homo capiatur" 
 Dead language, but vital with liberty words which Chatham said were 
 worth all the classics : " No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or 
 deprived of his own free household, or of his liberties, or of his own free 
 customs, or outlawed, or banished, or injured in any manner, nor will we 
 pass sentence upon him, nor send trial upon him, unless by the legal judgment 
 of his peers or by the law of the land." This was the germ of our civil 
 freedom, which men in the passions of war endeavored to uproot after it 
 had grown from the acorn to the oak ! Judge Thomas, of Massachusetts, 
 who was a member of the preceding Congress, finely expressed it by another 
 trope : " From the gray of that morning streamed the rays, which, uplifting 
 with the hours, coursing with the years, and keeping pace with the centuries, 
 have encircled the whole earth with the glorious light of English liberty 
 the liberty for which our fathers planted these commonwealths in the wilder 
 ness ; for which they went through the baptism of blood and fire in the Revo 
 lution ; which they imbedded and hoped to make immortal in the Constitution ; 
 without which the Constitution would not be worth the parchment upon 
 which it was written." As if to make the Great Charter sacred forever in 
 the Anglo-Saxon memory, to connect it with the holiest emotions of reli 
 gion, and to sanction it by the hopes and the terrors of the unseen world, the 
 Catholic hierarchy of that day long before Protestantism arose, before the 
 Reformation, before we had the transcendental light of our Puritan preachers 
 the English Catholic hierarchy, then the champions of the oppressed and 
 the people, were convoked a few days after the unwilling king signed the 
 charter. Picture that great convocation ! It meets in Westminster Abbey, 
 the mausoleum of the dead royalty and genius of Britain. Here is the king 
 upon his throne, sceptred and crowned, impurpled in his robes of office ; 
 near him are the lords temporal in their scarlet gowns ; on his right are the 
 gentlemen of England representing the Commons, the people of the realm ; 
 and within the altar are the lords spiritual, clad in all the pomp of their pon- 
 
236 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 tifical apparel ! In the midst stands Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Can 
 terbury, the primate of England. The great organ rolls its music amidst 
 the Gothic arches ; the air, suffused with a dim religious light from the 
 stained windows, trembles with the thrill of " symphony divine," and the 
 choir sing Te Deum laudamus praise to God for the great charter of human 
 freedom ! Censers swing and the incense wreathes up an offering to the God 
 of justice ! And in that impressive presence the Archbishop arises, and gath 
 ering upon his brow and in his voice the terrors of the invisible and eternal 
 world, he sequesters and excludes, and from the body of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, from the company of the saints in heaven and the good on earth, 
 he forever excommunicates and accurses every one who would dare to violate 
 that great charter of Anglo-Saxon freedom ! These curses were living when 
 the popular branch of Congress rose above all debasing thought to listen to 
 the teachings of Henry Winter Davis, soon to be followed by the judicial 
 decisions of his cousin, Judge David Davis, upon the same inspiring theme. 
 That House of Representatives deserves to be honored ever for placing on 
 high the rights of the people as eternized in our traditions, our history, and 
 our Constitution. But the people of this country are ever meeting as of old, 
 not in any Gothic minster, not in the presence of the hierarchs, not with 
 ceremony of Church and State, not to the music of organ and choir or the 
 rising incense of praise, not amidst the fulminations of primates, but under 
 the great sky of heaven, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi ; and they, too, 
 are sequestering and excluding, excommunicating and accursing from the 
 company of the good and patriotic everywhere, all the minions of power 
 who dared in this age and land, and in the midst of the terrible passions 
 of war, to violate the sacred rights of personal and constitutional liberty. 
 
 Is there any incident connected with these events in relation to personal 
 freedom touching the author? There is none so significant to him and his, 
 as the fact that he was compelled, in the city of Columbus and in the state of 
 his bfrth, to keep at his bedside, a rope connected with a bell to warn the 
 population who were averse to a repetition of the Vallandigham out 
 rage of any arrest upon the person of their elected Representative. The 
 city of Columbus never lost either its loyalty to law or its love of liberty. It 
 was only when a vindictive legislature gerrymandered that district, that 
 the author went to New- York. There he has been clinging to the horns of 
 the Democratic altair. How abundantly grateful to his heart was and is the 
 opulency of his reception in that city of Democracy. 
 
 It is but a fitting close of this question of personal liberty and all that it 
 contains for the reader, that it should mark the beginning of a new decade 
 in our policy or polity. It is due to the memory of Henry Winter Davis that 
 the new generation should know arid appreciate the courageous patriotism 
 and the intellectual stamina of that most gifted orator. 
 
HENRY WINTER DAVIS. 237 
 
 Henry Winter Davis was the son of a Protestant Episcopal minister. 
 He was born at Annapolis, where his father was president of a college and 
 rector of a parish. In early times the father had much prejudice against 
 Democrats, and early taught his son to " beware of the follies of Jack- 
 sonism." When the war for the Union came on, the son had forgotten 
 such a peculiar teaching, for if there was one thing connected with the 
 service of General Jackson more manifest than another, it was his attachment 
 to the Union. Henry Winter Davis graduated at Kenyon College, Ohio, in 
 1833, during the presidency of Bishop Mcllvaine. He was a successful and 
 laborious scholar, and a rare debater in the conflicts of the societies. He, no 
 doubt, learned his power of analysis and his graces of expression through 
 such exercises. He returned to his native State of Maryland thoroughly 
 accomplished in all that equips for free, profound, and legal investigation. 
 Those who remember Mr. Davis can recall a certain boyishness in his man 
 ner and figure. This wore off the moment he began to speak. In the 
 writer's opinion he was the best orator in, every sense of the wWd, whom 
 he has ever heard in Congress. He had logic, but it was logic set on fire of 
 rhetoric. The writer never heard him upon the hustings, but his reputation 
 as an out-door orator is said to have been equal to that which he gained in 
 the forum. He stood high professionally, socially, and politically. He was 
 the idol of the young lawyers of Baltimore. He always had a chosen circle 
 from the time of his election to the Thirty-first Congress until his death. 
 After the adjournment of the Thirty-eighth Congress he was engrossed by 
 the momentous questions which were urged for adjustment. He was among 
 the first to consider the great necessity of reconstruction. He was in the 
 Thirty-ninth Congress, and although heartily received by his colleagues and 
 comrades, he did not long remain with them. He died in his forty-ninth 
 year. The writer served with him upon the Foreign Affairs committee, 
 and without collision as to questions connected with the war and international 
 law. He is especially proud to make this memorial tribute to Mr. Davis, 
 because as the war was winding up and personal liberty became almost as 
 indispensable to our country and its institutions as the Federal Union itself, 
 it was Henry Winter Davis who rose to the front rank of debate, and by 
 his silvery style and cogent logic held Congress almost enthralled until 
 something was accorded to the dignity of personal and public liberty which 
 had been invaded by the excesses of the war. 
 
 This Maryland statesman passed through many dark days, not only for his 
 state but for the country. He was ever for the unconditional maintenance of 
 the Union, and though once defeated by Henry May, a Union conservative 
 of great oratorical skill and fervor, he did not remain in the rear, but still 
 pushed to the front. As he once said in a speech at Brooklyn t * You see 
 the conflagration from a distance. It blisters me at my side. You can 
 survive the integrity of the Nation. We in Maryland would live on the side of 
 
238 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 a gulf perpetually tending to plunge into its depths. It is for you life and 
 liberty. It is for you greatness of strength and prosperity." What he did in 
 Maryland has been well remembered by his compatriots. He is also re 
 membered for his austerely energetic yet elegant style. It is said that he 
 had no humor. But humor is nearly allied to wit and sarcasm. It is 
 confessed he had much of the latter, but it was frequently blended, as the 
 writer has seen, with great good temper. In some of his speeches, espe 
 cially those in the midst of the war, he made others sympathetic with his 
 own heroic resolve. In one of them he eloquently said : " If we fall with 
 honor, we transmit the liberty committed to our keeping untarnished to go 
 down to future generations. If we must fall, let our last hours be stained by 
 no weakness, let the ruins of the Republic remain to testify to the latest gen 
 erations our greatness and our heroism, and let Liberty, crownless and child 
 less, sit upon these ruins crying aloud in a sad way to the nations of the 
 world, ' I once brought up children and they have rebelled against me.' " 
 Some of his conspicuous efforts were connected with the reconstruction of 
 the states, beginning with Tennessee. Why he failed to produce the desired 
 effect, was owing perhaps to a lack of moderation in temper and to an enthu 
 siasm which had been generated in contending so closely in a border state 
 with those who opposed him. 
 
 To offer the olive-branch of peace on honorable terms to our Southern 
 brothers was regarded as treason by the radical leaders. Yet at any time the 
 pen of fraternal compromise would have been more powerful than the sword 
 of war in restoring the old harmony between the sections. All the lessons of 
 history were ignored. Even from Ireland, with her many rebellions and 
 much suffering, the Muse of History pointed with menacing finger to the 
 result of the policies of subjugation. What a picture then for observation ! 
 There stood Ireland in chains, fettered to the land of Magna Charta which 
 boasted of habeas corpus and civil liberty ! A conspiracy here, a plot there, 
 a rebellion at the capital, a rising at the extremities, public waste, private im 
 poverishment, general corruption, periodical starvation, political turpitude, 
 and national bankruptcy these were the features of national thraldom which 
 Ireland presented for our warning, when men talked so glibly of subjugation 
 and confiscation. How much better would it have been for all countries, 
 had the sagacious advice of Sydney Smith been followed, when he said : 
 
 " How easy it is to shed human blood ; how easy it is to persuade our 
 selves that it is our duty to (Jo so, and that the decision has cost us a severe 
 struggle ; how much, in all ages, have wounds, and shrieks, and tears been 
 the cheap and vulgar resources of the rulers of mankind. The vigor I 
 love consists in finding out wherein subjects are aggrieved, in relieving them, 
 in studying the temper and genius of a people, in consulting their prejudices, 
 in selecting proper persons to lead and manage them in the laborious, 
 
THE OLIVE-BRANCH NOT OFFERED YET. 239 
 
 watchful, and difficult task of increasing public happiness by allaying each 
 particular discontent." 
 
 When would the olive-branch be offered the South ? Not until the last 
 armed foe expires, say the Republicans. They who hoped for terms must 
 wait in vain ; for the passions of man were aroused in the radical breast, 
 bidding defiance to every element of law, every guarantee of freedom, and 
 every sentiment of clemency and brotherhood. Under such a condition, 
 could men of American mould stop the conflict while there was any power 
 left in the South to muster a battalion or fire a round of canister ? Was it 
 any wonder that these men, with famine in the camps, barefooted and in 
 rags, with munitions of war all exhausted and nothing left but their valor 
 and despair, held at bay, for a year almost, the first captain of the age and 
 the grandest army that was ever mustered on the face of the earth ? No less 
 loyal a hand than that of General Garfield himself has written in imperish 
 able letters, on the annals of the Nation, these words which will go down to 
 all time as a memorial of American patriotism and brotherhood : u The sol 
 diers of the two armies, if left to themselves, would at any time have come 
 to a peaceful settlement of the war in half an hour ! " What was this but 
 an admission that the soldiers of the Union army were at all times fighting 
 under the original pledge, which gave Democratic enthusiasm to this cause 
 that the war was for the Union, and not for any fanatical scheme or issue? 
 
 It was well said in the burning eloquence and patriotism of Mr. Voorhees 
 in his speech on the state of the Union, in March, 1864, that the baleful band 
 of political destructionists who then unhappily possessed the high seats of na 
 tional authority, did not want peace. u No," said he, " they invoked the storm 
 which had rained blood upon the land. They courted the whirlwind. They 
 danced with hellish glee around the bubbling caldron of civil war. They 
 welcomed with ferocious joy every hurtful mischief which flickered in its lurid 
 and infernal flame. Compromise, which had its origin in the love and mercy 
 of God ; which made peace and ratified the treaty on Calvary between 
 Heaven and the revolted and rebellious earth ; compromise, which is the 
 fundamental basis upon which all human associations have been created and 
 upheld, was then pronounced a treasonable word and covered with reproach 
 by skillful knaves intent on enriching themselves at the expense of national 
 sorrow and blood, that compromise which would have restored peace and 
 fraternity to the distracted land, and spared the desolation of bereavement 
 and death to a million firesides, was rejected by the arch-traitors of aboli 
 tionism." There were then " patriots " in plenty who denounced Mr. Voor 
 hees as a traitor and a copperhead for such utterances. But not all the 
 bastiles that were ever built could restrain the proud spirits of such men as 
 Voorhees and Vallandigham, and their Democratic confreres. These men 
 loyally sustained our armies in the field in order to conquer a peace, while 
 they hesitated not to assault the satrap Secretary of War, when ten thousand 
 of his armed guards were ever ready to execute his most ferocious orders. 
 
240 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Did the contest for civil liberty end with the war? No. Far from that. 
 When secession died, as it did in the last ditch, then it was that the malign 
 spirit which had hovered in the rear of the conflict came to the front to gloat 
 over the prostrate Southern land. The gray picket was no longer at his post 
 to challenge the spirit of hate and eternal discord. No right was now to be 
 known but that of conquest and spoliation. Now, -indeed, had the fruit of 
 victory turned into the dust of Sodom. The Union was at last rent in twain ! 
 What neither secession nor war to the last could do, was now done by act of 
 Congress, and radical hate. A new Executive had come with a very small 
 olive-branch in his hand. What cared the victorious conspirators for that ? 
 They spat upon it with contempt. They impeached him for that small ten 
 der. What cared they now for executive clemency ? What cared they for 
 Constitution guaranties or Supreme Court decisions ? They would have no 
 peace in the South land. They would have no law but martial law in the 
 " conquered provinces," until they could lay broad and deep in Southern 
 soil, the foundations of a party structure that neither time nor the American 
 people could ever overthrow ! Here, in the opening year of the second 
 decade of this history, began the second contest to save the Union ; a con 
 test no less pregnant with the fate of American institutions than the first, 
 and no less bitterly fought ; a contest which was not finally settled until the 
 very last year of Republican sway. It took almost a quarter of a century to 
 silence the guns of Moultrie and Sumter ! 
 
 At last, a measure of content comes upon the despoiled and prostrate 
 South. The party of constitutional liberty, state fealty, and Federal unity 
 has succeeded, and the prophecy has been realized, for the old standard has 
 again been high advanced : " Good tidings shall bind up the broken 
 hearted, and to them that mourn in Zion, give unto them beauty for ashes, 
 the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of 
 heaviness. . . . And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up 
 the former desolations, ... as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and 
 the garden causeth things that are sown in it to spring forth." "Go 
 through, go through the gates, prepare ye the way of the PEOPLE ; cast 
 up, cast up the highway ; lift up a standard for the PEOPLE ! " 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 PROSCRIPTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE MODES NON-INTERCOURSE THEORY AND PRAC 
 TICE WAS SECESSION WAR OR NOT IT WAS A PRACTICAL FACT DILEM 
 MA AS TO " PIRATES " AND PRISONERS OF WAR - LINCOLN'S SOLUTION AN 
 OMALOUS RIGORS, NORTH AND SOUTH HIGHER LAW NEWLY APPLIED 
 vESOP'S SATYR AFTER THE WAR FOLLY OF NON-ACTION SOUTH TWO 
 DECADES OF TROUBLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVERTED RADICAL PROSCRIP 
 TIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS CONFISCA 
 TION ACTS -ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS BELLIGERENT STATUS 
 VIOLATED TEST OATHS LOYALTY CUMMINGS AND PERMOLI CASES 
 IN RE GARLAND JUSTICE FIELD'S DECISIONS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 
 A BILL OF ATTAINDER ITS MONSTROSITY FORCE BILL AND ITS FATE - 
 LIBERTY ECLIPSED TEST OATH REPEALED IN 1884 RAPINE BY LAW 
 DEMOCRATIC PROTESTS AGAINST OSTRACISM AND TYRANNY. 
 
 WHEN it was finally determined that no compromise would be 
 offered to the South by the Republican party without an abso 
 lute waiver of all the questions affecting slavery, there was no 
 mode left for the settlement of the issue of secession, other 
 than that by force of arms. True, Mr. Lincoln issued, from time to time, his 
 proclamations to the South ; but these were always read by the people to 
 whom they were addressed, in the light of past experience. Mr. Lincoln did 
 not, and could not for his party, give any assurance that the grievances of 
 which the South complained would be remedied by submission to Federal 
 authority. Seeing that the idea of compromise was rejected with contempt, 
 the Confederates at once organized a de facto government. That govern 
 ment was republican in form. It had its constitution, and its three depart 
 ments of authority the legislative, the executive, and judicial. Armies 
 were put in the field and a naval force was created to maintain the independ 
 ence declared by the Southern States. In this condition of affairs, the Presi 
 dent of the United States, on April 15, 1861, issues a proclamation to the 
 
242 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 states of the Union. It calls for seventy-five thousand of the militia to aid the 
 army and navy in an effort to re-possess the forts and arsenals which had been 
 seized by the Confederate forces, and otherwise to compel submission to the 
 general government. To this the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy 
 responds on May 6, 1861. It passes "An act recognizing the existence of 
 war between the United States and the Confederate States, and concerning 
 Letters of Marque, Prizes, and Prize Goods." This act prescribes rules for 
 the conduct of the war, according to the mode of independent belligerent 
 powers. Shortly afterward, on the I3th of the same month, a state of war is 
 recognized by Her Britannic Majesty's government as existing between the 
 de facto Confederacy and the United States. France and the other powers 
 of Europe follow the same course without delay. The Federal Government 
 protests against this foreign recognition. It denies the right of a foreign 
 power to take cognizance of any local or sectional disputes in this country. 
 It denies that there is a state of war within the nation. It asserts that the 
 existing trouble is of a temporary nature, and that the great mass of the 
 Southern people will not give their support to an outbreak that must soon 
 be suppressed by the Federal Government. The immediate cause, or excuse, 
 for foreign recognition of the Confederacy is the proclamation of President 
 Lincoln, issued on the loth of April, 1861, declaring a " blockade" of the 
 ports in certain of the seceded states, in pursuance of the " law of nations " 
 and " the statutes of the United States " in such case made and provided. 
 Persons acting under the authority of the Confederacy who molest any United 
 States vessel are to be treated as " pirates." 
 
 On the 1 6th of August, 1861, in pursuance of an act of Congress recently 
 passed, President Lincoln issued another proclamation, declaring the inhab 
 itants of the eleven seceding states (except those of West Virginia) to be in 
 a state of insurrection against the United States. It forbade the citizens of 
 other states from holding any commercial intercourse with them. Other ex 
 ecutive proclamations and acts of Congress followed. Each of them charac 
 terized the Confederacy as a pretended government, and the support given to 
 it as an insurrection or rebellion against the only government, de facto or de 
 jure, within the constitutional limits of the United States. Never once in 
 diplomatic correspondence, or in proclamations, or act of Congress, did the 
 Federal Government directly admit the existence of a state of war in the South. 
 It was in practice only, that war was recognized as existing. The government 
 was compelled by force of circumstances to treat with the Confederacy as a 
 belligerent power. And because of the ability of that power to maintain what 
 is called a war, the Federal Government, both from policy and humanity, 
 was compelled to suppress the "insurrection" or " rebellion," according to the 
 modes of war. A pertinent illustration of this dilemma occurs to the author. 
 In the progress of events, and before practice had regulated the theory, some 
 sailors in the Confederate service were captured. They were not treated 
 
EXCHANGE OF CONFEDERATE PRISONERS OF WAR. 
 
 243 
 
 as prisoners of war. They were sent to Philadelphia. They were indicted 
 as pirates by a United States Court grand jury. They were tried and con 
 victed as felons, for acts of piracy and murder upon the high seas. The Con 
 federate authorities retaliated. Colonel Corcoran and two other Federal 
 military officers of equal rank had been captured at Bull Run. They were at 
 once treated to a like imprisonment, if not worse. They were held as hostages, 
 to be hanged, in case the Confederate seamen were hanged. This painful 
 predicarnent alarmed their friends and fellow-compatriots. It led the author 
 to introduce and have passed, at the second session of the Thirty-seventh Con 
 gress, his resolution for the exchange of prisoners. 
 
 In this dilemma, the friends of the imperiled Union soldiers visited 
 Washington. They brought to the President an able presentation of the case 
 from the gifted pen of Charles P. Daly, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 
 of New- York City. Richard O'Gorman, the distinguished jurist and orator, 
 now upon the bench of that city, was its custodian and interpreter. He 
 called upon the writer to present him and his address to President Lincoln. 
 The writer was then a Representative from Ohio ; but through many kindly 
 offices from the President, he was regarded as being specially devoted to the 
 exchange of prisoners so as to mitigate the severities of a war which could 
 not then be stopped. After hearing the matter, the President reserved his 
 decision, but requested the writer to call again. He did call the next day, 
 when a happy thought seemed to end the controversy. It was developed out 
 of the Socratic method of argument. 
 
 The author here presents his interrogatories and the responses: " Mr. 
 President, you are endeavoring to put down this insurgent force by force ? " 
 " Yes." " You desire to keep alive the patriotic sentiment? " " Yes." "The 
 Irish are a martial race. The Sixty-ninth are Irish, Colonel Corcoran is their 
 favorite. Will you discourage them?" "No." "Will not this threat of 
 retaliation and hanging rob the service of some of its best soldiers, and detract 
 from its gallantry and esprit?" "Yes." "Well, then, Mr. President, if 
 much good and no harm results from relieving our Union officers in durance, 
 South, why not exercise your prerogative?" "Ah! there it is," said the 
 President, "you would have me recognize these pirates as belligerents. 
 Remember that to fight on land is one thing, but on an unstable element like 
 the sea, where men are isolated and helpless, is another." This was, then, 
 the sum of the reasoning against an exchange of prisoners. It had in it 
 no element of humanity or international law. The writer then put one more 
 question: "What is the difference between firing a shot at yonder flag 
 (pointing out of the White House window to the flag flying from one of the 
 forts on the Virginia hills) from Ball's Cross Roads, where you can almost see 
 the 4 stars and bars,' and firing a shot at the same sacred emblem from under 
 the same ' star and bar ' bunting upon the mobile element ? Are not both shots 
 intended to take the life of the Union? Where is the difference in intent and 
 
244 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 conduct? Does the difference consist in one being fired on the soil and the 
 other on the sea ? Is it one thing from yonder red banks and another from 
 the blue sea ? " The President quizzically pondered a moment over the ad 
 absurdum, and then admitted that there was no substantial difference. He 
 promised relief. It came. Secretary Seward ordered an exchange of the 
 so-called pirates as prisoners of war. 
 
 All the heated discussions in Congress and in the press of the country in 
 respect to the course which should be pursued in restoring the Federal rela 
 tions to all parts of the Union had their source in this anomalous condition. 
 Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that while secession was a fact, its 
 theory was not to be admitted. They further agreed, while secession was 
 a potential fact, that whether admitted or not to the outside world, the 
 United States had become bound to treat the people of the South who were 
 resisting the Federal laws and armies, not as " rebels " and " traitors," but as 
 belligerents. Their belligerent status was irrevocably admitted in the ca 
 pitulation of the armies of Lee and Johnston. Early in the contest, it be 
 came the doctrine of the courts that the Confederacy was a belligerent power, 
 and they applied the principles of the law of nations in the elucidation of all 
 questions arising out of that state of belligerency. After the surrender of 
 these armies, it was claimed by those who desired to treat the late belliger 
 ents as a conquered people, that " The law of nations is above the Constitu 
 tion." It was meant by this, that certain acts of Congress passed during the 
 existence of the Southern Confederacy and the period of reconstruction, and 
 other executive acts, which were contrary to the spirit and letter of the Con 
 stitution, were in fact valid because of that "higher law," the law of 
 nations. 
 
 While it is admitted that the law of nations is a part of our judicial sys 
 tem, it has never been regarded by any American jurist as being above the 
 Constitution. We may except, perhaps, some of the extremists whose judg 
 ment was warped by passion and partisanship. It is certain that the law of 
 nations has no force against those principles of our organic law which de 
 fine the powers and duties of the general government in its relations with 
 the states and the people of the Union. This is the doctrine that Mr. Seward 
 stated to the powers which recognized the Confederacy. He protested against 
 recognition on the ground of international law. It is the very corner-stone 
 of all the proclaimed policy of Mr. Lincoln in regard to secession and its 
 consequences. It is the doctrine which the Democratic party asserted and 
 acted upon, from the first to the last, in the great ordeal through which the 
 nation passed. Mr. Reverdy Johnson gave it elaboration and eloquence in 
 his debate with Senator Howe and other Senators on the reconstruction 
 policy, to which allusion is made in subsequent chapters. He said that the 
 armed resistance in the South was a rebellion or insurrection fully provided 
 for in the Constitution. It might be called war by international law, but 
 
HIGHER LAW NEWLY APPLIED. 245 
 
 not by constitutional law. True, the logical technical result would be, as 
 Mr. Johnson admitted, that those who aided the Confederacy had violated 
 the laws of their country and were subject to its penalties. 
 
 The infliction of severe penalties was the very thing most desired by the 
 radical party. They had, however, a method in their passion. Revenge was 
 sweet, but political ascendency and the power it confers, was far sweeter. 
 Besides this, would it be possible to inflict the penalties of the law on a 
 whole people who had violated the law ? Could a criminal intent be attrib 
 uted to the whole people of a state or of a confederacy ? Ought the era of 
 barbarism to be permitted to come back with its cruelties and rigors ? There 
 was no disposition on the part of the people who suppressed secession to 
 execute the rigors of the law. Nor would it be sound policy to attempt it. 
 Every instinct of common blood would be in revolt against it. Our conces 
 sion of belligerent rights to the South was in itself a waiver of the right to 
 prosecute our Southern brethren for their belligerent acts. It would have 
 been simply atrocious, under such circumstances, and after peace was restored, 
 to carry on a system of proscription in the courts, even though it were possi 
 ble to find judges and juries so depraved as to become its instruments. But 
 by no other mode than this could any citizen, while subject to the jurisdic 
 tion of the United States, be deprived of the rights pertaining to citizenship. 
 The war was prosecuted by the United States on the theory that every man, 
 woman, and child in the seceded states owed allegiance to the Federal Con 
 stitution and Government. No other theory was at any time admitted in 
 the North. The people of this section would at no time admit that the 
 mode adopted to enforce Federal jurisdiction the mode of war estopped 
 them from asserting the unity of the Nation with all its incidents of power. 
 Hence, it logically and constitutionally follows, that no citizen could law 
 fully be estopped in the defense of his rights as a citizen, on the ground that 
 he had repudiated the government that was created to maintain its sover 
 eignty over him. He could not " attorn " his Federal allegiance. 
 
 Here was a predicament for the party of reconstruction. Its shrewd 
 leaders foresaw it early in the conflict. The very men who most bitterly 
 opposed the exchange of prisoners, lest it might be regarded as a recognition of 
 a belligerent power in the South, were the most positive in asserting, after that 
 power had ceased to exist, that in fact and in law it had existed. According to 
 the doctrine of the radical apostles, the Union was abolished. Eleven of its 
 states had in fact, and according to the " higher law," established an independ 
 ent government, with which the other fragmentary government of the late 
 Union was at war until it came out victorious. Vcs victisl they cried. 
 The South was now at the mercy of the party of conquest. It must be gov 
 erned as a recently acquired province. No, not even that, for a conquered 
 country is allowed to retain its own domestic institutions, when it gives its 
 fealty to the conqueror. The Republican party must be allowed to act in 
 
246 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the inconsistent manner that elicited the contempt of that fabulous monster 
 yEsop's Satyr. It must be allowed to blow hot and cold out of the same 
 mouth. It must, for the purpose of securing party ascendency in the future, 
 be allowed to establish the principle that states can secede from the Union ; 
 and that when they do secede, they are in the Union and out of the Union 
 subject to the Constitution and not subject to the Constitution whenever it 
 suits the party in power so to assert. When the Republican party chose to 
 do such a trifling act as to enforce the adoption of amendments to the Con 
 stitution, then there had been no secession. No state had escaped from its Fed 
 eral relations. The Union had not been destroyed. But when it came to the 
 serious matter of electing some village constable, or the mayor of a city, or a 
 judge, or a legislator, or a Senator or Representative to the Congress, then, 
 behold! all was changed. The South immediately became a conquered 
 province. The Democratic party had no disposition to practice such political 
 legerdemain. Its doctrine involved neither tyranny nor trickery. Nothing 
 but successful revolution could take a state out of the Union. Eleven states 
 had made the attempt. The attempt failed. Therefore, the Union, with 
 all its divisions and subdivisions of power, remained unimpaired and perfect. 
 There could be no proscription of secessionists, except in the courts by a 
 verdict of their peers and judicial sentence. In this mode only, could any 
 citizen who made war against the government, or any citizen w r ho aided, 
 abetted, or sympathized with those who were in armed hostility to the gov 
 ernment be deprived of any right. Such proscription was both impossible 
 and impolitic. It would have been disgraceful to humanity, and destructive 
 of the harmony and fellowship that every true patriot desired. The Demo 
 cratic party was performing a high duty when it opposed all other modes of 
 proscription in the South. 
 
 These strictures upon the Republican policy apply with equal force to 
 the extreme secession party in the South. The latter had adopted a consti 
 tution substantially like the one which they tried to ignore. The measures 
 they adopted for carrying on the war for secession were as contrary to the 
 principles of their new organic law as to those of the national Constitution. 
 In the South, banishment, ostracism, perpetual sequestration of estates, and 
 confiscations all were enacted by the Confederate Congress within six 
 months after the breaking out of hostilities. Loyalty to the Union was by 
 law and proclamation made treason to the Confederacy. All male citizens 
 of the age of fourteen, not being citizens of one of the seceding states, or of 
 certain named slave states and territories which had not yet seceded, and 
 who remained loyal to the Union, were regarded as alien enemies. They 
 were to be treated as such. They were commanded to depart from the Con 
 federacy within forty days. If they did not do so, they could be arrested on 
 the complaint of any person. They could be brought before the criminal 
 courts for trial and sentence of banishment. The marshals were specially 
 
ARBITRARY ACTS OF THE CONFEDERACY. 247 
 
 charged with the duty of enforcing this ostracism. The warrant of the Presi 
 dent of the Confederacy, or of any criminal court or judge, was sufficient 
 authority for the marshals in the enforcement of such banishments. The 
 sequestration acts were simply barbarous. All rights and interests in lands, 
 tenements, and hereditaments, goods and chattels, and all credits possessed 
 or enjoyed by the citizens of the United States who refused to adhere to the 
 Confederacy, were sequestered on the 2ist of May, 1861. Every citizen of 
 the Confederacy was made an informer on his Union neighbors. All citizens 
 were required to give information to the officers charged with the duty of 
 enforcing the sequestration acts. Attorneys, agents, business partners, trus 
 tees, and others having property in a fiduciary capacity, who failed to give 
 information touching property or credits subject to sequestration, were liable 
 to indictment as for a high misdemeanor, and to be fined and imprisoned on 
 conviction. Besides this, they were subject to a suit by the Confederate 
 States for the recovery of double the value of the estate, property, or effects 
 of the enemy subject to their control, and of which information had not been 
 given. Every arbitrary act of the government of the United States in the sup 
 pression of secession had its counterpart, and worse, in the Confederacy. 
 There was the same suspension of habeas corpus, the same system of arbitrary 
 arrests and military trials, the same conscription laws. They were all vigor 
 ously enforced. No man, however honorable, dared express a word or senti 
 ment that might be construed as being opposed to secession. The civil 
 courts were everywhere as arbitrary in "disloyalty" cases as any military 
 tribunal could possibly be. 
 
 Why then, it may be asked, did the Democratic party oppose the like 
 measures in the North ? Why, when Union men in the South were treated 
 as alien enemies and traitors ? Several answers may be made to this ques 
 tion. The best and last answer is, that on the part of the North the war 
 was intended to be prosecuted not as against alien enemies, but as against 
 revolting citizens whom its people desired to bring back to their proper re 
 lations with the government of one common republic, in which every citizen 
 must necessarily enjoy equal rights and privileges. The insurrection was of 
 such vast extent, that the universal amnesty which was implied by the conces 
 sion of belligerent rights to the South was the only wise and patriotic policy 
 that was left to the general government. The events which followed the 
 close of the war, and the status of the Southern people to-day, give an ample 
 vindication of the Democratic policy. 
 
 Weighing the conduct of the Confederate government in the scales of 
 impartial judgment, it will be found that in the South there was some 
 justification for severe measures. In the North there was not a handful of men, 
 outside the ranks of the violent abolitionists, who desired the disruption of 
 the Union. The ordinary legal remedies of long existing laws were ample 
 in the North for the restraint and punishment of persons who might give 
 
248 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 aid and comfort and to those who were in armed hostility to the Union. It was 
 far otherwise in the South. In every county of that section there was, either 
 dormant or active, a strong Union sentiment. Those who wanted to destroy 
 the Union had, of course, no desire, and no expectation of ever again acknowl 
 edging the Federal Government as their own government. Unlike the 
 Democratic party of the North, they did not look forward to a common 
 citizenship and federation of reunited states and people. Hence, in their 
 condition and temper, the most extreme measures for the support of their 
 cause would seem right, when deemed necessary. If the Southern sup 
 porters of secession were blinded by passion and reckless of consequences, 
 there was all the more reason for moderation and broad generosity at the 
 North, if the constitutional government was to endure. 
 
 These considerations had no weight in the dominant faction of the Re 
 publican party. In the first attempt to restore Federal authority over the 
 South after hostilities had ceased, the strength of that faction was greatly 
 augmented by the insanity and folly of a large portion of the Southern 
 people, who, instead of accepting the results of the war as inevitable, took 
 pride in the assertion that the South had been " conquered," and that 
 they themselves were u aliens." They took pride in admitting that they were 
 in the very situation that the radical reconstructionists had pronounced them 
 to be, namely, that they were the conquered people of conquered provinces. 
 They disdainfully abstained from taking any part in the work of rehabilita 
 tion. There was some sentimentality in this course, but at the same time 
 there was certainly a great absence of wisdom. What if the leaders of 
 secession had been disfranchised by unconstitutional acts of Congress and 
 invalid proclamations, had not amnesty been extended to the great mass of 
 the people who had participated in the war for secession? At most the pro 
 scriptions would be but temporary. When the true fraternal spirit of the 
 fathers would again animate the re-united states and people of the Union, 
 all proscriptions and sectional animosities would be buried in the grave of 
 the past. 
 
 When the war closed there was but one Union party in the country. 
 This was the Democratic party of the North. Had its policy then pre 
 vailed, sectional discord would soon have disappeared ; the peace of 1885 
 would have been ante-dated twenty years. There would have been the same 
 constitutional abolishment of slavery ; for the Democratic party was in no 
 mood to offer it any resistance. There would have been a better, because 
 a voluntary extension of the political franchise. For, as often asserted by 
 such a champion of slavery as Mr. Calhoun, that was one of the inevitable 
 and logical consequences of emancipation. The suffrage would have been 
 gradually extended. 
 
 The writer has asserted that the radical proscriptions of the Southern 
 people were in violation of the Constitution. This can be demonstrated. 
 
ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS. 249 
 
 It is a fundamental principle that the Constitution is co-extensive with the 
 Union for which it was ordained. It may be amended, but only in the mode 
 prescribed in the fifth article of that instrument. This has been expressly 
 admitted by those who asserted that the seceding states were outside of the 
 aegis of the Constitution ; and that they were not states of the Union after 
 they had resisted Federal authority, nor for some years after peace had been 
 proclaimed. If the latter had been true, there would be no validity in the 
 Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery. It did not receive ratifi 
 cation by three-fourths of the states, if Virginia, Arkansas, South Carolina, 
 North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia were not states of the Union on Feb. 
 i, 1865, when it was proposed, or on Dec. 18, 1865, when the Secretary of 
 State proclaimed that it had been submitted to the thirty-six states of the 
 Union, and that only twenty-seven of them including those named had 
 ratified it. 
 
 This exhibition refutes the disunion theory, that the seceding states 
 were out of the Union, and that their people had no constitutional rights. 
 Yet it was on this disunion theory that all the prescriptive measures of the 
 war and reconstruction were based. The confiscation acts of the Thirty- 
 seventh Congress, and certain other acts, were in effect bills of attainder as 
 the term is understood in the Constitution. The radicals sought by these 
 acts, to impose pains and penalties on certain classes of the people of the 
 South without previous ascertainment of criminal guilt in the judicial courts. 
 But the citizen cannot be deprived of any right by act of Congress. The 
 confiscation acts were passed for the punishment of persons who levied war 
 against the government, that is to say, persons who bore arms against the 
 United States, or who aided and abetted the insurrection. This punishment 
 could not be inflicted except by proper judicial proceedings. There must 
 first be a criminal conviction as a foundation for confiscation. It is like the 
 case of an ex post facto law, wherein, as the Supreme Court said in the case 
 of Cummings vs. the State of Missouri, the Constitution cannot be evaded 
 by giving a civil form to that which is in substance criminal. 
 
 There was all the disposition on the part of the extremists who made and 
 directed the policy of the government during the war and reconstruction 
 periods, to prosecute every person in the South who had taken a prominent 
 part in secession. But our judicial system was so hedged in by constitu 
 tional safeguards that this was impossible. The utmost extent of their vin 
 dictive policy was confined to the seizure of property, and to proceedings 
 in rem for its condemnation. They were, in a measure, successful in this, 
 under acts of Congress defining jurisdiction and making harsh rules of evi 
 dence. It was only by such proceedings which required no jury that 
 there could be any plausible mode of evading the constitutional guaranties, 
 and violating the amnesty which was implied by the belligerent status of 
 the North and South, in the war for the Union on one side and secession 
 16 
 
250 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 on the other. The code of war rather than the principles of peace, was in 
 voked for the support of all unconstitutional legislation and conduct. The 
 "war powers of the government" were constantly appealed to, instead of 
 the Constitution. Where the latter would restrain extreme measures, the 
 jus bellum would give sanction. And all this was done to restore the 
 Union ! to reunite the sections in harmony ! 
 
 But the most far-reaching measures were the disqualifications and dis- 
 franchisements which were enacted and proclaimed against erring brethren. 
 Was there any utility or sound policy in such an ultra proscription as that 
 "which required oaths and averments of past loyalty among a people who 
 liad made war against the Union, and who were now conscious of their grave 
 error? Was this the way to induce a willing submission, or to bring back the 
 Union ? Such a proscription could only be made valid by an abandonment 
 of all regard for the principles and essence of our political system. This 
 proscription denied the only right mode of punishing guilt, and assumed that 
 every person in the South was a criminal. It placed the burden of proof 
 on the defense, instead of on the prosecution. It did this, when there was 
 no guilt at all, for was not the recognition of a state of war, in itself am 
 nesty ? And was not this amnesty confirmed by the Executive proclamations ? 
 
 The sole object of all the legislative and executive acts looking to the 
 proscription of those who had been defeated in the attempt to secede from 
 the Union, was to secure permanent ascendency to the Republican party. 
 This was to be effected by the aid of the colored voters. Therefore, in the 
 work of rehabilitation in the states, the attempt was made to exclude every 
 white citizen who went into the secession movement, or who sympathized 
 with it. From what has been already said, it will be seen that this attempt 
 was, in its spirit, obnoxious to the objection against attainders. For, was it 
 not the intention to deprive citizens of their rights without judicial decree ? 
 Was it not, also, obnoxious to true statesmanship, -which is not swayed by 
 prejudices or passions ? Illustrative of this vindictive partisan policy, were 
 the constitutions forced upon the states which had either entirely or in part 
 gone into secession. For example, a so-called convention of the people of 
 Missouri assembled at St. Louis, in January, 1865. They met for the pur 
 pose of so revising and amending the state constitution, as to secure, for all 
 time, the ascendency of the very small minority party that assumed to govern 
 the .state with the aid of Federal bayonets. Among the amendments made, 
 was one which denied the right to vote at any election held by the people to 
 any person who was otherwise qualified to vote, if he had ever been in armed 
 hostility to the United States or to the state government. Any person who 
 had given aid or comfort, countenance or support, to any person engaged 
 on the Southern side in the Civil War was disfranchised. He was disfran 
 chised, if he ever, by " act or word," or u desire," or by " sympathy," sided 
 with the South, or did not at all times desire the defeat of the South. Not 
 
THE REV. MR. CUMMINGS' CASE. 251 
 
 only were the people so disfranchised, but every person who had aided or 
 sympathized with the South was made incapable of holding any office of 
 honor, trust, or profit in the state, under its authority. Nor did the proscrip 
 tion stop there. No such person could be an officer, councilman, director, 
 trustee, or other manager of any public or private corporation. Did the pro 
 scription stop there ? No ; such person would not be allowed to act as a 
 professor or teacher in any educational institution, or in any common or 
 other school ; nor be allowed to hold any real estate or other property in 
 trust, for the use of any church, religious society, or congregation. 
 
 An "oath of loyalty "was then prescribed. This required the solemn 
 denial of ever having directly or indirectly done any of the acts of disqualifi 
 cation against which the amendment was leveled. Sixty days after this 
 constitution took effect, no person was to be allowed, without first taking 
 this oath, to practice as an attorney or counselor-at-law. Did the proscription 
 stop there ? No. After that time no person was to be competent as a bishop, 
 priest, deacon, minister, elder, or other clergyman of any religious persua 
 sion, sect, or denomination, to teach or preach, or solemnize marriages, 
 unless he had first taken, subscribed, and filed the said oath. After the 
 expiration of sixty days, whoever should hold or exercise any of the offices, 
 positions, trusts, professions, or functions specified, without having taken the 
 prescribed oath, was made liable, on conviction thereof, to be punished by a 
 fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not less 
 than six months in the county jail, or both, at the discretion of the court. 
 The false taking of this oath was made perjury, with the penalty of im 
 prisonment in the penitentiary. 
 
 This constitution was submitted to the "loyal" people only. It was rati 
 fied the following June. The vote was taken under military supervision. The 
 following September, the Rev. Mr. Cummings, a priest of the Catholic 
 Church and a citizen of the state, was indicted and convicted in the Circuit 
 Court of Pike County. His crime was that of teaching and preaching 
 without having taken the oath referred to. He was sentenced to pay a fine 
 of five hundred dollars, and to be committed to jail until the fine and the costs 
 were paid. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the state, the judgment of 
 the Circuit Court was affirmed. The case was then brought to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. It was argued for the plaintiff in error, by 
 David Dudley Field, Reverdy Johnson, and Montgomery Blair, and for the 
 state by G. P. Strong and John B. Henderson. 
 
 The question presented was, as to whether the sections of the state consti 
 tution which contained these proscriptions were or were not, in effect, a bill 
 of attainder. Were they, as such, obnoxious to that clause of the Constitu 
 tion of the United States which prohibits a state from passing any "bill 
 of attainder," or " ex -post facto law." In the discussion of this question, 
 the counsel left nothing unsearched or unsaid to maintain their respective 
 sides of it. 
 
252 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 It was contended for the state, that in the adoption of this constitution 
 it was exercising its sovereign right to determine the qualification of voters 
 and office-holders, and to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the 
 people within its jurisdiction should exercise their various pursuits. The 
 state had the right to regulate its own municipal affairs, to prescribe who 
 should vote and hold office, and who should exercise the profession of the 
 law, or form the character of her people by secular or clerical teaching. On 
 the other side, while not denying this doctrine, it was contended that such 
 regulations must not be obnoxious to the supreme law of the land. They 
 were not intended for municipal regulations, but as political proscriptions 
 of the worst form. They were intended to operate as punishments, with 
 out judicial trials. They had all the qualities of a bill of attainder, or an 
 ex post facto law, and were, therefore, null and void. 
 
 No act of tyranny was more detested, from the days of Magna Charta 
 down, than parliamentary or royal attainders. The life, liberty, and prop 
 erty were all forfeited by attainders, without allowing the persons or classes 
 of persons at whom they were leveled, any opportunity to prove their inno 
 cence of the offense imputed to them. Our ancestors abhorred such vin 
 dictive tyranny. Therefore, in framing our Constitution, they expressly 
 denied the existence of any power, either state or Federal, to pass a bill of 
 attainder, or an ex post facto law. All acts for which any person would be 
 liable to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, must be previously de 
 fined by the law. All proceedings against him for the punishment of such 
 acts, must be in the judicial courts, and in due form of law. 
 
 In the case of Mr. Cummings, there was mature deliberation among the 
 members of the Supreme Court ; but it is to be regretted that there was not 
 a unanimous opinion. Mr. Justice Miller, on behalf of himself and Mr. 
 Chief Justice Chase, Mr. Justice Swayne, and Mr. Justice Davis, delivered 
 a dissenting opinion. 
 
 The opinion of the majority of the Court was delivered at the Decem 
 ber, 1866, term of the Court, by Mr. Justice Field, with that lucid style 
 and clear grasp of the principles of the law of liberty for which his de 
 cisions are distinguished. It was demonstrated and decided that no state 
 could create disqualifications like those in the Missouri constitution, be 
 cause their effect was to inflict punishment by attainder. There was no 
 evidence that Mr. Cummings had been guilty of any act of disloyalty, or 
 that he had at any time a disloyal thought or sympathy. He was not so 
 charged. He was charged only with having failed to take an oath which, 
 if he had been disloyal, would have made him liable to prosecution for 
 perjury. The nature of the proscriptions were such that no man at whom 
 they were aimed could exercise the rights of a citizen. They made him 
 his own accuser. A refusal to take the oath deprived him of his rights. 
 He was not at liberty to exercise his rights without taking the oath. 
 
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. 253 
 
 The Court, therefore, held that this was a penal restraint of civil liberty. 
 It was, as such, a punishment. It was, to that extent, an attainder. Although 
 this attainder was milder than those in the days of the Plantagenets and 
 Tudors, the constitution which imposed it was a bill of pains and penalties, 
 inasmuch as it deprived Mr. Cummings of the hitherto sacred right to preach 
 the Gospel and teach morality. It had also the character of an ex post facto 
 law; it changed the rules of evidence by assuming the guilt instead of 
 the innocence of the people whom it proscribed. There is no practical dif 
 ference between declaring guilt and requiring a denial of it under oath. In 
 short, the Court held that the prohibitions of the Constitution of the United 
 States against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws were intended to secure 
 the people against any punishment or deprivation of rights for past conduct, 
 by retroactive legislation. The people had secured to themselves in this 
 organic law, the right to have all offenses, involving their life, liberty, and 
 property, defined by law and tried in the open courts. They had the right 
 to a trial by an impartial jury. They had a right to be defended by counsel 
 learned in the law ; and to be confronted with, and to cross-examine the wit 
 nesses brought against them. The government must first submit its proof of 
 guilt before any person, even the humblest citizen, is to be called on to bring 
 in evidence for his defense. 
 
 It resulted, in the Rev. Mr. Cummings' case, that the judgment of the 
 Supreme Court of Missouri was reversed. That court was directed to dis 
 charge him from his unlawful imprisonment. All the proscriptions of the 
 state constitution were unconstitutional and void. 
 
 The dissenting opinion in Mr. Cummings' case was made a part of the 
 dissent in another case at the same December term. This was the case 
 well known as Ex parte Garland, of which mention will be made pres 
 ently. The dissenting judges held that the sections of the state constitution 
 upon which the case rested were not in conflict with the prohibitions against 
 bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. That they were qualifying regu 
 lations on subjects over which the state had rightful jurisdiction. The oath 
 was not prescribed for a class of the people, but for all classes. No one was 
 compelled to take it. No sentence was pronounced on anybody. The party 
 interested determined his own guilt or innocence and pronounced his own 
 sentence. The reasoning of the dissenters is plausible. But it is not judicial. 
 It does not take judicial notice of the fact that a short time before, there was 
 a civil war in the country, and a state government in Missouri that sided 
 with secession, and that a large portion of the people of the state, perhaps a 
 majority, had been active supporters of the irregular state government. 
 They shut their eyes to the fact that it was on this portion of the people that 
 the amendments of the constitution would operate, so as to render them una 
 ble to exercise rights, not only of a political, but also of a civil and indi 
 vidual character. But the minority judges did not base their dissent solely 
 
254 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 on constitutional construction. They held that the question did not arise 
 under the Constitution of the United States. It was, in their opinion, a ques 
 tion involving religious liberty. Congress could not make any law respecting 
 the establishment of religion, nor prohibit its free exercise. But no state was 
 so restrained. The case of the Rev. B. Permoli, reported in 3 Howard, Su 
 preme Court reports, was cited. " If," said Mr. Justice Miller, " there ever 
 was a case calling upon this Court to exercise all the power on this subject 
 which properly belongs to them, it was the case of the Rev. B. Permoli." 
 The case referred to was this : By an ordinance of the first municipal dis 
 trict of the city of New Orleans, a penalty was imposed on any priest who 
 should officiate at any funeral, in any other church than the obituary chapel. 
 Mr. Permoli was a Catholic priest. In the execution of his sacred office, he 
 was called upon to perform the funeral services of his church over the body 
 of one of his parishioners, in the Church of St. Augustine. For this viola 
 tion of the municipal ordinance, he was brought before the court and fined. 
 Conceiving that the Constitution of the United States secured to the people 
 of the states the enjoyment of religious liberty ; and that it inhibited the states 
 from imposing any restraint on such liberty, he sued out a writ of error. 
 The case was brought up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
 writ was dismissed, for want of jurisdiction. The ordinance complained of 
 was a gross violation of the liberty of free celebration of one of the most 
 sacred rites of the Christian religion, but the Court could give no relief. 
 
 Drawing a parallel between the case of Mr. Permoli and that of Mr. 
 Cummings, Mr. Justice Miller, said: "An ordinance of a mere local cor 
 poration forbids a priest, loyal to his government, frtfm performing what he 
 believed to be the necessary rites of his church over the body of his departed 
 friend. This Court said it could give him no relief. 
 
 " In this case [Mr. Cummings'] the constitution of the State of Missouri, 
 the fundamental law of the people of that state, adopted by their popular 
 vote, declares that no priest of any church shall exercise his ministerial func 
 tions, unless he shows by his oath that he has borne a true allegiance to his 
 government. This Court now holds this constitutional provision void, on 
 the ground that the Federal Constitution forbids it. I leave the two cases to 
 speak for themselves." 
 
 In justice to the distinguished judges who joined their dissent with that of 
 Mr. Justice Miller, it must be said that they did not pass a*iy judgment in ap 
 proval of the policy which inspired the amendments to the Missouri con 
 stitution. This was within the domain of legislation and statesmanship, 
 and not for the judiciary. The reader is left to presume, from Mr. Justice 
 Miller's words, " I leave the two cases to speak for themselves," that there 
 was a conflict between the earlier and later opinions of the Supreme Court ; 
 and that, since the effect of the state constitution in Mr. Cummings' case 
 was to violate religious liberty, therefore, the later opinion was unsound. 
 
IN RE GARLAND. 255 
 
 No two opinions of this exalted tribunal better illustrate the fact that no 
 public man can wholly divest himself of a tendency to form his judgment of 
 great issues, according to the imperceptible bias resulting from their discus 
 sion amid the every-day affairs of life. The argumentation which is faulty 
 to one mind is quite logical to another. The writer sees no conflict what 
 ever between the decisions in the two cases. Yet, they are so conflicting to Mr. 
 Justice Miller, that he leaves them " to speak for themselves." The writer 
 sees no religious question in Mr. Cummings' case. Nor is there any in Mr. 
 Permoli's case. He only sees a violation of civil rights in each case forbid 
 den in one case by the Constitution of the United States, and which should 
 have been, and perhaps was, forbidden in the other case by the state consti 
 tution. It has been said by the distinguished William Whiting, in his able 
 work on the "War Powers of the United States," that " Upon political 
 discussions . . . the judges are usually at variance with each other ; 
 and the views of the majority will prevail until the majority is shifted." 
 This was said many years before the Electoral Commission discussed the 
 political question of the Presidential succession in 1877, and before the re 
 versal of the legal tender opinion. 
 
 Akin to the proscription case of the Rev. Mr. Cummings, was that of 
 Augustus H. Garland. It was brought under the act of Congress of July 
 2, 1862. Mr. Garland has but recently resigned a seat in the Senate, to 
 enter President Cleveland's Cabinet as Attorney-General. He brings to that 
 office the highest abilities of the statesman, combined with a wealth of 
 learning and legal acumen that has rarely been equaled by any of his prede 
 cessors. In the year 1860, he was admitted to practice as an attorney and 
 counselor in the Supreme Court of the United States. He took the official 
 oath of that day. Then, as now, he was a citizen of the State of Arkansas. 
 In May, 1861, that state passed its ordinance of secession. With the ma 
 jority of his fellow-citizens, he went with his State. He was elected a 
 member of the Confederate Congress, first to the lower house, and after 
 ward to the Senate. Desiring to do everything in his power to restore the 
 Federal relations after the Confederate surrender, he obtained a full pardon 
 and amnesty from President Johnson, in July, 1865. The conditions pre 
 scribed therein were, to support the United States Constitution, and obey all 
 laws and proclamations abolishing slavery. He complied with the conditions. 
 In pursuit of his professional business he sought to renew his practice in the 
 Supreme Court. He found himself disbarred, notwithstanding his full par 
 don and amnesty. He was disbarred because of a rule of court, made 
 according to the requirements of an act of Congress passed on Jan. 24, 
 1865. This rule required all attorneys and counselors, before being allowed 
 to practice in any United States courts, to take what is known as the " Iron- 
 Clad " oath, prescribed by the act of July 2, 1862. He made application 
 to be allowed to resume his practice. He rested his right on two grounds : 
 
256 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 1. That the act of Jan. 24, 1865, so far as it affected his status in the 
 court, was unconstitutional and void ; and 
 
 2. That if it were held to be constitutional, nevertheless, the pardon of 
 the President removed any disabilities that the statute was intended to 
 enforce. 
 
 Mr. Garland, exercising the common right of every citizen, filed a brief 
 in his own behalf. He was ably seconded by his counsel, Reverdy Johnson, 
 and M. H. Carpenter. Mr. R. H. Marr was in the same position as 
 Mr. Garland. He also filed a brief in the case. Mr. 'Attorney-General 
 Speed and Henry Stanbery, who was afterward Attorney-General, appeared 
 for the government against the petitioners. The case was thoroughly ar 
 gued. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion. The act of July 2, 1862, is 
 familiar. 
 
 The act of 1865 was a supplementary prohibition, applying to attorneys 
 and counselors at law in the courts of the United States. Addressing him 
 self to the case, Mr. Justice Field said: "The question is not as to the 
 power of Congress to prescribe qualifications ; but whether that power has 
 been exercised for the infliction of punishment against the prohibition of the 
 Constitution. That this result," said he, " cannot be effected directly by a 
 state, under the form of creating qualifications, we have held in the case of 
 Cummings vs. The State of Missouri, and the reasoning by which that 
 conclusion was reached applies equally to similar actions on the part of Con 
 gress." The effect of the pardon was also considered ; but the decision did 
 not rest on the pardon. The pardon would blot out all the guilt of an 
 offense, so that in the eye of the law no offense had ever been committed. 
 It removed all penalties and disabilities. It restored all civil rights. The 
 only limits on the operation of a pardon were that it could not restore offices 
 forfeited, or property or interests vested in others by judicial proceedings. 
 The court decided that the requirement to take the oath was void, although in 
 form'it was a regulation which would have been valid, had not the intention 
 been to have it operate as a punishment on those who could not subscribe to 
 it. The rule of the court which required it was rescinded, it "having 
 been unadvisedly adopted." Mr. Garland was thereupon admitted to practice 
 in the court, where he now stands as the leader of its bar. 
 
 It is obvious from the reasoning of the court in these two cases, that the 
 iron-clad oath was contrary to the Constitution of the United States, even in 
 the matter of Federal offices. The American citizen could not, at that time, 
 be disqualified for Federal office, as a penalty for past conduct or opinion. 
 It was, in fact, prescriptive legislation. Such legislation has the effect of an 
 attainder, or of an ex post facto crimination. Both are unconstitutional. 
 Now, however, this is not altogether the case. After these decisions were 
 made, a radical Congress, still intent on proscribing the best classes of the 
 Southern people from all participation in the affairs of the Nation, forced 
 
REPEAL OF THE IRON-CLAD OATH. 257 
 
 the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution. They made its adoption 
 a condition for the restoration of Federal relations to states that were held 
 under the arbitrary rule of semi-military governments. The third section of 
 that amendment is clearly a bill of attainder, although in form a declaration 
 of qualification for members of Congress, Presidential electors, and state and 
 Federal officers. The second section is of the same character. It grants, or 
 attempts to grant, power to the state to proscribe by ex post facto laws cer 
 tain classes of citizens, and to deprive them of their elective franchise. 
 
 This amendment introduced into the organic law a principle so abhorrent 
 to liberty and justice, that from time immemorial it had been regarded by the 
 American people and their ancestors as one of the vilest which could be re 
 sorted to, under the worst forms of tyranny. It was thought that no free 
 people could submit to it under any circumstances. But there it stands. It 
 is to-day a monument to the satanic malice of the radical party. It is a warn 
 ing to succeeding generations of the excesses of partisan lust. It is the high 
 est glory that any party can claim, that it opposed with all its might, this 
 .amendment that is so obnoxious to every other feature of our government. 
 It is to the glory of Mr. Speaker Randall and the Democrats who followed 
 him, that he led them successfully in an encounter against the infamous Force 
 t>ill which was intended to crystallize into acts of hate these codes of spite. 
 The scope of this amendment has been curtailed by the recent partial repeal 
 of the iron-clad oath. After long and repeated efforts to that end in Congress, 
 this much was secured. It is one of the writer's gratifications that the fight 
 he commenced almost single-handed years ago against that attainder oath, 
 he carried on and on, until in the very last Congress he forced a repeal of 
 some of its worst tests, under a suspension of the rules and by a two-thirds 
 vote. But an account of those efforts will be given in another place. 
 
 The iron-clad oath was the worst and the most wide-reaching of all the un 
 constitutional proscriptions in the South. Property might be and was often 
 seized and confiscated ; but still there was left the talent and ability to replace 
 the rapine. But in the case of the oath, the proscription lasted for all time. 
 It excluded almost the whole talent and worth of nearly one-half the people of 
 the Union. It forbade them any honorable participation in their own gov 
 ernment. Was it any wonder that the Democratic party did all that it 
 could to prevent such terrible outrages and violations of natural and constitu 
 tional rights ? Yet, on the pretense of patriotic defense of the law and of 
 cherished principles of government, the party of such tyrannical measures 
 had, and still has, the unblushing audacity to charge that the Northern 
 Democrats aided and sympathized with secession. Had it not been for the 
 Democratic party there would nbt be to-day a Union of states. There would 
 be only the unity of a government by the party of ostracism and tyranny. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 FOREIGN RELATIONS DURING THE CIVIL WAR. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN RECOGNIZES THE CONFEDERACY BELLIGERENT RIGHTS CON 
 CEDED -JUDGE BLACK'S CIRCULAR LETTER MR. BUCHANAN'S ADMINIS 
 TRATION VINDICATING NATIONAL JURISDICTION MR. SEWARD SPEAKING 
 FOR PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S ADMINISTRATION APPREHENSIONS A FEATHER 
 IN THE SCALE THE SWITZERLAND CASE EARLY TREATIES WITH EUROPE 
 RECOGNIZING OUR INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATES THE SPANISH 
 AMERICAN STATES -FREEDOM OF THE STATES MEDIAE VAL RULES OF 
 MARITIME LAW PIRACY CONTRABAND OF WAR TREATIES AS TO CON 
 TRABANDTHE MARCY PROPOSITIONS THE PARIS CONFERENCE OF 1856 
 AND ITS DECLARATION THE UNITED STATES AMENDMENT OF THE DE 
 CLARATION THE AUTHOR'S RESOLUTIONS AND SPEECH THE DEMOCRACY 
 OF THE SEA EARL RUSSELL'S PROPOSITION MR. SE WARD'S DILEMMA AND 
 RESPONSE THE CONFEDERATE RIGHTS AS BELLIGERENTS CANADA RE 
 BELLION IN 1838 OUR BLOCKADE MUST BE RESPECTED - OUR NAVAL ARM 
 AMENTMR. SEWARD AS A STATESMAN. 
 
 THE most important question in regard to our foreign relations dur 
 ing the civil war period, was that of the status of the seceded states. 
 This question received early attention. It was discussed not only 
 by the Federal and Confederate Cabinets, but also by the Cabinets 
 of the leading European nations. By a tacit understanding with the other 
 powers, England took the leading part in determining this and all other 
 questions of an international character growing out of our war. The result 
 was, that as early in the struggle as May 13, 1861, the Confederacy was 
 recognized by Her Britannic Majesty, in a proclamation of neutrality, as a 
 belligerent power. To prevent such a recognition, Mr. Black, Secretary of 
 State in the administration of President Buchanan, had, on Feb. 28, 
 1 86 1, addressed a circular letter to each of our ministers at the European 
 courts. In this letter Mr. Black stated that it was not improbable " that 
 persons claiming to represent the states which had attempted to throw off 
 their Federal obligations, would seek a recognition of their independence " 
 by the governments to which the ministers to whom the letter was addressed 
 
FIRST VIEWS OF CONFEDERATE INDEPENDENCE. 259 
 
 were accredited. " In the event," he said, " of such an effort being made, 
 you are expected by the President to use such means as may in your judg 
 ment be proper and necessary to prevent its success." He called attention 
 to the reasons set forth in the President's message, then recently addressed to 
 the Congress, showing that the states had no constitutional power to secede 
 from the Union ; and that the Southern States had no sufficient grounds " to 
 justify the revolutionary act of severing the bond " which connected them 
 with their sister states. "This government," he said, "has not relin 
 quished its constitutional jurisdiction within the territory of these states, and 
 does not desire to do so." For this reason, said the secretary, " it must be 
 very evident that it is the right of this government to ask of all foreign powers 
 that the latter shall take no steps which may tend to encourage the revolu 
 tionary movement of the seceding states, or increase the danger of disaffection 
 in those which still remain loyal." Attention was called to the facts that Mr. 
 Lincoln had been elected as the candidate of the Republican or anti-slavery 
 party ; that the preceding discussion had been confined almost entirely to 
 topics connected, directly or indirectly, with negro slavery ; and that the 
 electoral votes of the Northern states (excepting three in New Jersey) had 
 been cast for the anti-slavery candidate, while the sentiment of the South 
 was the other way. Our ministers were to hold out the hope that entire har 
 mony would soon be restored. They were to point out to foreign govern 
 ments that any acknowledgment by them of the so-called Confederate States 
 would tend to disturb the friendly relations, diplomatic and commercial, 
 then existing between those governments and the United States, and prove 
 adverse to their own interests. Thus early did the administration of Presi 
 dent Buchanan take the important step of instructing our representatives 
 abroad to use their best efforts against any recognition of the Confederate 
 States. No uncertain grounds were taken. The secession movement was 
 characterized as unjustifiable and revolutionary. National jurisdiction was 
 asserted. The consequences of foreign recognition were plainly stated. It 
 was still hoped that the seceding states would, in a short time, submit their 
 grievances, if any, to peaceful arbitration. Yet this Administration was 
 afterward denounced because it did not, at that time, destroy this hope by 
 resorting to the sword at once. 
 
 Upon the 9th of March following, Mr. Seward, Secretary of State in 
 President Lincoln's administration, addressed a circular letter to the same 
 ministers. He called attention to Mr. Black's previous instructions. He 
 reiterated them. He expressed the same hope of a speedy adjustment of our 
 troubles, " by a firm, yet just and liberal bearing, co-operating with the delib 
 erate and loyal action of the American people." Our ministers were to 
 " truthfully urge " upon foreign governments that the "present disturbances " 
 had "their origin only in popular passions, excited under novel circum 
 stances of very transient character." In this vital matter, the Republican 
 
2<5o THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Administration pursued throughout the war the policy of the last Democratic 
 Administration. England, as stated, took the lead in ignoring all the friendly 
 considerations urged by Mr. Seward and his predecessor against the recog 
 nition of the seceding states. Much had been expected from her supposed 
 friendship for the United States and announced abhorrence of negro slavery. 
 But this expectation was disappointed by Her Britannic Majesty. She an 
 nounced by the proclamation that her government had assumed a neutral atti 
 tude in regard to our contest. Her Majesty's government thereby recognized 
 the Confederate States as a belligerent power. This recognition gave great 
 encouragement to the Confederates. It had a corresponding effect in pro 
 longing the war, with its enormous outpouring of fraternal blood and com 
 mon treasure. 
 
 In perusing the diplomatic correspondence of this period, the reader can 
 see prominent in its pages, a great apprehension of foreign intervention in 
 our affairs. It seemed, at times, as if a feather would have cast the scales 
 against us. Our form of government was not favored by those who created 
 and directed the policies of the European nations. The mere existence of 
 such a free and popular government was regarded as a standing menace to 
 monarchical institutions. The advocates of these institutions had long 
 been predicting, what they wished, our downfall. There was, therefore, 
 good reason to apprehend that nothing but discretion would restrain the 
 anti-republican parties in England and other European powers from forcing 
 their governments into ultra measures against the Union. It was discretion, 
 more than regard for comity, that prevented intervention. In 1848, the 
 republican movement which had long been fomenting in Europe had given 
 a shock to monarchical institutions. This did not incline the ruling classes 
 to look with disfavor on the dismemberment of our Union. Nevertheless, 
 the supporters of monarchy must have seen the impolicy of giving counte 
 nance to the disruption of a great government by revolutionary measures. 
 This consideration operated in our favor. It had a restraining influence 
 on the powers which might have actively favored secession in the American 
 Republic. 
 
 Fourteen years before our trouble there was secession in the Swiss Re 
 public. There was an attempted intervention in its favor by the great Euro 
 pean powers. At the opening of the Federal Tagsatzung (Swiss diet) 
 on July 5, 1847, the presiding officer, Ulrich Ochsenbein, spoke in regard 
 to the threatened recognition of the seceding cantons by England, France, 
 Austria, Prussia, Russia, and other powers. He said on that trying oc 
 casion : " No foreign intervention in our domestic affairs should be toler 
 ated. Switzerland never solicited any foreign power to guarantee the con 
 stitutional compact of her twenty-two cantons. The sovereignty of her 
 government never has been questioned ; it was her territory alone which the 
 allied powers at Vienna declared inviolable. Should she be subjected to 
 
THE BRAVE HELVETII AND THEIR REPUBLIC. 261 
 
 the interrneddlings of any foreign power, we would prove to the world 
 that her arms are strong when raised in defense of our rights ; and that in 
 such a contest they would be powerfully supported by the sympathies of 
 every people seeking to imitate our political institutions." 
 
 There was then grave reason in that Mountain Republic to apprehend 
 such intervention as we feared in our Civil War. Two days before, the 
 French Premier, Guizot, had sent a note to Count Bois le Compte, the French 
 Ambassador in Switzerland. In it, he clearly indicated a design to favor the 
 Swiss secessionists. The grounds on which the recognition of the seceding 
 cantons was to be declared were so similar to those which might have been 
 applied to us by any European power, that no apology is necessary for now 
 presenting them. The position assumed by France, as stated by Guizot in 
 his note, was this : 
 
 The Federal Congress of Switzerland has no right to submit a minority 
 of cantons to the will of the majority, inasmuch as all treaties acknowledge 
 Switzerland, not as a centralized power, but as a Confederacy of states, 
 which have each reserved, as a check on the Federal Congress, their 
 supreme right of state sovereignty." France, therefore, in conjunction 
 with the other Allied Powers of Europe, protested against any interpretation 
 of the Swiss compact that would, as M. Guizot stated the case, destroy 
 the individuality of the cantons. Any other interpretation would lead to 
 the total abrogation of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland. It would 
 consequently invalidate the treaties made under its provisions. On this 
 slender pretext the Allied Powers were in favor of aiding the Swiss se 
 cessionists to destroy the only republic in Europe. Two years before, 
 England had expressed a willingness to accept any change of the Swiss 
 government that the Allied Powers might approve. Then, as in our own 
 case, the London Times was vehemently in favor of foreign intervention. It 
 extolled the Secession League. It denounced the Federal government. The 
 Morning Post, true to its anti-republican policy, styled the Federal army of 
 Switzerland, " the army of invasion." The brave little republic was not 
 intimidated. It remained unmoved. It still stands, like its mountains 
 a monument to patriotism and liberty. 
 
 Similar to that of the Swiss, would have been our defiance to the 
 Powers of Europe, had foreign intervention come upon us. We did not 
 court a greater conflict than that which seemed to engage all our strength. 
 But surely, if the Helvetii could talk to Europe in the strain quoted, we 
 need not have been apprehensive of intervention by the powers of that con 
 tinent. They could have made the same case in regard to our seceding 
 states that they made in favor of the seceding cantons. Indeed, it was 
 always a matter of quiet surprise to the writer, that none of the powers sug 
 gested it. England did not do so, although she might have discovered a 
 foundation for the theory that our government was u a Confederacy of States, 
 
262 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 which had each reserved, as a check on the Federal Congress, their supreme 
 right of state sovereignty." She need have gone no further than our treaty 
 with Great Britain, by which, in the year 1783, His Britannic Majesty was 
 required to admit, and did admit, the independence of the United States. 
 The first article of that treaty is in these words : 
 
 " His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 
 Connecticut, New- York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sover 
 eign and independent states ; that he treats with them as such, and for him 
 self, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, 
 property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof." 
 
 This is the only form of our independence that England had ever recog 
 nized. She expressly recognized a Confederacy of Sovereign States. In our 
 earlier treaties with France the like enumeration of sovereign states is made. 
 And although we afterwards entered into a u more perfect Union" than the 
 old Confederacy, the question of the limitations on state sovereignty was 
 not settled until the unanswerable argument of war decided it, so far as for 
 eign powers are concerned, in favor of the government of the United States. 
 No cognizance by treaty has been taken by either of these powers, of the 
 change in our form of government from a Confederacy of Sovereign States 
 to a Union of Sovereign States. This omission would have been a sufficient 
 diplomatic pretext for British intervention, if that government had followed 
 the precedent of the Swiss Republic case. Its application could have been 
 urged, not only from the article of the treaty above quoted, but also on the 
 doctrine of the ultra states rights school of Americans, who accepted and 
 advocated the view that the states are supreme in all matters that concern 
 their own welfare. The writer is not aware that Confederate diplomacy 
 ever saw the application of that precedent to the status of the seceded states. 
 But whether it did or did not, our foreign correspondence was not encum 
 bered with the question of state sovereignty. 
 
 Mr. Seward may have had some apprehension of such a question. As 
 early as March 26, 1861, he instructed our ministers abroad that the Presi 
 dent would not consent, " directly or indirectly, to the interpellation of any 
 foreign power in a Controversy which is merely a domestic one." On the 
 6th of April following, he said this, substantially, in a letter to Mr. Cor- 
 win, of Ohio, our Minister to Mexico. He used the word " interpellation." 
 No more comprehensive word could be used to express the national policy. 
 We would have not only no intervention, but no intercession for, or censure 
 of, those of our fellow-citizens who had arrayed themselves against the 
 national government. This policy was modified only in so far as the recog 
 nition of Confederate belligerent rights compelled. But that recognition 
 came in due time from the Federal Government itself, as an incident of civil- 
 
COTTON, AND THE BLOCKADE. 263 
 
 ized warfare, quite as much as from the action of foreign powers. After 
 these rights had been admitted, the only diplomatic questions of great im 
 portance with which the United States had to deal, were those affecting 
 the blockade and international maritime rights. In view of the position 
 which Mr. Seward took on assuming office in respect to intervention, no 
 other international questions than those could have arisen, without involving a 
 foreign war. Yet the possibility of such a war was never overlooked by 
 that statesman. 
 
 It may be of interest to note here, that Mr. Seward did not lose sight of 
 the hope of relations with the Spanish American republics, which would soon 
 assume u a spirit more elevated than one of merely commercial and con 
 ventional amity, a spirit disinterested and unambitious, earnestly Ameri 
 can in the continental sense of the word, and fraternal in no affected or mere 
 diplomatic meaning of the term." " These states," said he, in the letter to 
 Mr. Corwin before referred to, "hold a common attitude and relation 
 towards all other nations. . . . It is the interest of them all to be friends, 
 as they are neighbors, and to mutually maintain and support each other, so 
 far as may be consistent with the individual sovereignty which each of them 
 rightly enjoys, equally against all disintegrating agencies within, and all 
 foreign influences or power without their borders." This was the only 
 movement for foreign aid or sympathy made by Mr. Seward during the war. 
 He courted no European alliance. He was a continental American. He 
 subsequently gave proof of the sincerity of his sympathy with our sister 
 republic when an emperor was forced upon Mexico. 
 
 It was supposed by many that a dearth of American cotton might induce 
 England to seek a supply of that staple by breaking the blockade of our 
 Southern sea-ports. Up to the period of the Civil War the textile manu 
 factories of Europe, and especially of England, were large consumers of 
 American cotton. The blockade had cut off this supply. Mr. Seward was 
 aware that great efforts were made by manufacturers to induce the English 
 government to disregard the blockade. He was therefore most persistent in 
 the assertion that the force of the Confederacy would soon be broken. Each 
 disaster to our arms intensified this assertion. But, at the same time, each 
 month of the war saw great accessions to our naval force. It was on the 
 ocean only that foreign intervention could affect anything ; and there, with 
 our commerce fast disappearing, and the nearest foreign base of operation 
 three thousand miles away, we had, by reason of the augmentation of our 
 navy, comparatively little to fear. It was probably owing to these consid 
 erations, as much as from respect for international ethics, that England, and 
 perhaps also France, did not attempt to raise the blockade of the Southern 
 ports. 
 
 After all, cotton was not so much the monarch it had been reputed. It 
 was soon discovered that it might be produced in sufficient quantity, if not 
 
264 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of as good quality, elsewhere than in the Southern States. On Dec. 6, 
 1 86 1, cotton in Liverpool was not quoted at half the price it commanded 
 in our own market. The stock in England on that date was 606,818 bales, 
 although there was a deficiency of 200,000 American bales. This deficit 
 was more than made up by the increasing production of India. On the cor 
 responding date of the previous year, the stock of cotton in England was 
 only 579,620 bales. The imports of India cotton had increased to 85 per 
 cent, for eleven months of 1861, and in the last four of these months the in 
 crease arose to 160 per cent. At this rate of increase, India alone could sup 
 ply England the following year with i ,350,000 bales of cotton, not to speak 
 of the increasing production of Egypt and Brazil, which ordinarily exported 
 about 200,000 bales. There was, therefore, not such a dearth of cotton as 
 would justify British statesmen in risking a war with the then first naval 
 power of the world, in order to obtain it from the Southern States. 
 
 Aside from the question of Confederate recognition, the complications 
 requiring diplomatic skill were such as usually occur in war. 
 
 By long established policy, the United States Government was committed 
 to the doctrine of the Freedom of the Seas. This doctrine asserted that the 
 commerce of the world should be free from interruption by belligerent powers. 
 Was there any exception ? Only in so far as an actual and effective block 
 ade of the ports of either power might prevent an entrance to shipping. Up 
 to the time of the Civil War, our government had contented itself with the 
 assertion of this doctrine in its own behalf. Some efforts had, from time to 
 time, been made by our statesmen to induce England and other maritime 
 powers to accept it as a rule of international law. But this was without 
 success. 
 
 American policy has always moved on the line of humane progress. In 
 the management of our foreign relations, it has generally been the object of 
 American statesmen to encourage the development of international commerce. 
 We strove to relieve its argosies from the operation of maritime laws which 
 pertained more to the piratical, barbaric past than to modern civilization. 
 Long before the era of Independence, the American colonies had made a won 
 derful advance in commercial enterprise. Their commerce grew in spite of 
 the most adverse circumstances. They encountered not only the harshest 
 opposition of the " mother country," but, also, the enforcement of the worst 
 restrictions of international codes which recognized maritime war as the most 
 important and honorable of oceanic enterprises. The rules of these codes were 
 developed in mediaeval times by the Gothic rovers of the seas on misapplied 
 principles of Roman military law. These rules recognized no maritime 
 rights that were not accompanied by the power to enforce them. There 
 was no jus gentium without the required force. The quarter-deck was the 
 prize court, the captor was the judge. In short, almost to the present cen 
 tury, the code maritime of the great naval powers of Europe was little better 
 
THE BRITISH CODE MARITIME. 265 
 
 than a system of legalized piracy. When England arrogated to herself the 
 title of " Mistress of the Seas," the less formidable maritime nations began 
 under her aggressions, and the advancing civilization, to recognize the pro 
 priety of relaxing the harsher rules of the mediaeval codes. Amendments 
 were gradually adopted by them. England, however, long maintained the 
 piratical practice of impressing the citizens of other nations into her naval 
 service. She did not even allow them the alternative of walking the plank. 
 She not seldom forced them to fight against their own flag. As for the 
 cargoes of foreign ships navigating distant seas, they were confiscated with 
 out a moment's hesitation or inquiry, without regard to the relations of the 
 governments concerned. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the 
 " Spanish Main" was a favorite source of ill-gotten wealth for the buccaneer 
 ing fleets of Great Britain. At a later period, the general seizure practice 
 of these fleets began to be limited to ships of the enemy and " contraband " 
 goods. Writers on the law of nations had, from the time of Grotius, asserted 
 that its rules did not countenance the piratical practices of the times. This 
 protest of law made little difference, however, on the Spanish Main. But 
 in course of time a practice obtained, under which, in merchant traffic, 
 goods " contraband of war " would alone be regarded as subject to seizure in 
 neutral ships. As there was some difference of opinion among commenta 
 tors in respect to what goods were contraband by the law of nations, and 
 as each belligerent power was in the habit of deciding the questions as they 
 arose according to its own strength and inclinations, treaties were entered into 
 by which the contracting parties came to an understanding in the matter. 
 By the decisions of the courts maritime, in course of time the rules of inter 
 national rights and duties became fixed. Under these decisions, it appears 
 there are two classes of contraband of war, namely, goods which neutrals 
 are prohibited from carrying during war to the belligerent parties, and per 
 sons to whom they are forbidden to give passage. 
 
 From the first day of its independence, the United States Government 
 adopted the policy of specifically enumerating in treaties not only the goods 
 but the persons to whom the law of contraband should apply. Our policy 
 in regard to men and goods was most liberal. The Continental Powers of 
 Europe were more willing than England to meet us with a like policy. The 
 latter power did agree to a schedule of contraband goods in the treaty nego 
 tiated with her in the year 1794. But we failed, until the settlement of the 
 u Trent affair," to bring England to terms in regard to the exemption from 
 capture of all persons except military enemies. We always admitted that 
 the latter, when found by a belligerent on a neutral vessel, are subject to cap 
 ture, even where the vessel is engaged in lawful commerce. 
 
 After the settlement of the Trent affair, Mr. Sumner discussed with great 
 ability in the Senate, the maritime policy of the United States. He said 
 that the true and time-honored American policy is that which was de- 
 17 
 
266 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 clared by Madison and Monroe in the year 1805, namely, that in exercising 
 the right of search, the United States cannot accede to the claim of any 
 nation to take from their vessels, on the high seas, any description of per 
 sons except soldiers in the actual service of the enemy, and that no goods 
 can be contraband except those specially mentioned in treaties. All other 
 effects may, "without any exception and in perfect liberty, be transported to 
 places belonging to the enemy, excepting only places which shall be besieged, 
 blockaded, or invested." The language last quoted is taken from our treaty 
 with the Netherlands. This treaty was negotiated as far back as 1782. We 
 enumerated the articles that were to be contraband, in our treaty with France 
 in 1787. Our constant effort was in this direction. This policy is exhibited 
 in every .convention made with the Spanish- American States, beginning with 
 Columbia in 1824. 
 
 A few years before the secession troubles, when we had no apprehension 
 of war with any power, the United States Government, in the spirit of our 
 favorite foreign policy, as dictated by William L. Marcy, submitted to the 
 maritime nations of Europe certain propositions. These were to be by them 
 agreed upon as permanent principles of international law. This was in 
 the year 1854. These propositions were : 
 
 First. Free ships make free goods ; that is to say, that the effects or 
 goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or state at war, are free 
 from capture or confiscation when found onboard of neutral vessels, with the 
 exception of articles contraband of war. 
 
 Second. The property of neutrals on board an enemy's vessel is not 
 subject to confiscation, unless the same be contraband of war. 
 
 Third. Blockades, to be respected, must be effective. 
 
 Some of the governments expressed a willingness to accept these princi 
 ples. Others, who were at war, preferred to await the termination of hos 
 tilities before entering upon negotiations respecting them. 
 
 On the 1 6th of April, 1856, a congress, consisting of several maritime 
 powers, was in session at Paris to effect some liberal modifications of the 
 law of nations in regard to maritime war. On the same day the plenipo 
 tentiaries of the great powers were assembled. These were from Austria, 
 France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. They came 
 to an agreement. It was in the form of a declaration, on these principles : 
 
 First. Privateering is and remains abolished. 
 
 Second. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of 
 contraband of war. 
 
 Third. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are 
 not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 
 
 Fourth. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective ; that is to 
 say, maintained by forces sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of 
 the enemy. 
 
THE PARIS DECLARATION. 267 
 
 These four principles of maritime law constitute what is called, in diplo 
 matic language, the Declaration of Paris. 
 
 The parties to this agreement pledged themselves to invite powers which 
 had not been represented in that congress to accede to the declaration. It 
 was agreed that the declaration should be binding on the parties to it, and on 
 those who might accede to its principles, as one whole and indivisible com 
 pact. It was further agreed, that neither the original nor subsequently 
 acceding parties should enter into any arrangement on the application of 
 maritime law in time of war, without stipulating for a strict observance of the 
 four principles of the declaration. 
 
 Up to the year 1861, forty-one powers had acceded to the Declaration of 
 Paris. The list includes almost every European and South American state. 
 The declaration was submitted, in 1855, by the governments at the con 
 gress, to the government of the United States. The following year, about 
 July 14, 1856, Mr. Marcy, our Secretary of State, informed them that the 
 President, Mr. Pierce, would not accede to it. In making this announce 
 ment, Mr. Marcy, in behalf of his government, called the attention of the 
 states represented at Paris to the following points : 
 
 ''''First. That the second and third propositions contained in the Paris 
 Declaration are substantially the same with the two propositions which had 
 before been submitted to the maritime states by the President. 
 
 " Second. That the Paris Declaration, with the conditions annexed, was 
 inadmissible by the United States in three respects, namely: ist, That the 
 government of the United States could not give its assent to the first proposi 
 tion, . . . although it was willing to accept it with an amendment 
 which should exempt the private property of individuals, though belonging 
 to belligerent states, from seizure or conscription by national vessels in 
 maritime war. ad, That for this reason the stipulation annexed to the 
 declaration, viz. : that the propositions must be taken altogether or rejected 
 altogether, without modification, could not be allowed. 3d, That the fourth 
 condition annexed to the declaration, which provided that the parties acced 
 ing to it should enter into no negotiation for any modifications of the law 
 of maritime war with other nations which should not contain the four points 
 contained in the Paris Declaration, seemed inconsistent with a proper regard 
 to the national sovereignty of the United States." 
 
 On the 29th of July, 1856, Mr. Mason, then Minister of the United States 
 to France, was instructed to propose to the imperial government of that 
 country, to enter into an arrangement with the United States for its adherence 
 to the Declaration of Paris, provided that the first principle should be amended 
 as specified in the President's decision of the I4th of that month. Instruc 
 tions were sent on the 3ist of January following, to Mr. Dallas, our Minister 
 at London, to make the like proposition to the British Government. No 
 favorable results came from this effort. Probably there could not have been 
 
268 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 with these powers alone, since the conditions with the declaration prohibited 
 all the powers that were parties to it, from regarding the declaration in 
 any other light than as " one whole and indivisible compact." When Mr. 
 Buchanan became President he directed the negotiations to be arrested for 
 the purpose of enabling him to examine the questions involved. Nothing 
 further was done in these matters during his administration. 
 
 It is one of the felicitations of the writer, that on the 3d of March, 1862, 
 he was pronounced on this topic. War was then flagrant. Timidity about 
 foreign affairs was the rule, and that " gay and festive defiance of foreign 
 dictation," which Rufus Choate defined as the Democratic policy, was the 
 exception. The writer then offered a preamble and resolutions, defining our 
 principles and duty. As perplexities may arise on these questions in case 
 of future foreign wars, it is well to note the distinctions and history of this 
 absorbing topic. These are the resolutions he offered in relation to mari 
 time rights : 
 
 " Whereas, international law cannot acquire any considerable extension 
 except by the collective work of the nations either assembled in congress by 
 delegates, or by the combined negotiation of the principal nations : and 
 'whereas, the events connected with the Trent affair have given rise to the dis 
 cussion of maritime rights by the principal powers of the world, all inter 
 ested in their authoritative settlement ; and in that discussion the friendly 
 offices of the Emperor of France were tendered to this government for the 
 purpose of adjusting the questions involved on a clear and liberal basis, look 
 ing to the amelioration of the rights of neutrals upon the sea : Therefore, 
 
 '"'JBe it Resolved: First That the National Legislature acknowledges 
 the friendly intentions and enlightened views of the Emperor of the French 
 in said interposition. 
 
 "Second. That it favors the most liberal propositions with respect to 
 maritime rights and the abolition of such usages as restrict the liberty of 
 neutrals and multiply the causes of dissension in the world, believing that 
 humanity and justice demand that the calamities incident to war should be 
 strictly limited to the "belligerents themselves and to those who voluntarily 
 take part with them ; but that neutrals abstaining in good faith from such 
 complicity ought to be left to pursue their ordinary trade with either bel 
 ligerent. 
 
 u Third. That the present time is propitious for the resumption of nego 
 tiations to secure these objects, and especially for the concurrence of the 
 nations in the benignant articles of the Declaration of the Congress of Paris 
 of the sixteenth of April, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, with the amendment 
 proposed by Mr. Marcy, viz. : i. Privateering is and remains abolished, 
 provided that the private property of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent 
 on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of 
 the other belligerent, except it be contraband. 2. The neutral flag covers 
 
A NEW CHAPTER IN THE LAW OF NATIONS. 269 
 
 enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, 
 with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the 
 enemy's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective. 
 
 a Pourth. That the people of the United States entertain the hope that 
 the great maritime powers of France and England, relinquishing their present 
 objections growing out of their ill-advised recognition of our insurgent 
 states as belligerents, will consent to the propositions of the Paris conference, 
 as the United States have so constantly invited, and as Mr. Marcy proposed 
 to the government of France on the twenty-eighth day of July, eighteen hun 
 dred and fifty-six ; with such a liberal expansion of them that the private 
 property, not contraband, of citizens and subjects of nations in collision 
 should be exempted from confiscation equally in warfare waged on the land 
 and in warfare waged upon the seas, which are the common highways of 
 the nations. 
 
 " Fifth. That the efforts of the late Secretary Marcy and the present 
 Secretary of State to have these maxims ingrafted as fixed principles of in 
 ternational law were eminently wise and just, sanctioned by our traditionary 
 policy, and conducive to the welfare of the Republic, and to the highest 
 interests of peace and civilization. 
 
 " Sixth. That, for the accomplishment of this result, it would be both 
 courteous and wise for our government to consider the proposal of the emi 
 nent publicist of France, M. Hautefeuille, for a Congress of the maritime 
 powers, which, by uniting in one body the scattered forces of all neutrals, 
 may secure to each the respect and security which they cannot obtain while 
 remaining isolated ; and that thus they may be enabled to maintain, as a 
 lasting element of the law of nations, that maritime equilibrium so long 
 sought by the United States of America, and so important to the freedom 
 of commerce and the repose of the world." 
 
 On the nth of April, 1862, these resolutions were advocated by the 
 writer in a speech, entitled " The Democracy of the Sea." In this speech, 
 the liberal position of America is vindicated. Had our government in its 
 intestine conflict followed these doctrines upon the land, it would have been 
 upon a firmer ground of vantage than it enjoyed. It would have commended 
 this nation, with emphasis, to the attention of mankind, as the advocate of 
 liberal laws applicable to another and less stable element. 
 
 This subject received, in all its length and breadth, as the author advo 
 cated it, early and long attention at the hands of Mr. Seward, in the admin 
 istration of Mr. Lincoln. On April 24, 1861, Mr. Seward addressed a 
 circular letter to the ministers of the United States in Great Britain, France, 
 and the other principal nations of Europe. In this he detailed, substantially, 
 the history of the Declaration of Paris, and the relation of the United States 
 Government to that new chapter in the law of nations which it had inspired 
 without becoming a party to it. England and France having taken the lead 
 
270 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 in all foreign negotiations to be entered into with us at that time, the former 
 proposition to admit the United States as a party to the Paris Declaration, 
 with the desired amendment to the first article, was, in pursuance of that letter, 
 submitted to these powers. A long and fruitless correspondence ensued. The 
 correspondence on our side was conducted by Mr. Seward, Charles Francis 
 Adams, Minister to England, and William L. Dayton, Minister to France ; 
 and on the side of England and France, by Earl Russell and M. Thouvenel, 
 ministers of the respective governments for their foreign affairs. It is need 
 less to say, that in the hands of these brilliant statesmen the subject of the 
 discussion was exhaustively treated. The letters exchanged are specimens 
 of consummate ability and profound diplomacy. The immediate inspiration 
 of Mr. Seward was to neutralize the effect of any recognition of the seceded 
 states as a belligerent power. He saw this Scyllaeum looming up in the 
 course of the Ship of State. He hoped to steer past its dangers. England 
 saw it also. She was determined that we should not, by any consent on her 
 part, escape from wreck. Both that power and France were willing that 
 we should come in as a party to the Paris Declaration, " pure and simple." 
 We were at this time willing to waive the amendment proposed by Mr. 
 Marcy. We would have waited for its acceptance at a future time, when 
 other powers should come up to our moral standard. Everything was 
 arranged, as we supposed, for a convention to be submitted to our Senate, as 
 the Constitution required, when lo ! Earl Russell, on Aug. 19, 1861, said 
 to Mr. Adams, in a short note : "I have the honor to enclose a copy of a 
 declaration which I propose to make upon signing the convention, of which 
 you gave me a draft, embodying the articles of the Declaration of Paris. 
 
 " I propose to make the declaration in written form, and to furnish you 
 with a copy of it. 
 
 " You will observe that it is intended to prevent any misconception as to 
 the nature of the engagement to be taken by Her Majesty. 
 
 4 ' If you have no objection to name a day in the course of this week for the 
 signature of the convention, Mr. Dayton can on that day, and at the same 
 time, sign with M. Thouvenel a convention identical with that which you 
 propose to sign with me." 
 
 Enclosed in this note was the following Declaration : 
 
 " In affixing his signature to the convention of this day between Her 
 Majesty, the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of 
 America, the Earl Russell declares, by order of Her Majesty, that Her 
 Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any engagement which shall 
 have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences now prevail 
 ing in the United States." 
 
 Up to this moment, not the slightest intimation of such a declaration was 
 made. Its language meant, although almost enigmatical in its terms, that 
 the Confederate States were not to be considered as a part of the United 
 
EARL RUSSELL'S SCHEME DISCOVERED. 271 
 
 States in the construction of the convention which our ministers had almost 
 signed. The United States was to be bound by the Paris Declaration, but 
 the Confederate States were to be regarded as a belligerent power. The 
 latter were not to be bound by that declaration. They were to be free to 
 grant letters of marque to privateers, and do all the acts prohibited to powers 
 adhering to the Declaration of Paris. 
 
 Mr. Adams at once suspended action in the matter. It was practically 
 at an end. He advised Mr. Seward of the new condition. Mr. Seward 
 painfully felt this stinging slight put upon our government, all the more that 
 he was not in a situation to resent it. In a letter to Mr. Adams, of Sept. 
 7, 1 86 1, he said: "I am instructed by the President to say, that the pro 
 posed declaration is inadmissible. To admit such a new article would, for 
 the first time in the history of the United States, be to permit foreign powers 
 to take cognizance of and adjust its relations on assumed internal and purely 
 domestic differences existing within our own country." " This broad con 
 sideration," said Mr. Seward, " supersedes any necessity for considering in 
 what manner or in what degree the projected convention, if completed, either 
 subject to the explanation proposed or not, would bear directly or indirectly 
 on the internal differences which the British Government assume to be pre 
 vailing in the United States." Mr. Seward was not to be drawn into any 
 convention which would in the remotest degree admit the existence of the 
 Confederate States. On the other hand, England and France had each re 
 cognized the Confederacy as a belligerent power. These governments were 
 acting conjointly in the proposed convention. France submitted, mutatis 
 mutandis, the declaration of the British Government. Earl Russell delivered 
 the letter to Mr. Adams on Aug. 19, 1861. M. Thouvenel delivered that 
 of France to Mr. Dayton, the next day. Thus terminated the negotiations 
 for the adhesion of the United States to the Declaration of Paris. How 
 much the United States may be the loser by this failure, a war between two 
 great powers, on the sea, will demonstrate. 
 
 Looking calmly over this correspondence, it does not appear that there 
 was any weighty reason for requiring our acceptance of the additional decla 
 ration. Whether willing or unwilling, we were bound to accept the notice 
 already given, that England and France, and other maritime powers, had 
 recognized the Confederate States as belligerents. Had the government of 
 the United States been one of the parties to the Paris congress, would that 
 have had any effect on the belligerent rights of the Confederacy ? Certainly 
 not. The latter was not a party to any international compact. Hence, 
 after its recognition as a belligerent, it had the right under the law of nations 
 to carry on its war by every mode which that law permitted. It could, there 
 fore, send out privateers, and no power that respected the law of nations 
 would regard them as pirates. Whatever may have been our own dispo 
 sition in respect to Confederate cruisers made no difference in a legal point 
 of view, while they sailed under the ensign and commission of a recognized 
 
272 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 belligerent power. Our authorities soon realized this stubborn fact. It is 
 therefore a matter of regret that the negotiations for our adhesion to the 
 principles of the Paris Declaration, which set forth time-honored American 
 policy, should have failed by reason of England and France insisting on a 
 declaration which had no real relation to the subject discussed, and which 
 was regarded by our Executive as purposely offensive in its terms. 
 
 After all, it was a power greater, in respect to the United States, than 
 England or France, or both together, with which our government had to 
 deal ; and that was the Confederacy itself. That power soon exhibited the 
 ability to assert and maintain all the rights of a belligerent. This it would 
 have done as well without as with the sanction of any foreign government. 
 What we might justly complain of, was the hasty action of Her Britannic 
 Majesty in proclaiming the neutrality of her government on May 13, 1861, 
 before there was any substantial armament North or South. At that time, 
 giving to the secession movement its largest effect, no foreign nation had any 
 lawful right to regard it in any other light than as an attempt for disunion. 
 We had not treated Great Britain in this manner on a like occasion. In the 
 letter last quoted from, Mr. Seward said: " I do not think it can be re 
 garded as disrespectful, if you should remind Lord Russell that when, in 
 1838, a civil war broke out in Canada, a part of the British dominions 
 adjacent to the United States, the Congress of the United States passed, 
 and the President executed, a law which effectually prevented any interven 
 tion against the government of Great Britain in those internal differences by 
 American citizens, whatever might be their motives, real or pretended, 
 whether of interest or sympathy. I send you a copy of that enactment. 
 The British Government will judge for itself whether it is suggestive of 
 any measures on the part of Great Britain that might tend to preserve the 
 peace of the two countries, and through that way the peace of all nations." 
 Had such a law been then enacted in Great Britain, the government of that 
 nation would not have been called upon to settle the Geneva award, for the 
 acts done or abetted by British subjects in violation of Her Majesty's pro 
 claimed neutrality. 
 
 In the same letter Mr. Seward announced our foreign policy in these words : 
 " Regarding this negotiation at an end, the question arises, what, then, are 
 to be the views and policy of the United States in regard to the rights of 
 neutrals in maritime war in the present case? My previous dispatches leave 
 no uncertainty on this point. We regard Great Britain as a friend. Her 
 Majesty's flag, according to our traditional policy, covers enemy's goods, not 
 contraband of war. Goods of Her Majesty's subjects, not contraband of war, 
 are exempt from confiscation, though found under a neutral or disloyal flag. 
 No depredations shall be committed by our naval forces or by those of any 
 of our citizens, so far as we can prevent it, upon vessels or property of British 
 subjects. Our blockade, being effective, must be respected." Mr. Seward 
 never for a moment failed to speak for the union of all the states. North and 
 
DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS FOR ENGLAND. 273 
 
 South, all the people were ever considered by him as American citizens, for 
 whose conduct in regard to other nations the government of the United States 
 would be responsible. In his efforts to prevent foreign recognition of the 
 Confederacy, Mr. Seward's position was that of unswerving devotion to the 
 Union. He would not be entrapped into any admission of the possibility of its 
 disruption. His great law was the law of self-preservation. " In assuming 
 this position," said he, "and the policy resulting from it, we have done as I 
 think Great Britain herself must, and therefore would do, if a domestic in 
 surrection should attempt to detach Ireland, or Scotland, or England from 
 the United Kingdom, while she would hear no argument nor enter into any 
 debate on the subject." This language he addressed to the British Govern 
 ment on July 21, 1861, through Mr. Adams, our minister, in transmitting 
 him a copy of the act of Congress which had just been passed, authorizing 
 the President to proclaim certain ports of the United States to be closed to 
 trade. It had been intimated by Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, that the British 
 Government would question our right to close these ports. There was at 
 this time domestic trouble in the Republic of New Grenada. The govern 
 ment of that country had notified the British Government that five named 
 ports of that republic had been closed to commerce. On the 27th of June, 
 1 86 1, Mr. H. Berkly, M. P., rose in the House of Commons and asked the 
 Secretary of State for foreign affairs whether Her Majesty's Government 
 recognized the notification given. Lord John Russell replied as follows : 
 "The opinion of Her Majesty's Government, after taking legal advice, is, 
 that it is perfectly competent for the government of a country, in a state of 
 tranquillity, to say which ports shall be open to trade and which shall be 
 closed ; but in the event of insurrection or civil war in that country, it is not 
 competent for its government to close the ports that are de facto in the hands of 
 the insurgents, as that would be an invasion of international law with regard to 
 blockade. Admiral Milne, acting on instructions from Her Majesty's Gov 
 ernment, has ordered the commanders of Her Majesty's ships not to recognize 
 the closing of their ports." Mr. Seward gave the British Government to un 
 derstand that his government -would not " for a moment acquiesce in such a 
 doctrine." We had a navy of not unequal strength with that of Great Britain, 
 and, to quote Mr. Seward's enunciation of American policy, " Our blockade, 
 being effective, must be respected." We were troubled no further with the 
 blockade question. Although not bound by the Paris Declaration, we ad 
 hered to our own time-honored policy from which its rules were framed ; and 
 voluntarily abandoned advantages of which we might have availed ourselves 
 on the ground of not being bound by them. 
 
 Throughout our unhappy domestic strife, Mr. Seward directed our foreign 
 affairs in a spirit of moderation and patriotism. He displayed an ability not 
 surpassed in the diplomacy of any time. In the bitterness of the strife inci 
 dent to the recombining of our national elements during the reconstruction 
 period, the services, the high patriotism, the untiring labors of this peerless 
 
274 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 statesman were forgotten or eclipsed by the events of that troublous era. Yet 
 he was ever anxious to soften the asperities of the reconstruction period. He 
 was generous to those who differed with him on political principles, while un 
 yielding in his own tenets. To the author of this volume he was ever kind. 
 He recalls with affectionate memory, in this connection, a speech delivered by 
 Mr. Seward before an immense gathering of his neighbors in Corning Hall, 
 Auburn, New- York, on the 3ist of October, 1868. It was a deliberate speech, 
 yet not devoid of clever humor. It had its effect not only in Auburn, but 
 throughout the state. It gave to the author, who was then a candidate for 
 Congressman-at-large for the State of New- York, a handsome percentage of 
 votes beyond that given to others, and notably large in Auburn. The ques 
 tion then was one of national reconciliation and magnanimity. Congress had 
 been derelict in not receiving the states no longer belligerent. Mr. Seward had 
 opposed force, and commended peaceful methods of persuasion and reason. 
 He eulogized in that speech many of the Democratic leaders for their aid in 
 carrying, and their loyalty in accepting, the amendment abolishing slavery. 
 u 1 entertain," he said, " no ill-will toward the Democratic party or its leaders, 
 and certainly have no uncharitable feelings toward that great constituency. 
 On the other hand, I cherish a grateful appreciation of the patriotism, the 
 magnanimity, the heroism of many of my fellow-citizens, with whom I have 
 cheerfully labored and co-operated while they still retained their adhesion 
 to the Democratic party. How could I distrust the loyalty or the virtue of 
 Andrew Johnson, of General Hancock, of General McClellan, of Senator 
 Hendricks, of Indiana, or his associate, Mr. Niblack, or of Mr. Cox, for 
 merly of Ohio, to whom personally, more than any other member, is due the 
 passage of the constitutional amendment in Congress abolishing African 
 slavery?" This was great, and, to some extent, needed encomium at that 
 time. Mr. Seward was a grand tribune of the people. He could proudly 
 say that no state, nor any citizen, had by any act or word of his ever suffered 
 disfranchisement or confiscation ; nor, except for the assassination of Abraham 
 Lincoln, had any one, through him, endured penalties or punishment after 
 hostilities had ceased. He vindicated the Monroe doctrine in Mexico. He 
 was a friend of the exile and emigrant. Praise and justice from him was 
 pure gold. It was more to the writer. It was justification before his country 
 men in the state of his adoption in a crucial test of all the liberalities of 
 his political life. 
 
 To William H. Seward, the grandest man of his day, no national tribute 
 has yet been paid. After a tour of the world, and after being received by all 
 nations as the peer of any living statesman, he reposes in the sepulchre at 
 Auburn, whose associations are as peaceful as the ways which led to it were 
 stormful. But while the diplomatic correspondence of our Civil War shall 
 remain in the archives of the Nation, that monument of his worth and great 
 ness must far surpass in grandeur any memorial of bronze or marble that 
 genius can conceive or art execute. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE TRENT AFFAIR. 
 
 THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS THEIR AUTHORITY AND INSTRUCTIONS 
 THEIR ARRIVAL IN HAVANA INTRODUCTION TO THE CAPTAIN-GENERAL 
 
 CAPTAIN WILKES DECIDES TO ARREST THEM THE TRENT BROUGHT TO 
 
 RESISTANCE TALKED OF BRITISH INDIGNATION AND THREATS CAPTAIN 
 WILKES RELEASES THE TRENT HIS MISTAKE THE PRISONERS AT FORT 
 WARREN THE QUESTION IN CONGRESS MR. VALLANDIGHAM'S PREDICTION 
 
 MR. COX'S REPLY EARL RUSSELL'S NOTE MR. SEWARD'S REPLY THE 
 ARREST JUSTIFIED BELLIGERENT RIGHTS, AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS -A 
 DIPLOMATIC DUEL EARL RUSSELL DISARMED NO APOLOGY A DINNER 
 PARTY THE RELEASE OF THE PRISONERS AN AMERICAN VICTORY. 
 
 IN October, 1861, John Slidell and James M. Mason were appointed 
 commissioners or diplomatic agents of the Confederate States to Eng 
 land and France. 
 They were especially instructed by the Confederate Secretary of State, 
 Mr. Hunter, to work for the recognition of the Confederacy as an inde 
 pendent power. As inducements to these governments, they were to rep 
 resent first, that a vast area of the South would be devoted to the pro 
 duction of cheap cotton ; and second, that the development of the agricul 
 tural resources of the South under free trade would create a demand for the 
 manufactures of England and France, larger and more profitable to all par 
 ties than would be possible under the commercial regulations of the United 
 States. 
 
 The commissioners were to inform the governments to whom they were 
 accredited that although the Confederacy, as then formed, included but eleven 
 states, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri would undoubtedly attach them 
 selves to its fortunes, after the close of the existing war. There would then 
 be embraced in the Confederacy a great, populous, and growing empire. 
 Its internal regulations would harmonize with the most liberal policies of 
 commerce. The commissioners were to say that one of the conditions which 
 would be insisted upon in any treaty of peace with the United States, would 
 
276 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 be a stipulation to leave the border slave states free to vote on the question 
 of withdrawing from the Federal Union and joining the Southern Confed 
 eracy ; both governments to retire their military forces from these states 
 until the question was decided. When the time should come for this pro 
 ceeding, it was inferred that there would be no doubt that the vote would be 
 in favor of the South. 
 
 Charged with these instructions, and clothed with all diplomatic author 
 ity in the premises, including the power to enter into conventions for treaties, 
 the commissioners embarked at Charleston on board the steamer Theodora. 
 The steamer eluded our blockading squadron, and landed them on the Island 
 of Cuba. 
 
 Capt. Charles Wilkes was commanding the United States steam sloop 
 of war San Jacinto, which carried thirteen guns. He was at this time on 
 the south coast of the island, off Cienfuegos. Learning of the arrival of the 
 Theodora with the commissioners, he took in a supply of coal and sailed 
 October 26, with all dispatch, intending to capture the blockade-runner. 
 The San Jacinto arrived at Havana on the thirty-first ; but it arrived too late 
 to intercept her. Before leaving Cienfuegos Captain Wilkes had ascertained 
 that the commissioners were at Havana, and that they intended to depart 
 from that port on board the English mail steamer Trent, about the yth of 
 November, en route for Southampton, England. 
 
 Captain Wilkes was a dashing, enterprising officer. He was one who 
 would not hesitate to act on his own responsibility. Even in a doubtful case, 
 when the interests and honor of his country were concerned, he resolved 
 his doubts in favor of his flag. The question at once arose in his mind 
 whether he had, under the law of nations, a right to arrest this embassy, 
 while it was at sea under the protection of a neutral flag. At Cienfuegos he 
 had access to some volumes of Kent, Wheaton, Vattel, and the decisions of 
 Sir William Scott and other judges of the Admiralty Court of Great Britain, 
 which bore on the rights and responsibilities of neutrals. As a first step 
 in the inquiry, he rightly assumed that the case was within the sphere of 
 international law. The governments of Great Britain, France, and Spain 
 had already recognized the Confederate States as a belligerent power. The 
 ports of these countries, and of their colonies and dependencies, were open 
 to vessels bearing the Confederate flag. Confederate cruisers were then ad 
 mitted to all the protection and courtesy extended to vessels of the United 
 States. Clearly, therefore, the merchant vessels of the nations that had re 
 cognized this belligerent power were bound to observe the duties imposed 
 upon them by international law in regard to contraband persons and property. 
 In view of this obligation to avoid contraband trade, Captain Wilkes did not 
 hesitate to board and search the Trent. As a matter of law his conclusion 
 was impregnable. A neutral ship bearing dispatches of the enemy, if her 
 commander had knowledge of the fact, was unquestionably subject to seizure 
 
DETERMINATION TO SEIZE THE TRENT. 377 
 
 and condemnation. But the seizure of the persons of the commissioners was 
 a different matter. Were they to be regarded as diplomatic agents? If 
 they were, then, would they, under the law of nations, be subject to arrest? 
 In respect to the latter question, Captain Wilkes had read in the authorities 
 on international law, that u foreign ministers of a belligerent on board neu 
 tral ships are required to possess papers from the other belligerent to permit 
 them to pass free." 
 
 Messrs. Mason and Slidell had assumed, and held themselves out at 
 Havana, to be diplomatic agents of the Confederate States, bound on a mis 
 sion to the governments of England and France. Captain Wilkes had ample 
 proof of this fact. They had openly stated that they were clothed with full 
 authority to form treaties and alliances. Their mission looked to the recog 
 nition of the Confederate States as an independent power. They had been 
 presented to the Captain-General of Cuba by Her Britannic Majesty's Con- 
 sul-General ; yet it was stated that this was merely an act of courtesy. Cap 
 tain Wilkes had been informed by the Captain-General that he had not re 
 ceived them in any official or diplomatic capacity, but only as distinguished 
 gentlemen and strangers. Nevertheless, during their stay at Havana, both 
 report and assumption gave these gentlemen the title of ministers of the 
 Confederate States on a mission to England and France. It was in this 
 character that they were introduced on board the English mail steamer 
 Trent, by the British Consul-General and his son. The latter acted as 
 agent of the steamer when the commissioners embarked on her en route for 
 Southampton. This steamer was a merchant vessel. It was plying between 
 Vera Cruz, Havana, and St. Thomas. It carried Her Britannic Majesty's 
 mails by contract. 
 
 Under these circumstances Captain Wilkes determined to seize the 
 Trent and take the commissioners into his custody on the high seas at the 
 first opportunity. He had no doubt as to the right of search, or of his 
 power to seize the enemy's dispatches on a neutral ship, when they were 
 reduced to writing ; but he had, perhaps, some doubt as to his right to seize 
 the persons of the commissioners. " These gentlemen were not," he after 
 wards said in his official report to the Secretary of the Navy, " dispatches 
 in the literal sense, and did not seem to come under that designation, and 
 nowhere could I find a case in point." But, accepting them at their own 
 representations, as accredited diplomatic agents of the enemy, he solved the 
 doubt by regarding them as u the embodiment of dispatches." 
 
 In the absence of a case in point, this conclusion of Captain Wilkes would 
 have been admitted in the high Court of Admiralty itself as correct, but 
 he weakened it by giving further and untenable reasons in its support. 
 In one point of view he regarded the Confederate commissioners as being 
 the embodiment of dispatches, as clothed with diplomatic authority; and, 
 therefore, as contraband, unless protected by a Federal passport ; while from 
 
278 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 another point of view he looked upon them as escaping "conspirators" to 
 whose persons no diplomatic immunity could attach until they had been re 
 ceived by the governments to whom they were accredited. In either view 
 of the case he considered it his duty to capture them. But the former reason 
 only was correct, for if Messrs. Mason and Slidell were to be regarded 
 merely as escaping conspirators who were neither ministers nor militants, 
 there could be no more authority to take them by force off the deck of an 
 English ship than to arrest them on British soil. However, being thus 
 satisfied in respect of the right to seize the persons of Messrs. Mason and 
 Slidell, and detain the British ship if expedient, Captain Wilkes took in a 
 full supply of coal and steamed out of the harbor of Havana on the afternoon 
 of the 2cl of November. Ostensibly, he went on a cruise after the Con 
 federate steamer Sumpter, but in reality his object was to take a suitable 
 position on the route of the Trent to St. Thomas, in order to intercept her. 
 The next day, when he was about to board a French brig, the latter ran 
 into the San Jacinto, on the starboard side at the mainchains. This mishap 
 caused considerable delay. The San Jacinto was not injured, but the bow 
 sprit and foretopmast of the brig were carried away. Captain Wilkes took 
 the brig in tow. He put an officer and some men on board to repair damage. 
 Before night he left her with a fair wind within about eight miles of the 
 Havana light. He then went over to Key West, in hopes of finding the Pow- 
 hatan, or some other United States steamer, to accompany the San Jacinto 
 to the Bahama Channel, in order to make it impossible for the Trent to 
 escape either by night or day. Finding that the Powhatan had left the day 
 before, Captain Wilkes re-crossed the next morning to the north side of 
 Cuba. He communicated with the Sagua le Grande on the- 4th. . He hoped 
 to receive a telegram from Mr. Shufeldt, our Consul-General at Havana, 
 announcing the time of the departure of the Trent. Receiving no dispatch, 
 the San Jacinto was immediately headed to the eastward. Steaming about 
 ninety miles, she entered the Old Bahama Channel, in sight of the Paredon 
 del Grande light-house. The channel is only fifteen miles wide at this point. 
 
 Here, in order to avoid all possibility of escape, the San Jacinto cruises 
 until the morning of the 8th. At 11.40 A. M. of that day the smoke of an 
 approaching steamer is first seen. Concluding that this is the Trent, the 
 San Jacinto takes position to the westward of the entrance, in the narrowest 
 part of the channel. It soon becomes apparent that the approaching steamer 
 is the Trent. 
 
 The San Jacinto is now ready to furnish some work for the diplomats of 
 two continents ! At 12.55 o'clock the command is given to beat to quarters, 
 hoist the colors, and load the guns. When the two vessels are a mile apart the 
 San Jacinto fires a shot across the bow of the Trent. The latter vessel im 
 mediately displays the English colors, but still maintains her speed. She 
 shows no disposition to heave to. Then a shell is fired across her course. 
 
ARREST OF MASON AND SLIDELL. 279 
 
 This has the desired effect. It brings her to at once. When the Trent is 
 within hailing distance, Captain Moir, her commander, inquires as to what 
 is wanted. Captain Wilkes replies that he will send a boat. He had already 
 given orders to his executive officer, Lieutenant D. M. Fairfax, to have the 
 second and third cutters fully manned and armed, in readiness to board the 
 Trent, which was then hove to under the guns of the San Jacinto. Lieu 
 tenant Fairfax at once proceeds in the third cutter, with a full-armed boat 
 crew and a guard of marines. His instructions are, to board the Trent, 
 demand inspection of her papers, her clearance from Havana, and the list 
 of her passengers and crew ; and, should he find Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell 
 and their secretaries, Mr. McFarland and Mr. Eustis, to make them prisoners 
 and send them on board the San Jacinto. In such case, he is to seize the 
 steamer as a prize. He is to act with all delicacy and kindness. He is to 
 avoid using force if possible. Any dispatches found on the persons arrested, 
 and their trunks and other personal effects, are also to be taken. 
 
 At i. 20 P. M. Lieutenant Fairfax comes alongside of the Trent in the 
 armed cutter. He is accompanied by the second engineer and the boat 
 swain. Leaving these officers in the boat with orders to wait until it should 
 become necessary to show some force, the lieutenant goes on board the Trent. 
 He is shown by her first officer to the quarter-deck. There he meets Captain 
 Moir. He informs the captain of the object of his visit. He asks to see the 
 passenger-list. This, the captain declines to produce ; whereupon Lieutenant 
 Fairfax says: "I have information that Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell, Mr. 
 McFarland and Mr. Eustis, have taken passage at Havana for St. Thomas. 
 I shall satisfy myself whether they are on board before the steamer is allowed 
 to proceed." Captain Moir still opposes anything in the nature of a search 
 of his vessel. He persists in his refusal to show the passenger-list or other 
 papers. In a few moments the four gentlemen sought for appear. Lieu 
 tenant Fairfax makes known to them his instructions. Mr. Slidell and Mr. 
 Mason protest against such an arrest and disposition of their persons and 
 effects. They refuse to leave the ship unless compelled by the employment 
 of an actual force greater than they can resist. Mr. Eustis and Mr. McFar 
 land unite with them in expressing a like determination. 
 
 There is considerable noise among the other passengers at this time. 
 There is talk of resistance. This reaches the officers in the cutter. They re 
 pair on board with six or eight armed men. After several unsuccessful efforts 
 to induce the commissioners to go with him peaceably, and being in the mean 
 time re-enforced by the arrival of the second cutter, Lieutenant Fairfax pro 
 ceeds to execute his orders. By this time the excitement becomes so great 
 on the quarter-deck that the marines and some of the armed boat's crew are 
 ordered aboard. They form outside of the main-deck cabin, where the four 
 gentlemen have gone to pack their baggage. In a few minutes the latter 
 
280 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 appear, still persisting that force must be used. Lieutenant Fairfax then calls 
 to his assistance four or five of his officers, and taking hold of Mr. Mason's 
 shoulders, with an officer on either side, they march him in this custody as 
 far as the gangway of the steamer. They place him in the second cutter. 
 Mr. Slidell insists that " considerable force " must be applied to him to get 
 him into the cutter. Therefore three of the officers take hold of him. They 
 lead him to the gangway, hand him over the side, and seat him beside Mr. 
 Mason. The secretaries, Mr. Eustis and Mr. McFarland, after protesting, 
 go quietly into the boat. The families of the commissioners are passengers. 
 Lieutenant Fairfax is instructed by Captain Wilkes to extend an invitation 
 to them to accompany their friends to the United States, and to say to them 
 that all the attention and comforts that could be commanded on the San 
 Jacinto would be freely placed at their sendee. They are invited. This 
 invitation is declined. 
 
 Although Captain Wilkes considered that the successful result of his 
 search, and the opposition offered, would justify the seizure of the Trent as 
 a prize, he decided not to detain her, as she had a large number of passen 
 gers on board who would suffer great loss and inconvenience by such ac 
 tion. In concluding his official report of the affair, he said : " Although in 
 my giving up this valuable prize I have deprived the officers and crew of a 
 well-earned reward, I am assured that they are quite content to forego any 
 advantages which might have accrued to them under the circumstances." " I 
 may add," said he, " that having assumed the responsibility, I am willing to 
 abide the result." 
 
 At 3.30 P. M. the Trent was allowed to proceed on her voyage. The 
 San Jacinto bore away to the northward and westward with the distinguished 
 prisoners. 
 
 The whole affair was managed with dignified urbanity 011 the part of our 
 officers, in the face of many obstacles and slurring remarks. The admiralty 
 agent in charge of the mails of the Trent, a retired commander in the Royal 
 Navy, was especially rude in his comments on the action of our officer. He 
 threatened that an English squadron would raise the blockade in twenty days 
 after his report of this " outrage " reached home ; and that " the Northerners 
 might as well give up, now." The captain of the Trent was reserved 
 and dignified throughout ; but some of his officers made very irritating com 
 ments to the passengers, evidently intended for the boarding party, such as : 
 " These Yankees will have to pay well for this" " This is the best thing 
 in the world for the South " " England will open the blockade" " We 
 will have a good chance at them now" "Did you ever hear of such a 
 piratical act?" "Why, this is a perfect Bull Run" " They would not 
 dare to do it, if an English man-of-war were in sight." 
 
CAPTAIN WILKES' MISTAKE. 281 
 
 Here, however, is a different comment on the conduct of our officers r 
 
 " UNITED STATES STEAMER SAN JACINTO, ) 
 November 15, 1861. f 
 
 SIR : Before leaving your ship, we think it proper that we should state 
 that since we have been on board of her we have uniformly been treated 
 with great courtesy and attention. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 
 
 JOHN SLIDELL, 
 J. M. MASON, 
 
 E. I. McFARLAND, 
 
 GEORGE EUSTIS. 
 CAPTAIN WILKES, Commanding United States Steamer San Jacinto" 
 
 Regarding the whole affair in the light of international law more es 
 pecially as expounded in England the only mistake made by Captain 
 Wilkes was in releasing the Trent. He should have taken her before the 
 admiralty side of the United States Court at Key West, for adjudication. 
 There she would, unquestionably, have been condemned as a prize. " He 
 thus," said Mr. Seward in the correspondence which ensued with Earl Rus 
 sell, " prevented the judicial examination which might have occurred." 
 
 The prisoners were brought to Fortress Monroe. The San Jacinto was 
 ordered to refit for service at the Charlestown Navy Yard. The prisoners 
 were retained on board and conveyed to Fort Warren. There they were com 
 mitted to the custody of the commandant. u The prompt and decisive action 
 of Captain Wilkes," said the Secretary of the Navy in his subsequent report 
 to Congress, "on this occasion, merited and received the emphatic approval 
 of the department ; and if a too generous forbearance was exhibited in not 
 capturing the vessel which had these rebel emissaries on board, it may, in 
 view of the special circumstances and of its patriotic motives, be excused ; 
 but it must by no means be permitted to constitute a precedent hereafter for 
 the treatment of any case of similar infraction of neutral obligations by for 
 eign vessels engaged in commerce or the carrying trade." 
 
 No matter how justifiable this search of the Trent may have been 
 under the law of nations, it was most inopportune. Almost from the out 
 break of the war the attitude of the press and people of England had been 
 far from friendly toward the Union cause. The Tory party of that country 
 did not hesitate to urge upon the government a recognition of the Southern 
 Confederacy, when it became apparent that our sectional strife was to be 
 decided by a great war. Many of the leading journals pressed for armed 
 intervention. The blockade of the Southern ports was a severe blow to 
 English trade. France also was beginning to feel its effect. It was feared 
 that there must soon be a great scarcity of cotton. There was danger that 
 
 18 
 
282 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 this would lead to a combination of the manufacturing and Tory interests in 
 England. One-sixth of the population of that country depended on the man 
 ufacture of this staple. Should our war continue, it was assumed that 
 immense numbers of the people must be thrown out of employment. 
 
 Indeed, before the Trent affair, petitions had been addressed to the 
 government urging it to break the blockade. Liverpool merchants corre 
 sponded with Earl Russell as early as August, 1861, in regard to fitting out 
 a fleet of merchant ships to trade with New Orleans and other cotton ports, 
 under the convoy of British cruisers, or the protection of their own guns. 
 " We may rely upon it," wrote a correspondent in respect to the threaten 
 ing aspect of affairs, " that British merchants and manufacturers are chafing 
 under the broken commerce with America and the present balance of ex 
 change, as they have not chafed before in our generation. They are sweat 
 ing every gold guinea they pay over to us now with a punching oath. 
 The Daily News pours good Christian oil upon the situation ; but we must 
 remember that where five British voters swear by the Daily JVews^ twenty- 
 five swear by the Times. No matter what may be the sympathies or the 
 humanities of the Shaftesburys of England, we say now, as we have said 
 before, that the very moment when it shall appear to the government that the 
 public tranquillity is more endangered, and the public purse more depleted 
 by the existing cotton embargo than they would be by open hostilities, that 
 very moment the government will join France in breaking the Southern 
 blockade, and the Derbys, and the Russells, and the Broughams will say 
 ' amen.' England is before all things English. Her humanities are splen 
 did, but they look first to the beef and the breeches of John Bull." 
 
 The Morrill Tariff, which was adopted only as a measure for raising a 
 war revenue, tended to reduce our importation of manufactures from France 
 as well as England. There was great distress in the textile centres of both 
 these countries. The French navy had never before this period attained to 
 such great strength, and England still considered herself mistress of the seas. 
 
 Already there existed diplomatic complications over the arrest of British 
 subjects to whom quarters were assigned in Fort Lafayette and habeas cor 
 pus was denied. Lord Lyons' note in their behalf, in which he cited our 
 Constitution against such executive action, had just been answered by Mr. 
 Seward to the effect that the safety of the people had become, in the present 
 emergency, the supreme law, and that the foreign denizen as well as the 
 citizen must submit to that law. Commenting upon such arrests, the French 
 journals began, with the sarcasm of historical reminiscence, to call Fort La 
 fayette " the American Bastile." 
 
 This was the condition of our foreign relations when Captain Wilkes by 
 force and arms boarded the Trent, and seized, as contraband of war, these 
 ambassadors. It needed but such an affair to make England actively inter 
 vene in our struggle, had her government then yielded to the popular clamor 
 
AMERICAN DIPLOMACY. 283 
 
 for swift and vigorous action. For the moment English interests seemed 
 blended with patriotic indignation over the " affront" offered to the British 
 flag on the high seas. The most liberal-minded Briton, even the most radi 
 cal of the anti-slavery enthusiasts, joined in the public demand for satisfaction. 
 Lord Shaftesbury declined to attend a peace meeting at Exeter Hall, u lest," 
 as said at the time, " it might weaken faith in the integrity of national action." 
 
 Here was an occasion for statesmanship. We were in no mood to recede 
 a step or to apologize to any foreign power on earth, and least of all to 
 England. We were sore over the exuberance of her Southern sympathy. 
 We had expected that, with her anti-slavery record and professions, she would 
 be the staunch friend of the United States. But was this feeling reasonable 
 on our part ? Had not our government been constantly asserting that slavery 
 was not the question in issue, so far as the North was concerned ; and that we 
 sought only to re-establish national authority over " the Union as it was"? 
 Was not our government, in respect to this question, the true exponent of 
 the Union sentiment? At that time England might well have said to the 
 world that honors were easy in regard to slavery on the other side of the 
 Atlantic. 
 
 There was dense ignorance in the English mind as to our feelings, strength, 
 and resources. There was still greater density of ignorance in that regard in 
 most of the other European countries. The English press was constantly 
 asserting our inability to restore the Union. At this juncture foreign inter- 
 vention would have been inevitable if American diplomacy had been unequal 
 to the task before it. 
 
 Mr. Seward well knew that there was in our own estimation and in the 
 estimation of every cabinet of continental Europe an honorable mode of 
 adjusting the Trent imbroglio. England, of all the European powers, 
 was the historic advocate of the right of search. On the other hand, we 
 fought her not without success fifty years before, in asserting our doctrine of 
 the freedom of the seas, and the rights of neutrals. As Captain Wilkes had 
 acted on his own reponsibility, could not Mr. Sewarcl gracefully disavow his 
 act, as contrary to time-honored American policy? Had not England, alone, 
 insisted upon maintaining in full vigor the old law of search? Was she 
 unselfish in this ? She was strong at sea ; she was a marine aggressor. 
 In that character had she not acquired colonial possessions in the four quar 
 ters of the globe ? Her policy was to maintain an overpowering naval force 
 with which to overawe the seas. We were not afraid of her on sea or 
 land. A few of her statesmen, and a few of our own, who remembered the 
 War of 1812, knew that our power was capable of wonderful development. 
 England had been building an ironclad three years prior to 1861, at an 
 immense outlay of money for that time. We could show her how to build 
 a Monitor in one hundred days. That floating battery could have held her 
 own against the British Warrior, or any of the rams in England's dock- 
 
284 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 yards. In naval power, and in the capacity for increasing it, we were more 
 than her equal. We had the best guns of the day, and unlimited war 
 material. We were better able then to cope with her on the seas than we are 
 now, or shall be in another decade. When this affair occurred, Europe was 
 in a ferment over the ambitious schemes of her monarchs, and Russia 
 was our friend. The Czar and his people still rankled over the unholy 
 Anglo-French alliance with the " Crescent" against the " Cross." We were 
 three to one against the South in men, and a hundred to one in materials 
 of war, wealth, and resources. Tens of thousands of brave Irishmen were 
 enrolled in our army corps, everywhere carrying our flag to victory. A war 
 with England would have been hailed with delight by hundreds of thousands 
 of their brethren who would flock to our standard eager to meet their 
 country's hereditary foe. Would not Ireland have been aflame with rebellion 
 had England dared to press upon us the gage of battle ? 
 
 Whatever the unthinking, passionate masses of the people of England or 
 of our own country may have thought, there were statesmen like Seward and 
 Crittenden, and Palmerston and Russell, who knew that the United States 
 could be a giant in its wrath if fully aroused. We did not desire a foreign 
 war at that time ; but the English Cabinet knew that if pushed hard we 
 would not shrink from it. It was, therefore, a foregone conclusion that the 
 Trent affair would be settled by diplomacy and not by arms. To say that 
 this peaceful result was fully expected by the English Cabinet or our own, 
 would be incorrect. Both bodies were probably uncertain of the outcome 
 of the correspondence that ensued ; but there must have been a presentiment 
 that it would not be war. A peaceful settlement must have been suggested 
 by that high intuition that does not stop to reason. A war with England 
 Avould have been terrible ; but it would have brought out a victor's strength 
 on our side. 
 
 Mr. Seward treated this affair in a manner worthy of his great reputa 
 tion as a statesman, and honorable to the Nation. He was soon master of 
 the situation. At this time the writer was more inspired by enthusiasm 
 than now, at a later period of his life. He thought the honor of our flag de 
 manded that we should retain the prisoners. It was not a domestic quarrel. 
 It was foreign, and his spirit was fervid. He recked not of consequences. 
 At that time he considered it his duty to impress on Congress the fact that the 
 law of nations would uphold us in this course. He was for yielding nothing 
 to Great Britain. " Nothing to her arrogance, passion, or pride, when we 
 were so clearly in the right." The following extract from his reply to Mr. 
 Vallandigham's prediction that these men would be surrendered before three 
 months " in the face of a threat," will enable the reader to see where the 
 writer stood on that issue. And Mr. Seward's course will show how much 
 wiser it was to forego the advantage of legal technicalities and put national 
 policy on a broader basis : 
 
REPLY TO MR. VALLANDIGHAM. 285 
 
 "MR. Cox. I hope that the prediction of my colleague will never be ful 
 filled. I have some faith in the sagacity of our Secretary of State, too much 
 faith in the honor of the people of the country, to believe that they will ever 
 permit their government, in a case of clear right, to so dishonor them. The 
 honor of a nation is its credit ; its credit is its commerce ; its commerce is its 
 cash ; and its cash brings with it the comforts and refinements of civilization. 
 Where you touch the cash, you have a powerful argument with any nation. 
 The pecuniary argument is, with the majority, generally stronger than the 
 moral argument. When moral influences combine with pecuniary, they are 
 irresistible. The people of the country, however, will stand, as on a point 
 of honor, by the rights to which they are entitled on land or sea. They will 
 look with jealousy on anything that has a tendency toward impairing their 
 nationality, either at home or abroad. When they fail in this, they will de 
 serve expatriation from this, the cushioned part of God's footstool, given in 
 high trust to their keeping. 
 
 U I was about to state the proposition on which I believe the government 
 can plant itself in this matter. I do not propose now to argue it elaborately. 
 I will cite but few authorities. The public newspapers have been teeming 
 with authorities, some relevant and some irrelevant. 
 
 " We are, sir, in this country too sensitive of foreign opinion. Mr. Seward 
 said well when he told Mr. Dayton (our minister to France) that it was no 
 business of our ambassadors to overhear what the foreign press or foreign 
 ministers said about us. Our duty was to maintain our Union in its integrity, 
 and our position as a leading power among mankind, regardless of the de 
 rision and hostility of kings and aristocrats abroad. I know that we naturally 
 dislike to have our institutions misrepresented, and our destruction predicted. 
 There is much in the old Spanish motto, ' De mi rey, solo yo* no one 
 shall speak of our king except ourselves ; no one shall speak of our sover 
 eignty but ourselves. I would that we were more indifferent to the poisoned 
 shafts of foreign malice, barbed as they are by aristocratic hate and preten 
 sion. We have been freely scorned by nations whose moral standard is 
 measured by their commercial profit and loss, whose national honor depends 
 upon a cotton-pod, whose philanthropy has been an intermeddling Pharisee- 
 ism, and whose complacent neutrality, so promptly assumed, seems to glory 
 in the humiliation of a kindred and Christian nation, without regret or sym 
 pathy, because of its splendid illustration of commercial grandeur, and defi 
 ant adherence to democratic government. 
 
 " Let us, sir, pursue our duty to the age and the Nation with unruffled 
 composure and determined will. Heaven does not desert the undismayed. 
 Even though there may be foreign troubles impending, for us to despair now 
 is to die. I like the motto of the old Romans, which I have, in this period 
 of our trial, often commended to my constituents, ' never to despair of the 
 
286 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Republic ! ' They used to write it upon the lintels of their doors, and to em 
 blazon it upon their temples. It was upon the lips of the people, it was in 
 the mouths of their orators, ' never to despair of the Republic ' ; and when 
 a Roman general, even in the agony of his defeat, gave out the inspiring 
 words, ' never despair of the Republic,' a Roman Senate voted him a tri 
 umphal entiy within her imperial gates. 
 
 " Let us fling aside the burden of our national woe, lament nothing of the 
 irrevocable past, dare all that is just and constitutional ; make no cruel and 
 disastrous diversions from the great object of rescuing our nationality ; crush 
 as we would a nest of adders those who would impair its proportions as well 
 as those who would turn us from that object to other and ignoble objects, 
 involving fresh divisions, broken armies, social revolutions, servile insurrec 
 tions, perpetual penalties, and eternal hates ; and move, each and all, heart, 
 soul, body, men, means, munitions, intelligence, and patriotism, to the grand 
 and only object the restoration of our dismantled Union. Thus feeling 
 and thus acting, we may emerge from this strife of struggling states ; and, 
 like the fabled demigod, receive added strength from our very prostration. 
 If, sir, we observe the rules of right and honor in regulating our conduct 
 abroad, if we observe the object of the war that is now upon us, as the Pres 
 ident proclaimed it to the people, as the soldiers of the Republic understand 
 it, as the House resolved it in the Crittenden resolutions, and as the Consti 
 tution and the Union demand, we may be assured that our martial resources, 
 the intelligence and valor of the masses, the very physical geography of the 
 country, and God himself, will fight for us." 
 
 But an older hand was at the helm of the State. Mr. Seward made this 
 affair the occasion of vindicating the freedom of the seas on time-honored 
 American principles, which, up to the good day of November 29, 1861, the 
 British Government had declined to admit. 
 
 On that day the British Cabinet convened to deliberate on the steps which 
 should be taken " to obtain satisfaction for the recent outrage on the British 
 flag." The conclusion reached was that the act of Captain Wilkes in 
 " seizing passengers on board a British vessel and carrying them forcibly 
 away, was a clear violation of the law of nations, and one for which repara 
 tion must be demanded." This was the result heralded to the public the 
 following morning in the London Times. The point made was that, at most, 
 Messrs. Mason and Slidell were but civil servants of a hostile power. They 
 were traveling from one neutral port to another in a neutral vessel. In such 
 a case, no naval officer of the other belligerent had discretion to seize them 
 until the contraband character of their employment had been established by 
 a prize court. 
 
 On the day following the Cabinet meeting, Earl Russell addressed a dis 
 patch to Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington. It gave him offi- 
 
MR. SEWARD TO LORD LYONS. 287 
 
 cial information that Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the friendly 
 relations that had long subsisted between Great Britain and the United States, 
 were willing to believe that, in respect to the " aggression" committed, our 
 naval officer was not acting according to his instructions, or else, that he 
 " greatly misunderstood them." Her Majesty's Government, therefore, 
 trusted that the United States Government would, of its own accord, offer 
 to the British Government such redress as would satisfy the British nation. 
 This redress was the liberation of the four gentlemen, and their delivery to 
 the British ambassador, in order that they might again be placed under British 
 protection ; and the tender of a suitable apology for the u aggression " which 
 had been committed. If these terms were not proposed by Mr. Seward 
 himself, Lord Lyons was instructed to propose them to him. The instruc 
 tions were duly carried out. 
 
 Mr. Seward replied to Lord Lyons on the 26th of December. He observed 
 the customary diplomatic style. He commenced by saying : " My Lord : Earl 
 Russell's dispatch of November 3Oth, a copy of which you have left with me 
 at my request, is of the following effect, namely," etc. The secretary then 
 went on to review the contents of the note. He stated that it had been sub 
 mitted to the President. He presented the facts from his own sources of 
 information. He accepted the suggestion of the British Cabinet. He assured 
 his lordship that no instruction had been given to Captain Wilkes to arrest 
 the four persons named. 
 
 Mr. Seward was entirely correct in this statement. Captain Wilkes had 
 acted solely on his own responsibility. He had acted according to his own 
 views of right and duty. But this was not said with a view of shirking any 
 responsibility for the consequences of the act. " The British Government," 
 said Secretary Seward, "will justly infer that the United States not only 
 have had no purpose, but even no thought, of forcing into discussion the 
 question which has arisen, or any other which could affect in any way the 
 sensibilities of the British nation." "Your lordship will now perceive," 
 continued Mr. Seward, "that the case now before us, instead of present 
 ing a merely flagrant act of violence on the part of Captain Wilkes, as 
 might well be inferred from the incomplete statement of it that went up to 
 the British Government, was undertaken as a simple, legal, and customary 
 belligerent proceeding by Captain Wilkes, to arrest and capture a neutral 
 vessel engaged in carrying contraband of war for the use and benefit of the 
 insurgents." 
 
 Mr. Seward concluded his statement of the case by asserting that the 
 persons taken from the Trent were citizens of the United States. This was a 
 gentle allusion to England's course in regard to her claims of jurisdiction 
 over British subjects found in neutral ships in days gone by, when she had 
 asserted the right to take them not only off" our merchant vessels but out of 
 our ships of war, by force and arms. He then came to the issue. 
 
288 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 " The question before us is,'* said Mr. Seward, " whether the proceeding 1 
 was authorized by and conducted according to the law of nations. It involvea 
 the following inquiries : 
 
 4 'First. Were the persons named and their supposed dispatches contra 
 band of war? 
 
 "Second. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for 
 these contraband persons and dispatches ? 
 
 "Third. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper manner? 
 
 "Fourth. Having found the contraband persons on board and in pre 
 sumed possession of the contraband dispatches, had he a right to capture the 
 persons ? 
 
 "Fifth. Did he exercise the right of capture in the manner allowed and 
 recognized by the law of nations ? 
 
 "If all these inquiries," said he, "shall be resolved in the affirmative, the 
 British Government will have no claim for reparation." 
 
 Discussing these questions, seriatim, from the law of nations, especially 
 as read from British authorities, our Secretary of State decided the first four 
 inquiries in the affirmative. It was only in respect to the fifth question that 
 any difficulty of solution occurred to him : " The books of law were dumb " 
 in regard to it. He proved that a belligerent power has the right to prevent 
 "an officer, soldier, sailor, minister, messenger, or courier of the enemy from 
 proceeding under a neutral flag from one neutral port to another in his unlaw 
 ful voyage, and reaching the destined scene of his injurious service." But, 
 on the other hand, it was admitted that the person captured might be inno 
 cent of such contraband character. Hence, if he were, he would be entitled 
 to the protection of the neutral flag. In such case, said Mr. Seward, the 
 only way was to convey the suspected person and the suspected vessel into 
 port, and there try the question whether the vessel was acting contraband : 
 "You can prove it to be so by proving the suspected men to be contraband ; 
 and the court must then determine the vessel to be contraband." Still there 
 had been no judgment for or against the captured persons. " One may well 
 express," said the Secretary of State, "his surprise when told that the law of 
 nations has furnished no more reasonable, practical, and perfect mode than 
 this of determining questions of such grave import between sovereign powers." 
 
 So much for the legal aspect of the case. Here Mr. Seward declined to 
 take advantage of the law that justified the act complained of. "As Captain 
 Wilkes," said he, "from combined sentiments of prudence and generosity 
 released the Trent, and thus prevented this circuitous mode of a judicial 
 settlement of the contraband character of the persons arrested and their 
 dispatches"; as "the claim of the British Government was not made in a 
 discourteous manner ; as this government was not tempted at all by sugges 
 tions that cases might be found in history where Great Britain refused to yield 
 to other nations, and even to ourselves," claims like that which was now be- 
 
THE PRISONERS RELEASED. 
 
 289 
 
 fore him, our Secretary of State, putting behind him "suggestions of this 
 kind," preferred to express his satisfaction, that by the adjustment of the pres 
 ent case "upon principles confessedly American," and yet, as he trusted, 
 mutually satisfactory to both nations, " a question would be finally and rightly 
 settled between them, which heretofore had exhausted not only all forms of 
 peaceful discussion but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than half 
 a century alienated the two countries from each other, and perplexed with 
 fears and apprehensions all other nations." In conclusion, Lord Lyons was 
 informed that the four persons in question were then held in military custody 
 at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts, and that they would be cheer 
 fully liberated whenever the British ambassador would be pleased to indicate 
 a time and place for receiving them. 
 
 There was not one word of apology in Secretary Seward's letter. He stated 
 the facts. He gave the British construction of the law of nations bearing on 
 them. He said : " I trust I have shown to the satisfaction of the British Gov 
 ernment that this government neither meditated nor practiced any deliberate 
 wrong in the transaction to which they have called attention ; and, on the 
 contrary, that what has happened has been simply an inadvertency, consisting 
 in a departure by the naval officer [alluding to the release of the Trent, by 
 which a judicial adjudication of the question of contraband was prevented] , 
 free from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and 
 probably, by the several parties concerned, either imperfectly understood or 
 entirely unknown." "For .his error," said Mr. Seward, "the British Gov 
 ernment has a right to expect the same reparation that we, as an independent 
 state, should expect from Great Britain or from any other friendly nation in 
 a similar case." 
 
 Our flag was not lowered in the Trent affair. Mr. Seward expressly 
 waived all the advantages of the British precedents and doctrine of search. 
 He placed the release, to quote his own words, upon " principles that consti 
 tute a large portion of the distinctive policy by which the United States have 
 developed the resources of a continent, and, thus becoming a considerable 
 maritime power, have won the respect and confidence of many nations." 
 He alluded to the doctrine laid down in 1804 by James Madison, when Sec 
 retary of State in the Administration of President Jefferson, in the instruc 
 tions given to James Monroe, our minister to England at that time. The 
 British Government was well informed in regard to the American doctrine. 
 It was asserted in our earliest diplomacy. It was spread to the breeze from 
 the mast-head of one of our frigates in the War of 1812 in the shape of a 
 banner with this device : " Free Ships and Free Trade." The doctrine was 
 that the ocean ought to be the highway of nations, free to commerce and 
 non-combatants. Under this banner the gallant David Porter made his cele 
 brated cruise in the Essex that covered our navy with glory. This doctrine 
 included the text, that " Wherever property found in a neutral vessel is sup- 
 
290 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 posed to be liable on any ground to capture and condemnation, the rule in all 
 cases is, that the question shall not be decided by the captor ; but be carried 
 before a legal tribunal where a regular trial may be had, and where the cap 
 tor himself is liable to damages for an abuse of power." It covered the case 
 of persons also. No naval officer ought to be permitted to usurp the func 
 tions of a maritime court. It was to maintain this doctrine against the arbi 
 trary searches of American ships by British naval officers, and the arbitrary- 
 taking from them of American citizens to be pressed into British service, that 
 we declared w r ar against England in 1812, when we had not a score of ships 
 of war, and that power had over nine hundred armed vessels and one hun 
 dred and forty thousand men in her naval service. 
 
 Of course, the demand of the British Government could not fail to elicit 
 public discussion. The press teemed with editorials and communications. 
 These took their hue from the international law which fully justified the 
 act of Captain Wilkes. The House of Representatives gave him a vote of 
 thanks. The Secretary of the Navy warmly approved of his conduct. If 
 the popular wish and the desires of the popular branch of the Congress had 
 been deferred to by Mr. Seward, there would have been no surrender of the 
 prisoners. 
 
 The visitor who desires to see the celebrated places in and around Wash 
 ington City, first directs his eye down the waters of the Potomac toward 
 Mount Vernon and its mausoleum. Then he seeks the Capitol. After ex 
 hausting that interesting object from crypt to dome, he visits the White House 
 as its co-ordinate, and then the Departments, which are its subordinates ; and 
 the Monument which now dominates all. Perhaps the Smithsonian Institu 
 tion and its museums allure his eye ; and then he inquires for the Van Ness 
 Mansion, or the Duddington House, for these are landmarks of the earlier 
 years of this changed and changeful metropolis. Then he seeks the Army 
 Medical Museum once a theatre whose most tragical association is that 
 of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He takes a glance across the street 
 at the house where the great President died. By a system of mnemonics not 
 at all illogical, he recalls the evening of the loth of April, 1865. Washington 
 was then rejoicing with illuminations and victory. The war had closed. 
 Four days of uninterrupted joy filled every heart. Then, the coward's pistol 
 and dagger blanched every cheek, and stopped the heart and hope of the 
 entire Republic. 
 
 By a similar association the visitant turns to an old and solid brick struc 
 ture on Lafayette Square. It is now the Commissary-General's office. It 
 was once a club-house. During the time of this famous Trent affair, it was 
 occupied by the Secretary of State, William H. Seward. 
 
 The writer has one association belonging to this mansion. It is not that 
 of the dreadful night when assassins struck down the great secretary ; but it 
 
A DINNER PARTY. 291 
 
 is one of an earlier and more delightful quality. It is one in strange con 
 trast with the gloom which makes this mansion sombre in the calendar of 
 crime, and famous in the annals of local history. 
 
 Being upon the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representa 
 tives when the Trent affair occurred, the writer attended a dinner given by 
 the Secretary at this then happy home. This was at a time when men held 
 their breath in trepidation, lest Great Britain and the Powers of Europe 
 might make the Trent matter the pretext to consummate their recognition 
 of Southern independence. Some feared that a disparted Republic would 
 have to give way before the jealous encroachments of those who sought to 
 divide our country as they endeavored to imperialize Mexico. 
 
 The delightful interchanges of thought between the persons at that dinner 
 are not so important as the fact that transpired toward its close. After the 
 ceremonies of introduction, and the tenders of politeness to Mrs. Frederick 
 W. Seward and Miss Olive Risley the adopted daughter of the house 
 the guests who had been received by these ladies moved to the hospitable 
 dining-hall. On the right of Mr. Seward was seated burly English hearti 
 ness incarnated in Mr. Anthony Trollope, the novelist. His presence was 
 almost a surprise, if not a satire on the occasion, as it concluded. At the 
 other end of the table sat John J Crittenden. He was then chairman of 
 Foreign Affairs in the House. The author was on his right, as he was nearer 
 by sympathy to him than others on the committee. He used to say to the 
 writer : " My young friend, when I was of your age, I did all the work and 
 the older members received the merit marks. You may do the work, sir, 
 and I will take the credit." With his grave humor and hearty confidence, 
 he was wont to parcel out to the writer no inconsiderable quantity of the 
 work of this most arduous of committees. Thus it happened that a bill for 
 the relief of the owners of the Perthshire, seized by us, came to the hand 
 of the writer for a report. The chairman was not a little astonished when 
 he found, that his subordinate, on the iyth of December, 1861, was dilating 
 on the Trent case, and quoting Robinson's Reports to justify the detention of 
 the contraband plenipotentiaries, upon British precedents and conduct. 
 
 The dinner was proceeding with the usual social murmur of chat and 
 vivacity of repartee. Bonbons of good- will were tossed about from Senator 
 to Secretary, and from minister to member. Governor Crittenden was regal 
 ing the ear of his neighbor, between the soup and the sherry, with an account 
 of the War of 1812, and his experience as a Kentucky soldier in that war. 
 He had, while serving as aid-de-camp on the staff of the general commanding 
 the Kentucky troops, carried his sword through the Columbus, Ohio, District. 
 As that part of Ohio was represented by the writer, the interest grew apace. 
 All present perplexities were forgotten in the revival of the old prejudices 
 against Great Britain, the incidents of the Canadian border, and of Hull's 
 disgraceful surrender. The dinner progressed. One incident led to another, 
 
2 9 2 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 until Mr. Seward, with a brusqueness entirely prepense upon his part but 
 surprising to us, drew the attention of all by saying : 
 
 " GENTLEMEN : There is only one man in this country to whom I allowed 
 unrestricted communication with Jefferson Davis, since the war. I never 
 asked him what he wrote to Mr. Davis. I trusted his honor and loyalty. 
 He is here. I drink the health of Mr. Crittenden ! " 
 
 Mr. Crittenden, throwing back his shoulders, as was his custom when 
 pleased or excited, said : 
 
 " MR. SECRETARY : I never told you what I wrote to Jeff. Davis. I will 
 tell you now, sir. I have two sons in the war one is a Union and the 
 other a Confederate general. They are both, of course, dear to my heart. 
 I wrote Mr. Davis, ' for God's sake, sir, since you have the gallantry of one 
 of my boys on your side, don't send him to or against Old Kentucky.' " 
 
 This little by-play sent out a gleam of pleasure that sparkled around the 
 board. It was intended by Mr. Seward to placate Mr. Crittenden for what 
 was to follow, and it did. Then Mr. Seward, with his exquisite diplomatic 
 savoir-faire, said, looking around the board : 
 
 "I think I must now trust my guests, as I trusted Mr. Crittenden. I 
 will divulge to you a secret. To-day, the order was issued to release Mason 
 and Slidell." 
 
 A dead pause ensued ! All awaited the response of the venerable and 
 patriotic chairman of Foreign Affairs. He was known not to be partial to 
 England. He was not entirely cordial with the Confederate ambassadors. 
 With a puzzled look of anger and chagrin, the great Kentuckian hesitated 
 for a moment. He seemed held back by the hand of courtesy. He then 
 brought down his dainty glass of sherry with a sudden crash upon the table. 
 The little fragments flew about his plate. The golden contents bejeweled the 
 writer's investments. Then pausing another moment, half ironically and half 
 jocosely, he exclaimed : 
 
 u A good riddance, sir ! You sent them away none too soon, sir ! They 
 were doing much mischief here " ; and, regardless of the occasion, a little 
 murky cloud of profanity dimmed the atmosphere about the table. Never, 
 since the days of good old Uncle Toby, was emphasis more excusable. 
 
 Then the Secretary gave us the observations which appeared in the Na 
 tional Intelligencer the next morning ; and which this chapter is intended 
 to illustrate. 
 
 It was not until nine days after the release of the prisoners that the pub 
 lic were brought to realize what a great diplomatic victory Mr. Seward had 
 won. The demand of the British Government had no foundation in interna 
 tional law. It was against British precedent. It harmonized only with dis 
 tinctively American doctrine. It would have come well from our government 
 had Great Britain been the aggressor. Mr. Sumner, than whom no one was 
 
A DIPLOMATIC DUEL. 2 93 
 
 better qualified to discuss the true merits of Mr. Seward's course, delivered 
 a masterly speech in the Senate on the 9th of January, 1862. He set the 
 public mind at ease by showing that we had emerged from the impending 
 trouble not only with honor, but by putting England in a position in which 
 neither former diplomacy nor, as Secretary Seward said, " the arbitrament 
 of war " itself, had placed her. 
 
 In the Napoleonic wars, when England had closed the coast of Europe 
 from the Elbe to Brest by a paper blockade, and her own ports were similarly 
 closed, our ships were everywhere subjected to the most arbitrary searches 
 by British and French cruisers. Even our war vessels were fired into on our 
 own coast. We were treated with the utmost contempt. The British press 
 and British officers openly boasted that we " could not be kicked into a war." 
 We taught them a wholesome lesson on this point afterwards. We had 
 always refused to recognize the right of any belligerent power to take from 
 an American neutral ship, under the right of search, " any description of 
 persons except soldiers in the actual service of the enemy." Since the estab 
 lishment of the United States as an independent government, our constant 
 endeavor had been to get Great Britain to agree to this doctrine, but without 
 success. Mr. Sumner applied this historic fact in his grand speech : 
 
 "In the struggle," said he, "between Laertes and Hamlet, Hamlet was 
 armed with the rapier of Laertes, and Laertes was armed with the rapier of 
 Hamlet. And now, on this sensitive question, a similar exchange has oc 
 curred. Great Britain is armed with American principles, while to us are 
 left only those British principles which throughout our history have been 
 constantly, deliberately, and solemnly rejected." But it was only for a 
 moment that Mr. Seward fenced with the rapier of Earl Russell. He soon 
 threw it aside as a mere foil. He recovered his own American weapon. 
 He saluted his disarmed antagonist. Great Britain bowed to a rule of con 
 flict for which we had so long contended. As Mr. Sumner aptly said, " We 
 did not even stoop to conquer." 
 
 Great Britain had at last admitted our doctrine. The high seas were free 
 to neutral ships in the transportation of all persons excepting only ' ' soldiers 
 in the actual service of the enemy." Hence, Messrs. Mason and Slidell were 
 permitted to re-embark in their fruitless mission on an ocean whose waters 
 would be forever after free from unlawful search and British arrogance. 
 Where our humiliation had been sought we won the laurels of victory, and 
 all the cabinets of continental Europe applauded. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE CONFEDERATE AND OTHER GOVERNORS. 
 
 ISHAM G. HARRIS, OF TENNESSEE HEADING THE LIST OF FIVE EXECUTIVES 
 HIS OFFICIAL TRUSTS HIS CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE GOVERNOR FROM 1857 
 TO 1865 HIS ENERGY AND ABILITY HIS EXILE, RETURN, AND PREFER 
 MENTSERVICE AND POSITION IN THE SENATE; JOHN LETCHER, OF VIR 
 GINIAHIS EARLY LIFE HIS SERVICE IN VIRGINIA AND IN CONGRESS 
 
 WATCH-DOG OF THE TREASURY HIS ACTION AS GOVERNOR DURING 
 THE CIVIL WAR, AND HIS DEATH SAM : HOUSTON HIS ECCENTRIC LIFE 
 AND HIS COURAGEOUS CONDUCT THE BATTLES OF TEXAS INDEPENDENCE 
 
 HIS SERVICE TO ANNEXATION GOVERNOR AND SENATOR HIS HESITA 
 TION AS TO SECESSION JOSEPH E. BROWN, OF GEORGIA GEORGIA'S RE 
 SOURCES HER WISDOM AT THE END OF THE WAR HER FOREMOST GOV 
 ERNOR HIS BUSINESS ENERGY DURING THE WAR AND AT ITS END HIS 
 CONTESTS WITH THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT GOVERNOR VANCE'S 
 LETTER TO HIM CONSCRIPTION DEFIED HIS CHARACTER HIS CHARI 
 TIESHIS PRESENT SERVICE - ZEBULON B. VANCE, OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 BORN AMONG THE MOUNTAINS REPRESENTATIVE OF BUNCOMBE HIS 
 LOVE OF BOOKS THE BASIS OF HIS EDUCATION HIS UNCLE'S LIBRARY 
 HIS EXPERIENCES IN CONGRESS AND IN WAR HIS EXECUTIVE ABILITY 
 AND INTEGRITY. 
 
 IN some of the preceding chapters there has been more emphasis laid 
 upon abstract theories and polities, than upon the personal administra 
 tion of affairs and the actual legislation which the Executive branch has 
 sought to carry out. But a history of these stirring times, in a Federal 
 sense, would be incomplete without some reflections upon the constituent 
 -elements of the Federal system, namely, the states and their exponents. 
 These exponents were their executives. A list of the Confederate governors 
 of 1861 is as follows : Alabama, Andrew B. Moore ; Arkansas, Henry M. 
 Rector; Florida, John Milton; Georgia, Joseph E. Brown; Louisiana, 
 Thomas O. Moore; Mississippi, John J. Pettus ; Missouri, Claiborne F. 
 Jackson ; Kentucky, Beriah Magoffin ; North Carolina, John W. Ellis ; 
 South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens ; Tennessee, Isham G. Harris ; Texas, 
 Samuel Houston ; and Virginia, John Letcher. 
 
ROSTER OF CONFEDERATE AND PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS. 295 
 
 Each of these Confederate governors, except Governor Ellis, of North 
 Carolina, who died and was succeeded by H. T. Clark, the Speaker of the 
 State Senate, and General Sam : Houston, of Texas, who was succeeded by 
 F. R. Lubbock, remained in office during 1862 and 1863. Several of them 
 served during 1864. One of them, John Milton, of Florida, served until the 
 surrender, in 1865. 
 
 The governors of Kentucky and Missouri are included in this list, from 
 the fact that one took a prominent part as a Confederate general, while the 
 other was a Unionist, though not favorable to aggressive war measures. 
 He resigned in 1862. He was succeeded by James F. Robinson, a Unionist. 
 
 In 1864, the Confederate governors were: Alabama, Thomas H. 
 Watts ; Arkansas, Harris Flannegan ; Florida, John Milton ; Georgia, 
 Joseph E. Brown ; Louisiana, Henry W. Allen ; Mississippi, Charles Clarke ; 
 North Carolina, Zebulon B. Vance ; South Carolina, Milledge L. Bonham ; 
 Texas, Pendleton Murrah ; and Virginia, John Letcher. 
 
 Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee had ceased, in 1864, to have resi 
 dent Confederate governors. The above names include those who were in 
 office at the time of the surrender at Appomattox. 
 
 In 1863, Francis H. Pierpont was elected governor of Virginia, by the 
 people inhabiting the western counties. When these counties formed a 
 constitution for West Virginia, Arthur I. Boreman was chosen governor. 
 
 Michael Hahn was elected governor of Louisiana by the so-called loyal 
 people, in February, 1865. In Tennessee, William G. Brownlow was 
 elected in 1865, to succeed the provisional, or military governor, Andrew 
 Johnson, appointed by President Lincoln. 
 
 The provisional governors appointed by President Andrew Johnson 
 were as follows : North Carolina, William W. Holden ; South Carolina, 
 Benjamin F. Perry ; Georgia, James Johnson ; Alabama, Lewis E. Par 
 sons ; Mississippi, William L. Sharkey ; Florida, William Marvin ; and 
 Texas, Andrew J. Hamilton. 
 
 President Johnson recognized Michael Hahn as elected by the people, to 
 be governor of Louisiana. 
 
 William G. Brownlow was elected in like manner as governor of Ten 
 nessee, Francis H. Pierpont as governor of Virginia, and Isaac Murphy as 
 governor of Arkansas. 
 
 The military commanders under the Reconstruction acts of 1867 were 
 named on the nth of March, 1867, by the order of Adjutant-General E. D. 
 Townsend. The order is number 10. It reads thus : 
 
 u In pursuance of the act of Congress, entitled ' An Act to provide for 
 the more efficient government of the rebel states,' the President directs the 
 following assignments to be made : 
 
 " First District, State of Virginia, to be commanded by Brevet Maj.- 
 Gen. J. M. Schofield. Headquarters, Richmond, Virginia. 
 
296 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 " Second District, consisting of North and South Carolina, to be com 
 manded by Maj.-Gen. Daniel E. Sickles. Headquarters, Columbia, South 
 Carolina. 
 
 " Third District, consisting of the states of Georgia, Florida, and Ala 
 bama, to be commanded by Maj.-Gen. George H. Thomas. Headquarters, 
 Montgomery, Alabama. 
 
 u Fourth District, consisting of the states of Mississippi and Arkansas, to 
 be commanded by Brevet Maj.-Gen. Edward O. C. Ord. Headquarters, 
 Vicksburg, Mississippi. 
 
 " Fifth District, consisting of the states of Louisiana and Texas, to be 
 commanded by Maj.-Gen. Philip H. Sheridan. Headquarters, New Orleans, 
 Louisiana." 
 
 By an order dated March 15, 1867, Maj.-Gen. George H. Thomas, by 
 his request, was relieved from the duty of commanding the Third District. 
 Major-General John Pope was assigned to that district. 
 
 General Schofield having been appointed Secretary of War, was suc 
 ceeded in the command of the First District on the 2d of June, 1868, by 
 Major-General Stoneman. On March 5, 1869, an order was issued for the 
 removal of General Stoneman, and Maj.-Gen. E. R. S. Canby was ap 
 pointed to succeed him. But he was not relieved until March 31. In the 
 meantime he removed Gov. H. H. Wells and assumed the functions of the 
 civil government. On the 3ist, General Stoneman was relieved by Gen. 
 A. S. Webb, who held the command until General Canby could arrive. 
 General Webb's first act was to restore Wells to the office of governor. 
 General Canby took command of the district on the 2Oth of April. 
 
 General Sickles was removed from the command of the Second District 
 on the 26th of August, 1867, and was succeeded by Brevet Major-General 
 Canby. On Dec. 28, 1867, General Pope was relieved from the command 
 of the Third District, and Maj.-Gen. George G. Meade was appointed to 
 succeed him. Dec. 28, 1867, General Ord was relieved from the com 
 mand of the Fourth District, and Brevet Maj.-Gen. Irwin McDowell was 
 appointed to succeed him. On Nov. 29, 1867, Maj.-Gen. W. S. Hancock 
 was appointed to succeed General Sheridan in the command of the Fifth 
 District. 
 
 In all these changes there will appear much to ponder over. The ex 
 ecutive was not in harmony with the legislature ; and the attempt to resur 
 rect order out of chaos by military rule seems to have been a great fiasco. 
 
 Sketches of a few of these governors and their service are not here inap 
 propriate. They were all men of ability, but none more so than Governors 
 Harris, Letcher, Houston, Brown, and Vance. No one of this galaxy of 
 executive intelligence and determination was more sagacious and courageous 
 than the governor of Tennessee, whose portrait is at the head of the five 
 Confederate governors in plate three of the volume. 
 
GOVERNOR ISHAM G. HARRIS, OF TENNESSEE. 297 
 
 It has been asserted that what Governor Andrew was to Massachusetts, 
 or even a more energetic man, Governor Morton, of Indiana, was to his 
 state and to the North, that was Isham G. Harris to Tennessee and the 
 South. At no time did he shrink from the performance of any duty, however 
 perilous, and from no responsibility, however fateful. 
 
 Isham G. Harris was a Representative from the State of Tennessee, 
 in the Thirty-first Congress, in December, 1849. He was tnen m tne 
 fresh vigor of young manhood. He impressed his associates with that 
 ripeness of judgment, energy of action, and capacity for labor which 
 mark his subsequent career. The successors of prominent and efficient 
 members in the National Legislature have a trying ordeal. They arrest 
 the critical attention of the friends and admirers of their predecessors. 
 Contrasts and comparisons are made. Much more is expected of them than 
 of the general body of Representatives. Isham G. Harris came from that 
 district known as " Cave Johnson's old district." Mr. Cave Johnson was 
 then a member of President Folk's Cabinet. He had obtained, in a long 
 service as a member of Congress, a character second to none for honesty and 
 ability. Young Harris stood the crucial test of comparison. He was as 
 signed high rank. Having secured the esteem of his constituents, he was by 
 them again returned to Congress. Determining to change his residence, 
 although urged by his constituency and nominated by his party, he declined 
 to be returned to the Thirty-third Congress. In 1853, he removed to the city 
 of Memphis. It was then, as now, one of the leading centres of commerce 
 on the Mississippi River. He removed there with a view of practicing law. 
 At the bar of that city he took rank with its leading advocates. The char 
 acter he had made in politics as a popular speaker and sound reasoner, made 
 him the Presidential Elector for the state at large in 1856. 
 
 No state in the Union ranks higher than Tennessee for the number and 
 high character of its popular speakers. It was from the "college" of the 
 44 stump" that Polk, Grundy, Bell, Gentry, Jones, Henry, Heiskell, and 
 Johnson sprang. These were men of elevated rank among the statesmen of 
 the Union. In the canvass of the state, made by Isham G. Harris in 1856, 
 with ex-Governor Neil S. Brown as his opponent, he made an indelible 
 impression on the people of that commonwealth. So successful was he 
 as a party leader and speaker, that he made Tennessee, whose political 
 party status had, since 1836, been more or less doubtful, a fixed Demo 
 cratic state. He was elected governor in 1859, anc * again in 1861. Here 
 was his field ! He filled that office from October, 1857, to tlie close of tne 
 Civil War. He displayed executive ability of the very highest order. It was 
 during his second term that the great Civil War began. In his executive 
 communications to the legislature are to be found the ablest and most suc 
 cinct, as well as the most intelligent presentation and justification of the rea 
 sons for the action of the seceding states. Whatever may be thought as to this, 
 
 19 
 
298 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 whether his reasoning was or was not sound, history must say that 
 in the military labor demanded of him as governor of a seceding state lying 
 on the border line, he showed such superior energy as to entitle him to the 
 first position among the giants of that day of giants, North and South. Pe 
 culiar difficulties lay in his way. Tennessee was without arms or military 
 organization at the time of her separation from the Federal Union. There 
 was a large element of disaffection to his policy. It existed in the eastern 
 portion of the state. The northern border of Tennessee of about four 
 hundred and fifty miles from its exposed condition invited approach from 
 points where the resources of the Federal Government were greatest, as did 
 also the western border on the Mississippi River. The promptness, zeal, 
 and skill which he manifested in preparation to meet this state of things 
 showed that he merited the character claimed for him. Indeed, this was 
 even more strikingly manifested in subsequent acts of that eventful epoch. 
 
 When the curtain went down on that drama, Governor Harris, for the 
 most patriotic of reasons that of promoting the internal peace of his native 
 state left the United States. He went first to Mexico, and thence to Eng 
 land. In 1867 he returned. He at once resumed the practice of law at 
 Memphis. To his profession and the reparation of his private fortunes, he 
 gave exclusive attention, and with marked success. However, as a part of 
 the current history of the state, it may be said that until the political revo 
 lution of the state in 1870, under the lead of Governor Senter, the great 
 body of the white citizens of the state were disfranchised for their sympathy 
 or identification with the Confederate States. Besides, under the amend 
 ments to the Federal Constitution, Governor Harris was under political disa 
 bilities. At the earliest opportunity after the political emancipation of the 
 white citizens, the high esteem in which he was held was made manifest 
 in his election to the Senate of the United States. This occurred in 
 January, 1877. In this body he immediately took high position by his 
 great force of character. He served on various committees of prominence. 
 He was placed upon the Committee on Rules. With that peculiar knack 
 or tact which belongs to few men whom the author has met in Washington, 
 he at once took rank as a parliamentarian. He presides, temporarily, more 
 frequently than any other Senator. He is now a member of the Commit 
 tee on Finance, which is the leading committee of the Senate. 
 
 Wherever assigned to duty, he has shown great attention and industry ; 
 but his capital quality is that of a positive and affirmative man. He is de 
 voted to principle. He is candid, honest, and fearless in the advocacy of his 
 opinions. He is a Democrat of the faith of the early expounders of the Con 
 stitution. He is a fit representative of the Democracy of the state which 
 gave us Jackson, Grundy, and Polk. Senator Harris was re-elected to the 
 Senate in 1883. His official term will close in 1889. Until then, the ad 
 herents of the doctrine of strict construction of the Constitution may be as- 
 
GOVERNOR JOHN LETCHER, OF VIRGINIA. 299 
 
 sured that they will have a Senator who has the ability and courage to sus 
 tain his convictions ; and the great mass of the people may know that they 
 have a friend, watchful and attentive to their rights and interests. 
 
 Thus, from the crosses of war come the heroes who wear the civic 
 crown. Out of the sacrifices, and from the very ashes and agonies of our 
 sad conflict, arises this tribune of the people, who in the future will, in 
 addition to his adhesion to Federal unity, combine the deathless thought of 
 local independence and state pride, without which that unity is a rope of 
 sand. "Wine issues from the trodden grape. Iron is blistered into steel.' 
 
 The governor of Virginia during the war was John Letcher, of Lexing 
 ton. He has already been referred to as a member of the Thirty-fifth and 
 Thirty-sixth Congresses. The writer is indebted to him for many a prudent 
 suggestion in the first years of his legislative service. Since the war ended 
 he has corresponded with him. It is a chief delectation of a service that 
 sometimes has its exactions almost beyond human patience, that such men 
 have given confidence and trust amid all the darkening clouds of trial and 
 war. No man, perhaps, ever represented a district in Congress with more 
 fidelity than John Letcher represented the Lexington district. He was born 
 on the 29th of March, 1813. He spent his whole life in Lexington, Rock- 
 bridge County, except when absent upon public duty. He owed his manly 
 form and his mental capacity, his self-reliance and enduring qualities, to the 
 mountain home in which he was raised. He was a poor boy, but rich in 
 inherited Scotch-Irish blood. By its vigor he was lifted to an honorable 
 niche in the Capitol of his state and of the country. He was educated at an 
 old " Field school." He received some classical instruction at what is now 
 the " Washington and Lee University," and at the Macon College. He be 
 came a member of the bar at twenty-three years of age. At the time 
 Governor McDowell led the Democratic party of his region, he came to the 
 front. He entered into the field of politics. He was an editor, a member of 
 the legislature, and an admirable speaker upon the hustings. In 1851, he 
 was elected a member of Congress, and was frequently re-elected. His sig 
 nificant sobriquet was " Honest John Letcher." He was one of the "watch 
 dogs " of the treasury. Along with George W. Jones and others, he was 
 regarded as one of an incorruptible company who allowed no dishonesty 
 which they could reach or suppress. He took a large part in expelling from 
 their dishonored seats such men as Matteson and other Northern members, 
 for bribery. 
 
 When the writer first knew Governor Letcher, the latter was chairman 
 of the Committee on Ways and Means. That committee then had charge 
 also of appropriations. In fact, Mr. Letcher had, in that position, command 
 of the treasury and its resources. 
 
 But Governor Letcher will be best remembered in Virginia as its chief 
 
3OO THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 magistrate in the most portentous period connected with the civil liberties, 
 Federal relations, and social order of the country. He held the helm as 
 magistrate with a firm hand. He venerated the fathers of the Constitution. 
 He was a man of conservative and cautious instincts. He clung to the idea 
 of the preservation of the Union and a peaceful solution of the difficulties, 
 until all hopes, as he considered, were blasted by the proclamation of the 
 President, issued on the 1 5th of April, 1861, to suppress certain combina 
 tions. Then, as one of his eulogists has said, without the slightest hesi 
 tancy, with the wisdom of Nestor and the courage of Achilles, he led his 
 state through all its distress and peril. Whatever Virginia gained out of the 
 chaos of the war, whatever Jackson and Lee did for the protection and 
 honor of the state and for their cause in its varying fortunes, is largely to be 
 shared with their coadjutor, the chief magistrate of Virginia. At the close 
 of his official term as governor he devoted himself quietly to his profession. 
 He was president of the board of officers of the Virginia Military Institute. 
 He held no office after the expiration of his executive term. When he died, 
 full of honors and years, on the 26th of January, 1884, the state mourned 
 him as no son of hers has been mourned since the death of the great states 
 men and jurists of Virginia Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall. 
 
 Governor Sam : Houston was also born at Lexington, Virginia, the birth 
 place of Governor Letcher. He was born on the 2d of March, 1793. His 
 father served in the Revolutionary War, and held the post of Inspector of 
 Brigade till his death in 1807. After the death of young Houston's father, 
 his mother, with her six sons and three daughters, emigrated to East Ten 
 nessee, to a place within eight miles of the Cherokee country. His early 
 educational advantages were very limited. While at school he desired to learn 
 Greek and Latin, but being refused by the master, he left the school and en 
 tered a store as a clerk. For this occupation he had little relish. He soon 
 relinquished it. He crossed the Tennessee River, and lived with the Indians 
 for about three years. The chief adopted him as his son. At eighteen years 
 of age he was six feet high and an active hunter. After his three years' expe 
 rience with the Indians, he returned to his family and opened a school. Dur 
 ing the war with Great Britain, in 1813, he enlisted as a private and was 
 promoted to be an ensign. He fought under Jackson against the Indians at 
 the battle of the Great Bend of the Tallapoosa, in March, 1814, where he was 
 severely wounded. After the ratification of peace he was promoted to be 
 a lieutenant. In 1817, he was appointed a subordinate Indian agent to carry 
 out the treaty with the Cherokees which had just been ratified. In the suc 
 ceeding winter he conducted a delegation of Indians to Washington. He 
 resigned his commission in the army in 1818, settled in Nashville, and studied 
 law. In six months he was admitted to the bar and began practice in 
 Lebanon, Tennessee. He had a tendency toward a military life. He was 
 
GOVERNOR SAM : HOUSTON, OF TEXAS. 30 1 
 
 appointed adjutant-general of the state, with the rank of colonel. In 1819, 
 he was elected district attorney of the Davidson District and took up his 
 residence in Nashville. After serving two years as major-generalof militia, 
 in 1823 he was elected to Congress. He was re-elected for the ensuing 
 term almost unanimously. He was chosen governor of Tennessee in 1827. 
 This office he resigned in 1829 and returned to his former friends, the Cher- 
 okees. Several years after, he went to Washington to remonstrate against the 
 frauds and outrages practiced upon the Indians. The result of his visit was 
 the removal of five of the government agents. He then became involved 
 in personal and legal contests with these agents and their friends. He was 
 accused in the House of Representatives by William Stanbery, of Ohio, 
 of attempting to obtain a fraudulent contract for Indian rations from the 
 government. This attack led to a personal rencontre between Houston 
 and Stanbery, in which the latter was severely beaten. Houston, being the 
 aggressor, was arrested and publicly censured by the Speaker of the House. 
 He was also tried for the assault, and fined. The sentence of the court was 
 not enforced, the fine being afterwards remitted by President Jackson. The 
 charge of fraud was subsequently investigated by a committee of which Mr. 
 Stanbery was the chairman. It was not sustained. 
 
 The writer, from 1856 to 1863, represented a part of the district formerly 
 represented by Mr. Stanbery. He can recall, in a nebulous way, the terrific 
 political campaign in that part of Ohio, when Stanbery was a candidate after 
 the rencontre with Houston. Caricatures representing General Houston 
 caning the Ohio member, and the humiliating attitude of Stanbery and the 
 ridiculous legend of the pictures are a part of the reminiscence of the author's 
 childhood. Politics were running with more acrimony then than now. Gen 
 eral Houston was a Jacksonian champion, whose valor was eulogized at the 
 expense of Mr. Stanbery's pluck. The phrase put into the mouth of the hu 
 miliated member in the caricature was: " Don't ! Don't! Oh! Lordy ! 
 Oh ! Oh ! Lordy ! " This caricature defeated one of the ablest public men 
 of Ohio a man of brusque individuality, and of a courage never until that 
 occasion questioned. 
 
 About this time revolutionary movements were organizing in Texas against 
 the Mexican government. Houston went there at once. In the constitu 
 tional convention which met in April, 1833, ne exercised a dominating in 
 fluence. When the war for Texan independence began, he was elected 
 general of the military district east of the Trinity. He led his troops to the 
 camp of General Austin, who was then besieging Bexar. He was soon 
 elected to the chief command of the Texan army. After the formal declara 
 tion of Texan independence, he resigned his commission and was immediately 
 elected commander-in-chief of the army of the new republic. He was a man 
 of foresight and prudence, combined with great valor. Had his orders been 
 obeyed and his advice been taken, history would not have recorded the 
 
302 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 butchery of the Alamo, nor the perfidious massacre of Goliad. With but 
 783 men and two six-pounders, he met Santa Anna at San Jacinto, with 
 his force of 1,600 regulars, flushed with victory. After a fierce battle with 
 the Mexicans he utterly routed them. In that battle 630 of the Mexicans 
 were killed, and only eight Texans. This battle settled the independence of 
 Texas. Santa Anna was captured, being disguised as a common soldier. 
 During his captivity he made a treaty which secured Texan independence. 
 General Houston soon sailed for New Orleans, where he arrived in almost 
 a dying condition, having been severely wounded in the fight at San Jacinto. 
 In the following September he was elected president of Texas. 
 
 General Houston was a man of great ambition. He was a standing can 
 didate for the Presidency. He had a form and mien quite as outrt as that 
 of any man who ever entered Congress or served the people. He came 
 to Washington wearing a Mexican blanket, or poncho. He used to sit all 
 day in his senatorial seat whittling cedar sticks, until the shavings were 
 piled around him. He had an infinite treasury of humor, and used it in dis 
 cussions with rare effect. His picture of General Cass's Anglophobia, which 
 he illustrated by a bloodless fight he once saw between two big turtles, was 
 one of the most amusing pieces of drollery ever laughed at in or out of Con 
 gress. Houston was a man of great nobility of heart, as well as of indomita 
 ble courage. He appointed his political rivals to important offices. It 
 was he who opened negotiations with the United States Government for the 
 annexation of Texas to the Union. He served two terms as president of 
 Texas, paid off a large amount of her national debt, kept the expenditures 
 within the revenues, made treaties with hostile Indian tribes, restored peace 
 and trade with Mexico, and finally consummated the annexation to the 
 United States, although the formal annexation did not take place till after 
 the expiration of his constitutional term of office. With Thomas J. Rusk, 
 in 1845, he entered the Senate of the United States. He was re-elected in 
 1853. He remained in the Senate till March 4, 1859. He was always a 
 zealous advocate of justice and humanity to the Indians. He, unfortunately, 
 gave his adhesion to the Know Nothing, or American party. He opposed 
 the Kansas and Nebraska bill in a speech in 1854; and in 1858, he voted, 
 with Douglas, against the Lecompton Constitution of Kansas. In August, 
 1859, he was again elected governor of Texas. He was an earnest and bit 
 ter opponent of secession. He long resisted the disunion clamor for an extra 
 session of the Texas legislature, and finally resigned his office in preference 
 to taking the oath required by the secession convention. He died at Hun- 
 tersville, Texas, July 25, 1863, but before his death he gave his reluctant 
 assent to the action by which Texas followed the other Gulf states out of the 
 Union. 
 
 Georgia has a wonderful diversity of resources. All she lacks to make 
 
GOVERNOR JOSEPH E. BROWN, OF GEORGIA. 303 
 
 her the rival of the State of New- York is more capital and people. She is 
 well named an empire state. What of development she has had since the 
 war, has been largely owing to the sagacity of her statesmen. They were 
 early out of the unthrifty trenches of Federal and Confederate conflict. They 
 were among the first of Southern statesmen to discern the dawn of a better 
 time. They sought to be rid, at once, of the adventurous insectivora who 
 were fattening upon the body of their state and impeding her growth, and 
 to give incentive and advancement to her industry and trade. In the language 
 of her war governor, Joseph E. Brown, the subject of this sketch : " There 
 she stands, the grand old state, arable, watered, timbered, peopled in 
 every district, with immense capabilities in the production of nearly all 
 that man needs of food, raiment, medicine ; laden with vines and fruits, and 
 with her graceful drapery trimmed with every variety of flowers, from the 
 gorgeous magnolia to the bridal-wreath spirea." It is no idle boast to say, 
 that in a material view she is as peerless in her climate as she is imperial in 
 her area and production. Her precious stones, and still more precious metals, 
 deck her bridal array. In 1880, her population was i ,542,180. All but about 
 ten thousand were natives of this country. Her white population exceeds 
 the colored by about one hundred thousand. She has 37,120,000 acres of 
 land. While planting is, and has been, her leading industry, she is more 
 energetic than some of the other cotton states. She follows the pod of her 
 fields to her own mills, and spins it for the clothing of the South. In 1880, 
 she had six and a half millions invested in cotton mills, with an equal value 
 in the products of that fabric. Since the census has been taken, her manu 
 factures have largely increased. When one of the colonies, she was inspired 
 with the spirit of liberty, tempered by an earnest religious element. Both 
 were the result of the bent given in the childhood of her history. Parties in 
 her past revolutionary struggles were nearly equally divided ; so that excesses 
 became the exception, and moderation the rule, of her governance. The 
 state which boasts among her sons the names of Troup, Crawford, Forsythe, 
 Cobb, Lumpkin, Baldwin, Johnson, Colquitt, Warner, Streeter, Berrien, 
 Hill, Lamar, Toombs, and Stephens, preachers, lawyers, statesmen, 
 humorists, and poets, was not lacking in the ability to direct and control 
 even the wildest elements of revolution. Her sons in other states, the best 
 example of whom is Lucius Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, now Secretary of 
 the Interior, have shown in the very torrent and tempest of a passionate love 
 for their sunny section, an effective composure worth whole satrapies, in the 
 rule of an ardent and impetuous people. Foremost among the men of this 
 rarely-gifted state was, and is, Joseph Emerson Brown. He is the present 
 Senator from Georgia. He is not gifted, as was Benjamin H. Hill, and as 
 is Lamar, with the splendors and fervors of eloquence ; but as a practical 
 man, his business tact, equipoise, energy, and knowledge of men became as 
 indispensable to his state in i86o-'6i, as they are now effective in sustaining 
 her interests and honor. 
 
304 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Senator Brown was born in South Carolina, April 15, 1821 . The mountain 
 district of Cherokee in Georgia gave hospitality to the family and to the 
 boy. He was a senator in the legislature in 1849. He was one of that 
 class of Unionists, who in 1850 agreed upon the compromises of that year. 
 He then repudiated resistance to the Federal Government. He has been 
 always a Baptist and a Democrat. His hair and beard have grown long 
 and silvery in vindicating his ideal of church and state. 
 
 He, also, was of Scotch-Irish descent ; and therefore his ancestors were 
 Whigs and rebels in the Revolution. He was a teacher. " He read law of 
 nights and Saturdays, without an instructor." He paid off the debt for his 
 education, by his own industry. He was also thus enabled to go to the Yale 
 Law School, from which he graduated in 1846. He practiced law for eleven 
 years. He became chief justice of his state after the war. He ascended by 
 the ladder which he made and reared himself. He thus became equipped 
 for the work of directing his state, as its chief magistrate, in its great 
 ordeal from 1860 to 1866. He had early given his searching attention 
 to its material interests. The railroads and institutions of his state had 
 his special efforts. He is now president of its chief railroad. He was first 
 inaugurated as governor in 1857. ^ e remained at this chief post of honor 
 and usefulness until the Confederacy collapsed. He was four times elected 
 governor by the people, and by large and increased majorities. His first 
 belligerent act as governor was his proclamation of April 26, 1861, forbid 
 ding the payment of debts to Northern creditors. In 1863, when the peace 
 sentiment began to be heard in murmurs, he rather surmised that his state 
 was not ready for peace. Although not unfriendly to the theory and objects 
 of secession, he distrusted the administration of the Confederate President. 
 Still he was re-elected, and by the votes of the soldiers in the field. He was 
 not backward in the exercise of the veto. Being a business man, he took an 
 unusual interest in the banking institutions of the state and their proper 
 restraint. As a friend of education, he bent his energies in favor of state 
 economy, with the view to be as prodigal as possible in forwarding plans for 
 educating the rising youth of Georgia. 
 
 The telegraph clicked the news of the Presidential election, on the yth 
 of November, 1860. A sectional candidate was elected. The cotton states 
 were allowed but little time for a calm determination of their course. They 
 determined to resist what was termed Federal encroachment. The Georgia 
 ordinance of secession was adopted as early as the 2oth of December, 
 1860. The vote test was 160 to 130. Fort Pulaski was at once occupied by 
 order of the governor. His headquarters were fixed at Savannah. Col. 
 Alexander R. Lawton, who opposed Governor Brown for Senator, and who is 
 just named as minister to Russia, and has gallantly resigned the post, was 
 ordered to occupy this stronghold entrance into the state with the First Regi 
 ment of Georgia volunteers. This was done. In one line of conduct, 
 
STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN THE CONFEDERACY. 305 
 
 however, Governor Brown was greatly distinguished from other Confederate 
 governors. We may except, perhaps, Governor Vance, of North Carolina. 
 It refers to state sovereignty. He carries out, even in defiance of Jefferson 
 Davis and the Richmond government, his ideas on this topic. It is to 
 Governor Brown that Governor Vance sends his significant letter of Sept. 
 23, 1864. It asks concerted action by the legislatures of the various Southern 
 States. That letter suggests that the "principle of state sovereignty ren 
 dered it improper to allow the Confederate Government to conscript the citi 
 zens of Georgia." It is his boast, that he never opposes the execution of the 
 Confederate laws ; but he certainly remonstrates with a vigor unprecedented 
 for a subordinate, and to the very verge of opposition, to the acts of the Con 
 federate Government. His correspondence in 1864, with James A. Seddon, 
 Confederate Secretary of War, reveals this discussion in its personality, 
 amplitude, and ability. When Sherman began to move toward Atlanta, 
 Governor Brown called out the state militia. Old men and boys, civilians 
 and disabled soldiers, non-combatants, all were summoned to arms. They 
 responded ten thousand strong. President Davis forthwith made a requisition 
 for these troops, under date of Aug. 30, 1864. On the I2th of September, 
 Governor Brown gives reasons for refusing this requisition. He, in fact, 
 charges the Confederate President with designs of grasping ambition, and to 
 place in power his own favorites. These troops are state militia. They 
 are raised to repel state invasion. "Georgia," the governor says, "has 
 already on Virginia soil, fifty regiments of her brave sons." He not only 
 refuses to send the ten thousand militia men, but he demands that the Presi 
 dent permit all the sons of Georgia to return to their own state, to rally 
 around her glorious flag within her own limits. 
 
 To this letter Mr. Seddon replies. Its tenor and spirit cause painful 
 surprise. It requires forbearance, and he forbears to answer too sharply. 
 But the answer is not soft. It does not turn away the gubernatorial wrath. 
 It closes with this sting of reproach : " Our enemies appear to have conceived 
 that you are prepared to entertain overtures of separate accommodation, 
 and that your state could be seduced or betrayed to treachery and desertion." 
 
 A long, argumentative rejoinder was made to this letter. The reply to the 
 suggestion of Secretary Seddon that Governor Brown's action sprung from 
 the spirit of opposition to the Confederate Government, was trenchant, 
 passionate, and biting. " Some men," said he, " are unable to distinguish 
 between opposition to a government and unwillingness blindly to indorse all 
 the errors of an Administration ; or to discriminate between loyalty to a 
 cause and loyalty to their master. My loyalty is only due to my country ; 
 you can bestow yours where your interest or inclinations may prompt." 
 The italics upon the word interest are in Governor Brown's own letter and 
 volume. This correspondence displays the same vein of independence in 
 local sovereignty that appears in the spicy correspondence between Jefferson 
 
306 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Davis and Governor Brown, in 1862, upon the conscription. These jealousies 
 had much to do with weakening the Confederacy, even as early as 1862. 
 
 When the disasters of 1864 fell upon the South, Governor Vance, of North 
 Carolina, proposed a meeting of governors at Augusta in October, to confer 
 as to some general plan of action for the relief of the country. This and other 
 matters are referred to in the following chapter. They will show that there 
 was an element of discontent in the Confederacy. Many prominent people 
 looked eagerly for a cessation of the war, and for rehabilitation in the old 
 Union. 
 
 It is not a part of the plan of this book to show in detail the local admin 
 istration of the states, except as it is connected with Federal affairs. Hence, 
 much to the honor of this energetic man and governor is omitted. When 
 the war was over, and others were backward in sustaining the Reconstruction 
 acts, his rare business foresight taught him, despite temporary unpopularity, 
 to speak for the wisdom of prompt acquiescence. How he helped to carry 
 out these measures, although the Democratic party opposed them, will appear 
 in the proper place. His efforts were herculean. He even voted for General 
 Grant in 1868, on the basis of his hopes and efforts for reconstruction. Since 
 1872, he has been happy in the household of Democratic faith. As an evi 
 dence of his restored popularity, he has been re-elected to the Senate for. his 
 second term, which began with the inauguration of President Cleveland. 
 
 Truly, if there w^as ability anywhere to maintain the Confederacy, it was 
 in the hands and heads of such business executives as Joseph E. Brown. 
 But it was fated otherwise. Senator Brown has amassed a vast fortune, 
 but he does not forget the ladder by which he ascended, round by round, 
 to opulence and prominence. He is munificent in all the varied ways 
 known to benevolence and piety. To church and college, to asylum and 
 individual, his charity goes out in varied forms of generosity to bless those 
 who are struggling, as he himself had struggled. He is endowed with 
 those larger sympathies which embrace his beloved state in his benefac 
 tions, and encompass a restored Union with patriotism and magnanimity. 
 In his policy as a Senator, as in his efforts after the war, he is still as self- 
 reliant as in the dire extremities out of which he helped to rescue his state. 
 
 Zebulon B. Vance was the governor of North Carolina during its most 
 critical period. He was born on the I3th of May, 1830, in the shadow of 
 Mount Mitchell. That region was then difficult of access. It was unpene- 
 trated, except by a few mountain roads. The schools were kept in log- 
 houses in the valleys. The basis of young Vance's education was a well- 
 selected library left to his father's family by his uncle, Robert B. Vance, of 
 the same name as a subsequent congressman. In 1824-^5 and '26, the elder 
 Robert represented that mountain district, then known as Buncombe, from 
 one of its counties. It was represented in i858-'59~'6o and '61 by the other 
 Robert B. Vance, a brother of the governor. The library contained about 
 
GOVERNOR ZEBULON B. VANCE, OF NORTH CAROLINA. 307 
 
 five hundred volumes of the cream of literature : Hume, Gibbon, Smollet, 
 Rollins ; Heroditus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, and Cicero ; Fielding, 
 Scott, Swift, Addison, Pope, Byron, Shakespeare, Milton, Campbell, and 
 Moore, among the poets and novelists ; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 
 among the works of political economists ; Marshall's Washington, Otis' 
 Batta, and Lee's Memoirs, among the American writings. The best books 
 of the day were on the shelves. At the age of twelve, young Vance had 
 already skimmed over most of them. It thus happened that the best classic 
 literature made the first impression on his mind. He studied law at Chapel 
 Hill, and obtained a license to practice in the county courts in January, 1852. 
 He was admitted to the superior court in August, 1853. He married the 
 day after he received his superior court license. On arriving home from 
 college in 1852, with the county court license, he was immediately elected 
 county solicitor by the bench of magistrates the first office he ever held. 
 He did not practice long before his natural inclination for politics prevailed. 
 He was elected to the legislature, the lower branch of which was then called 
 the House of Commons. With youthful confidence he thought he knew all 
 about political economy. He says now that he would give a thousand dol 
 lars for a verbatim report of one of his first speeches on the tariff, and five 
 hundred more for a photograph that would represent the young orator stand 
 ing on a log, and three or four hundred hardy mountaineers listening to 
 his exposition of the laws of economy wondering where the boy got it all. 
 That legislative tour made his fortune. He came to Congress in 1858. The 
 writer then served with him on the Committee of Revolutionary Claims. 
 The war came on. 
 
 Mr. Vance was strongly opposed to the secession movement. He with 
 stood it with all his energy, until his state took action, and Mr. Lincoln 
 called upon her to furnish her quota of troops to suppress the rebellion. 
 Deeming his allegiance due primarily to his state, like most Southern men, 
 he immediately volunteered, raised a company, and departed for the seat of 
 war. In four months he was made a colonel. He commanded the Twenty- 
 sixth Regiment of North Carolina troops at the battle of Newbern, and in 
 the " seven days" fighting in front of Richmond, in 1862. While in the 
 field, without a nomination or even candidacy, he was elected governor of 
 the state by a very great majority. He assumed the duties of the office on 
 Sept. 8, 1862, at the age of thirty-two, being the youngest man ever elected 
 to that position, as he was also the youngest member of Congress when 
 he entered that body. He was again elected governor, by a still larger 
 majority, in 1864, and continued to serve until displaced by the Federal 
 authorities in 1865. 
 
 His administration of the affairs of the state at so critical and turbulent a 
 period was marked by a large measure of efficiency and success. He aided 
 in the recruiting of the Confederate armies by a rigid enforcement of the 
 conscript laws, as well as by urging volunteering. He stimulated in every 
 
308 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 possible way the production of home supplies, and instituted a system of 
 blockade running by fast steamers, purchased on the Clyde, by which the 
 home supplies were so supplemented that the North Carolina soldiers be 
 came well known as the best equipped and best provided for in the Con 
 federate service, leaving a considerable surplus to be turned over to the 
 army at large. Supplies of articles of indispensable necessity were also 
 imported by him for the people, and much was done by the energy and 
 enthusiasm which he inspired among all classes to support the war spirit. 
 In short, though going into the war reluctantly, no man in the South stood 
 to it more firmly to the bitter end, or rendered more efficient aid for its 
 prosecution. So thoroughly had he organized the development of the 
 resources of his state, that in a recent address at the city of Baltimore he 
 boasted that North Carolina's part of the men and means for the support of 
 the war could have been maintained for two years longer. 
 
 From the first movement of reconstruction to its closing scene, Governor 
 Vance was its bitter opponent, and was recognized as one of the foremost 
 leaders in combating its now universally admitted pernicious effects upon 
 Southern society. In every canvass he was upon the stump. In 1868 he 
 was nominated for governor, but because he was under the disabilities of the 
 Fourteenth Amendment he declined to run. In 1870 he was elected to the 
 United States Senate, over his present colleague, Matt W. Ransom, and A. 
 S. Merrimon, the late Senator. He was not admitted to his seat, by reason of 
 his disabilities. In 1876, he was again nominated for governor by every vote, 
 except four, of a thousand delegates in convention assembled. He carried 
 the state, which, since reconstruction, had been Republican, by more than 
 thirteen thousand majority, against the ablest Republican in the South. In 
 January, 1879, ne was again elected to the United States Senate, of which 
 body he is now a member, by recent election, for the third time. His best 
 known characteristics in that body are hostility to high protective tariffs, and 
 all forms of capitalistic monopoly. He is strong in integrity, wondrous in 
 vivacity, and a leader of high rank in American politics. 
 
 It is stated that the " stars and bars " failed as a national ensign. Its sim 
 ilarity to the " stars and stripes " made it useless. In some of the battles the 
 colors of the two armies could not be distinguished from each other. It 
 seemed, says General Beauregard, referring to this fact, that many of both 
 sides believed that each side was using, as a stratagem, the flags of their 
 opponents. A battle-flag was substituted in the Southern armies. This is an 
 analogue. It teaches how near the respective armies and people were to 
 each other, even when seemingly so far apart. The same doctrines, when 
 carried to extremes, North or South, brought destruction ; but after all, when 
 rightly viewed, their differences seemed so slight that the stars and bars and 
 the stars and stripes represent, at least now, a constellated ensign, with a 
 state for every star, and a star for every state. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS FOR PEACE, AND THE AMENDMENT ABOLISHING 
 
 SLAVERY, 
 
 THE CONFEDERACY AT THE END OF 1864 GLOOM AT RICHMOND THE CALL FOR 
 THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN BY PRESIDENT LINCOLN THE ATTEMPTS 
 OF MR. STUART, OF ILLINOIS, AND THE AUTHOR TO MAKE PEACE THE ANTI- 
 SLAVERY ZEALOTS DISFAVOR ALL PEACE PROPOSITIONS LINCOLN AND 
 SEWARD MAKE OVERTURES OF PEACE ATTEMPT TO CARRY THE THIR 
 TEENTH AMENDMENT BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE THE CONFEDERATE DILEMMA 
 
 COLONIAL VASSALAGE, OR SUBJUGATION SHALL THE SOUTH GO TO ENG 
 LAND AND FRANCE? WANING POPULARITY OF JEFFERSON DAVIS EVENTS 
 WHICH LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE CONFEDERACY SHERMAN'S MARCH 
 TO THE SEA THE TAKING OF SAVANNAH AND FORT FISHER PEACE 
 PROPOSITIONS NORTH AND SOUTH DURING THE WAR RESOLUTIONS AND 
 SENTIMENTS AGAINST PEACE THE GROWTH OF THE PEACE SENTIMENT 
 FROM 1861 TO 1865 PEACE BY COMMISSIONERS, AND BY DELEGATES TO A 
 NATIONAL CONVENTION THE NIAGARA CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SAN 
 DERS AND GREELEY ITS FAILURE LINCOLN'S AUTHORITY FOR THE AT 
 TEMPTVISITS OF FRANCIS P. BLAIR, SR., TO RICHMOND -THE RESULT THE 
 MONROE DOCTRINE, AND CONFEDERATE EMIGRATION TO MEXICO THE DE 
 BATE ON THE AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY THE POWER TO AMEND 
 CONTESTED THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT TO ABOLISH, 
 IN REPLY TO PENDLETON THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT -BRIBERY 
 ALLEGED ITS RATIFICATION MR. SEWARD'S COMMENDATION OF THE 
 DEMOCRATS WHO FAVORED THE AMENDMENT HAMPTON ROADS CONFER 
 ENCE-LINCOLN AND SEWARD THERE RESULTLESSNESS OF THE MEETING 
 
 DEBATES AND RESOLUTIONS ABOUT IT - WHAT IT ATTEMPTED - CONCLU 
 SION OF THE WAR. 
 
 THE geographical limits of the Confederate power at the end of the 
 year 1864 had been greatly contracted. Texas was the only state 
 which had not been more or less occupied by the Federal troops and 
 authorities. Louisiana, Mississippi, parts of Georgia, Virginia, 
 Florida, and South Carolina were still measurably controlled by the Con 
 federate authorities. Twenty-three army corps, all under one head, and 
 under commanders who had learned much of the dreadful art of war from 
 experience, were environing what was left of the Confederate area. The 
 garden-spots of the South were held by the Union armies. Sheridan, it was 
 said, had destroyed two thousand barns in the Shenandoah valley. Grant 
 
310 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 had facetiously said that a crow could not fly over that fruitful valley without 
 carrying its own rations. The resources of the North had not yet been 
 taxed to their uttermost. The purpose of the people and of Congress was 
 more determined than ever. War was no longer a pageant. It had proved 
 an ordeal of fire and blood. Ambitions were suppressed. The coil was 
 winding for a grand, final struggle around the lessening and weakening gar 
 risons of the Confederacy. It was now "submission or conquest." The 
 direful question came closely to the heart and hearths of the South. 
 
 At the beginning of the year 1865, rumors prevailed of a movement of the 
 army of General Lee from Richmond to Danville or Lynchburg. This move 
 ment was said to be dictated by stress of circumstances. The Confederate 
 Government and archives were to follow the army. Three hundred thousand 
 men had been called for by President Lincoln's proclamation of the 2oth of 
 December, 1864. The drafting for that levy under it went on vigorously. 
 The Confederate cruisers were still scouring the seas and capturing our ves 
 sels. But on land, the successes of Sherman and Thomas had depressed the 
 hopes of the Confederacy to the lowest point of despondency. Events were 
 thus preparing the way for peace. 
 
 At this time during the holidays it occurred to the writer, as it did 
 doubtless to others, that the olive-branch might be tendered the South, un 
 der honorable conditions and with a prospect of acceptance. He was then 
 serving on the Committee of Foreign Affairs. Upon that committee was 
 Mr. John T. Stuart, of Springfield, Illinois. He was an intimate friend, 
 and had been a law partner of, President Lincoln. He had been a Whig, 
 and his sympathies were enlisted with the President. He became a Dem 
 ocrat, and was a conservative Unionist. It was his moderate and influ 
 ential qualities which led the writer to suggest a call, in his company, upon 
 the President, with a view to urge the Executive to hear what was proposed 
 by, or to make some tender or overture to, the Confederate authorities. The 
 precise words or tenor of the conversation which Mr. Stuart and the author 
 had with the President were not carefully noted at the time. Mr. Stuart, 
 who is still living, states in a recent letter to the writer, that he remembers 
 the main facts, but not the details of this incident and interview. The Presi 
 dent listened courteously and anxiously to the representations. He said 
 frankly that he was anxious to have our Democratic aid and vote for the 
 proposition to amend the Constitution so as to abolish slavery. The writer 
 promised the President his help, provided a sincere effort was made for peace 
 within the Union. If the effort failed, he said to the President, that not 
 only by his help would the amendment be adopted, but the war would be 
 pursued with renewed vigor. The writer also conversed freely on the same 
 proposition with Mr. Seward. Mr. Seward regarded the acceptance of 
 such an amendment as absolutely needed in all negotiations for peace, as the 
 Emancipation Proclamation was of doubtful validity, whereas an amendment 
 
CONFEDERATE RECRIMINATIONS. 311 
 
 would be organic, indisputable law. This mode of assisting the troops was 
 not greatly regarded by our generals in the field Grant, Sherman, Sheri 
 dan, and Thomas. They knew that slavery was already a corpse, made so by 
 the war. They did not cast moral and political horoscopes, as did Seward 
 and Lincoln. 
 
 The holiday season at Richmond was one of gloom. A desperate call 
 was made to make Robert E. Lee, Generalissimo, or, in the language of that 
 day, Dictator, with plenary powers of appointment in the army. This was 
 afterwards consummated. That gallant soldier and accomplished gentleman 
 held a marvelous power over his compatriots. He had married the daughter 
 and heiress of George W. Parke Custis the adopted son of George Wash 
 ington. In many attributes, he resembled the Father of our Country. Al 
 though there was little in the grandiose title proposed which could add 
 material strength to the crumbling Confederacy, yet the concentration of 
 military power and skill in one intelligent captain of all the corps not only 
 acted as an incentive upon the discouraged soldiery of the South, but gave 
 unity and vigor in the management of the devoted remnants of the Southern 
 armies. Complaints were made that the civil officers of the Confederacy 
 had been grossly maligned. Newspapers in Virginia and Georgia, the gov 
 ernors of several states, the legislature of Alabama, and members of Congress 
 from Missouri, and others prominent in the Confederacy, then in Richmond, 
 were in a critical, if not defiant mood regarding the conduct of affairs by the 
 Confederate Administration. "The Jews were frequently ready to stone 
 Moses," said the Richmond organ in defiant defense of Jefferson Davis and 
 his Cabinet. The Confederate President was called " weak, obstinate, 
 capricious, and incapable," and his Cabinet were denounced as " im 
 beciles." This virulent crimination soon became mutual. 
 
 The war went on. Devastation by cavalry raids in the border states 
 added distraction and desperation to the prevailing Confederate gloom. 
 Sherman had moved to the sea before the holidays. His sixty miles swath 
 reminded the military scholar of the invasion of the Carnatic, by Hyder 
 Ali. Savannah had lowered the stars and bars and raised at half-mast the 
 Union flag. The new position was accepted by its citizens with grace, and 
 with some view to thriftiness. Practical charity from New-York City sup 
 plied the needs of its impoverished people. Sympathy thus began to do 
 its benevolent work. Meanwhile, anti-slavery zealotry, led by Gerrit Smith 
 and Wendell Phillips in the lecture-hall, and by Salmon P. Chase, Zachariah 
 Chandler, and others in the public service, omitted no occasion to magnify 
 the humanity of its cause, and to dignify the war as one for the enfranchise 
 ment of the black and the glory of the white man. The Thirteenth Amend 
 ment was demanded by them in no piping tones of peace. 
 
 The Confederacy had, then, really but one substantial army in the field. 
 It was that of Lee, at Richmond. Richmond became the objective point 
 
312 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of all the available Federal forces. The superior legions and resources of 
 Grant made but one result certain. What Pharsalia was to Pompey, and 
 Waterloo to Napoleon, Richmond was to Jefferson Davis. European as 
 sistance to the Confederacy was no longer possible. The story of the transfer 
 of the South to England or France was one of the fierce illusions of that 
 distracting hour of despondency. Even the veteran remnants of the armies 
 of the South, so defiant and courageous, began to suffer for rations. They 
 were as chivalric as ever, but their cause was fading away, day by day. 
 
 It was under these surroundings that the humiliating alternative came 
 home to the Confederate leaders and people from the secession point of view, 
 of colonial vassalage under a foreign yoke, or subjugation by the North. But 
 this degrading form of deliverance was soon turned aside as the result of 
 panic. It was scouted as an admission of defeat and ruin. It was well un 
 derstood that a majority at Richmond preferred a reunion with the Federal 
 system, and few favored the idea of union with a foreign power. One 
 reason for this was the failure of France and England to give full recognition 
 and aid to the Confederate cause. The central authority of the Confederate 
 President had been assailed with intense bitterness. In other states beside 
 Virginia, a virulent opposition to the President, and his policy, and his Cab 
 inet had arisen. Of the merits of this controversy it is not intended to 
 speak in a volume on " Federal legislation." North Carolina was never very 
 firmly moored to the Confederacy. She had not been enamored of nullifica 
 tion in 1832. She early became a pronounced dissentient, and then a foe to 
 the Confederate Administration. The suspension of the privilege of habeas 
 corpus by President Davis aroused the spirit of the descendants of the 
 signers of the Mecklenburg declaration. It is alleged that the opposition to 
 the policy of President Davis on the part of the governors of the states was 
 much stronger than has been generally thought. It transpires now that 
 Governor Vance formally threatened the Confederate Secretary of War that 
 he would call on the North Carolina troops to resist what he believed to be 
 the unconstitutional action of the government on Carolina soil ; and that a 
 meeting of the governors of the seceding states to formulate some concerted 
 opposition to the policy of the President, was actually agreed on. Separate 
 negotiations for peace by individual states were suggested and argued. So 
 far had this matter gone, that Mr. Porcher Miles introduced into the Confed 
 erate Congress, a resolution declaring that the attempt to make peace with 
 the separate states was violative of the Confederate Constitution and revolu 
 tionary. South Carolina, through one of its ablest men, William W. Boyce, 
 arraigned the Richmond government upon state rights grounds. He de 
 nounced it as the worst of tyrannies. The governor of Mississippi held his 
 militia aloof from the Confederate authorities who were eager for more 
 troops. Governor Brown, of Georgia, was not less a resolute stickler for, 
 and defender of, local sovereignty. After Sherman reached the sea, the gov- 
 
THE DEATH-KNELL OF SLAVERY. 313 
 
 ernor gave his wisdom and best judgment to clarify the air and restore trade 
 and order, under state authority. The Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, did not 
 indulge in criminations ; but his influence leaned toward his own state and its 
 action, and not toward Virginia and President Davis. About this time people 
 began to ask : " Was it right to secede? If so, why not secede from the Con 
 federacy ?" Here was the rock of danger. This application of the secession 
 theory gave some apprehension to those who had founded a government 
 upon the right of secession. The citizens of Savannah, in public assembly, 
 yielded to this Socratic logic, and began betime the work of rebuilding their 
 shattered trade and fortunes, and of remanding their institutions. 
 
 By the middle of January, certain states, with more or less regularity in 
 their constitutional conventions, had decided to abolish slavery. These were 
 Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, and afterwards, Tennessee. In other 
 states it was conceded that the property in slaves was as delusive as fairy 
 money. Slavery was dead, it was simply a question of its interment. The 
 Thirteenth Amendment was to be the death-knell of the Southern cause. 
 
 Even General Lee recognized this fact. He advised the conscription of 
 the negroes. This was said to be the position, also, of Mr. Davis. He 
 desired to liberate soldier slaves and their families. This scheme was made 
 a lever against the forces of the Confederacy. " What? " it was asked, " lib 
 erate the slave in order that he may fight to sustain the corner-stone of the 
 Confederacy slavery ! " Young men of the Confederacy were now being 
 "run off" to Mexico by parents and guardians to escape the conscription. 
 Truly here were signs of the end; the arming of slaves seriously consid 
 ered, and the whites fleeing from conscription. It was the Massachusetts 
 policy over again. 
 
 While these discouragements were abounding in the Southern councils, 
 Fort Fisher fell before Admiral Porter's bombardment and General Terry's 
 assault. General Ames, who gallantly led the storming party, was after 
 ward military governor in Mississippi. Blockade-running was thus ended. 
 Wilmington harbor was closed, and the city itself exposed to the Federal 
 enemy. The day after Fort Fisher fell, ex-Speaker Orr, with courageous 
 audacity, declared in the Confederate Congress for " an honest effort of states 
 manship to end this carnival of death." Mr. Atkins, of Tennessee, now Com 
 missioner of Indian Affairs, indulged in similar remarks. Gold began to fall 
 in Wall Street, a most significant sign of the declining Confederate orb. 
 
 The events of the war are not intended to be detailed herein, except as 
 may be necessary to illustrate the drift of the Federal and Confederate gov 
 ernments. They are not strictly a part of the history of Federal legislation, 
 although they gave occasion for much legislation. The scope of this volume 
 does not allow their recital. While Federal legislation strengthened the arm 
 of Federal force, it also leavened the elements of Southern society. It 
 affected Southern state governments, and to some extent the Confederate 
 
 20 
 
314 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Congress and army. It led even General Lee, long before he sheathed his 
 .sword at Appomattox, to urge upon President Davis the hopelessness of fur 
 ther conflict. He pressed upon the Confederate Administration the encour 
 agement of the peace sentiment North. He made emphatic his desire to end 
 the struggle upon honorable terms. This desire for peace was not confined 
 to the South. The sacrifice of so many brave men had aroused a pacific 
 sentiment in the North. The people yearned for the rehabilitation of the 
 recusant states within a peaceful Union. This was evidenced by the offering 
 of resolutions looking toward peace and union, in the Congress of the United 
 States. These were met by counter-resolutions for a more vigorous prosecu 
 tion of the war. A crisis was impending. The issue was sharp. In the 
 first session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, beginning with the month of Jan 
 uary, fierce speeches were made by the Republican leaders to sustain resolu 
 tions for the persistent prosecution of the war. These came from Amos 
 Myers, Green Clay Smith, Jacob B. Blair, John H. Rice, Gen. Robert C. 
 Schenck, and even from Mr. Kinney, the Delegate from Utah. General 
 Schenck, who was by his natural and acquired qualities a leader in legis 
 lation and politics, voiced the paramount though weakening sentiment of 
 the country and of Congress. After asserting that the rebellion must be 
 effectually put down, he added: "and that to prevent the recurrence of 
 such rebellion in future, the causes which led to this one must be perma 
 nently removed." He insisted that there was no middle ground ; and that 
 there should be no " neutrality or indifference, or anything short of a hearty 
 support of the government." It was a question, he asserted, between loyalty 
 and treason. The positiveness of these assertions is proof of the existence 
 of a strong pacific sentiment. 
 
 From the commencement to the close of the war, the Democrats in Con 
 gress spared no efforts to bring about an honorable peace. As early as July 
 29, 1861, forty-one Democrats voted for a proposition then offered by the 
 author. 
 
 It recited that " It is the part of rational beings to terminate their differ 
 ences by rational methods ; and inasmuch as the differences between the 
 United States authorities and the seceding states have resulted in a civil war 
 characterized by bitter hostility and extreme atrocity ; and although the party 
 in the seceded states are guilty of breaking the national unity and resisting 
 the national authority ; yet, 
 
 " J3e it Resolved, First. That while we make undiminished and 
 increased exertions by our navy and army to maintain the integrity and 
 stability of this government, the common laws of war, consisting of those 
 maxims of humanity, moderation, and honor which are a part of the inter 
 national code, ought to be observed by both parties, and for a stronger reason 
 than exists between two alien nations, inasmuch as the two parties have a 
 common ancestry, history, prosperity, glory, government, and union, and 
 are now unhappily engaged in lacerating their common country. 
 
RESOLUTIONS FOR A PEACE COMMISSION. 315 
 
 " Second. That, resulting from these premises, while there ought to be 
 left open, as between two alien nations, the same means for preventing the 
 war being carried to outrageous extremities, there ought also to be left 
 open some means for the restoration of peace and union. 
 
 " Third. That to this end the restoration of peace and union on the 
 basis of the Constitution there be appointed a committee of one member 
 from each state, who shall report to this House, at its next session, such 
 amendments to the Constitution of the United States as shall assuage all 
 grievances, and bring about a reconstruction of the national unity ; and that 
 for the preparation of such adjustment and the conference requisite for that 
 purpose, there be appointed a commission of seven citizens of the United 
 States, consisting of Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, Franklin Pierce, of 
 New Hampshire, Millard Fillmore, of New- York, Reverdy Johnson, of 
 Maryland, Martin Van Buren, of New-York, Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, 
 and James Guthrie, of Kentucky, who shall request from the so-called Con 
 federate States the appointment of a similar commission, and who shall 
 meet and confer on the subject in the city of Louisville, on the first Monday 
 of September next. And that the committee appointed from this House 
 notify said commissioners of their appointment and function, and report 
 their action to the next session as an amendment of the Constitution of 
 the United States, to be proposed by Congress to the states for their rati 
 fication, according to the fifth article of said Constitution." 
 
 In its preamble, this resolution was based upon VattePs famous chapter ; 
 the same from which Thaddeus Stevens deftly and cunningly drew his rule 
 of warfare against the Confederacy, on the theory that the states had in law, 
 as in fact, seceded from the Union, and were outside of the Constitution, and 
 .subject to all the rules and consequences of war which obtain among bel 
 ligerent and alien nations. 
 
 On the 5th of August, 1861, during the same extraordinary session, Mr. 
 Calvert, of Maryland, proposed the appointment of a committee which should 
 examine into the original causes of the dissensions, and recommend such 
 remedies as would restore peace and union. His remedy was by amend 
 ments of the Constitution. It received the Democratic vote only. Mr. 
 Henry May, of Maryland, offered another resolution. It had a most pro 
 nounced preamble against the uncompromising and subjugating spirit of the 
 Republican party. He favored the appointment of peace commissioners, 
 and an armistice. Mr. Saulsbury, in the Senate, on the 4th of December, 
 1861, offered resolutions nearly similar to those offered by the writer. A 
 year after, on the 3d of December, 1862, Senator Garrett Davis proposed 
 the election of delegates to consider the situation. Mr. Vallandigham fol 
 lowed with an earnest resolution for peace, and for the security of the rights 
 .of the states and sections, within the Union under the Constitution. Five 
 
316 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 days afterwards, Fernando Wood, a member of Congress from New- York, 
 indited a letter to President Lincoln on the subject of peace. 
 
 In this letter Mr. Wood stated that he was advised, by an authority relia 
 ble and truthful, that the Southern States would send representatives to the 
 next Congress, provided that a full and general amnesty should permit them to 
 do so. No guaranty or promises were asked for, other than amnesty. He also 
 stated that he had communicated this information to the mayor of New- York, 
 who, at that time, held confidential relations with members of the Ad 
 ministration. He appealed to the President to suspend the righting, and to 
 procure something definite from persons connected with the Confederate 
 authorities. He asked the serious attention of Mr. Lincoln to this subject, 
 on account of the magnitude of the interests at stake. "If it [the informa 
 tion] shall prove groundless,*' said he, "no harm shall have been done. 
 If it shall prove well founded, there is no esteem too high to place upon 
 its national value." The President replied to Mr. Wood on the I2th 
 of December, 1862. He referred to the important paragraph in the letter, 
 and stated that he suspected the information would prove groundless. " Un 
 derstanding the phrase in the paragraph above quoted, namely, ' that the 
 Southern States would send representatives to the next Congress,' to be 
 substantially that the people of the Southern States would cease resistance 
 and would re-inaugurate, submit to, and maintain the national authority within 
 the limits of such states, under the Constitution of the United States, I say,'* 
 said Mr. Lincoln, " that, in such case, the war would cease on the part of 
 the United States, and that if, within a reasonable time, a full and general 
 amnesty were necessary for such end, it would not be withheld." He at the 
 same time said to Mr. Wood : " The people of the Southern States already 
 know this, and when they choose, if ever, they can communicate with me 
 unequivocally." But the President did not think it proper to suspend mili 
 tary operations in order to try any experiment of negotiation. Mr. Wood 
 replied, renewing his suggestions to suspend military operations. Nothing 
 came of this correspondence. 
 
 Mr. Wood, on the i4th of December, 1863, moved for commissioners 
 and negotiations. The motion received fifty-nine votes ; six Democrats only 
 voting against it. On the 9th of June, 1864, Senator Garrett Davis in 
 troduced a joint resolution in which he proposed a cessation of arms and an 
 amnesty, with a view to a convention of the people of all the states to re 
 construct their Union. Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, offered three reso 
 lutions, one of which had much significance because of the vote it received. 
 It recited that it was the duty of Congress to pass all necessary bills to supply 
 men and money for the army ; and the duty of the people to render every 
 aid to the constituted authorities. This received every vote of both parties, 
 save that of Benjamin G. Harris, of Maryland. Other resolutions were 
 offered in the summer of 1864. Nearly all were of the same tenor, and had 
 
PEACE CONFERENCE AT NIAGARA. 317 
 
 the 'same fate. Andrew J. Rogers, of New Jersey, and John L. Dawson, 
 of Pennsylvania, offered resolutions looking to peace. Alexander Long, of 
 Ohio, re-offered the resolution which the writer offered in 1861, for the 
 appointment of commissioners. Mr. Lazear, of Pennsylvania, favored an 
 armistice and the election of delegates. Frank Le Blonde, of Ohio, followed 
 with a resolution for commissioners. The Chicago Convention met, and 
 while nominating a soldier for President, Gen. George B. McClellan, it held 
 out by its platform the olive-branch which, as the election showed, the 
 people were then unprepared to accept. Thereafter transpired the corre 
 spondence begun on the Canada side of Niagara Falls, between George N. 
 Sanders, of Kentucky, and Horace Greeley. Certain irresponsible persons 
 Kirk, Jacquess, and others had already ventured over our lines' to Rich 
 mond and made tentative, unauthorized proposals for peace. Their at 
 tempts gave occasion for ridicule. They were the farcical overture of more 
 serious attempts. One of the latter was at Niagara. 
 
 Mr. Sanders was a man of extraordinary ability and undaunted hardi 
 hood. He had been consul to London. He was an owner as well as a writer 
 for the Democratic Review, when it was representative of Young America 
 and Stephen A. Douglas. He was a man of remarkable foresight. He 
 was among the first to perceive the dangerous tremors of disunion in the 
 Charleston Convention, and afterwards the tottering condition of the Con 
 federacy. But he was not the man to be selected to carry on delicate nego 
 tiations. He was, however, the fountain from which the negotiations sprang. 
 He met Mr. Greeley at the Clifton House, Niagara Falls, in July, 1864. He 
 wrote a note to that gentleman, in which he declared that he was authorized 
 to say that Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, James P. Holcombe, of Virginia, 
 with himself, were ready and willing to go at once to Washington, upon 
 protection being given by the President or Secretary of State. He also asked 
 protection for another, whose name was not then to be mentioned. Mr. 
 Greeley responded on the lyth, recognizing Mr. Sanders as accredited from 
 Richmond ; and in that capacity as the bearer of proposals looking to the 
 establishment of peace. He said that he was authorized by the President 
 of the United States to tender a safe conduct and to accompany them at 
 the earliest time it would be agreeable. This letter was directed to the three 
 gentlemen named. Mr. Clay and Professor Holcombe responded to Mr. 
 Greeley, that there was some misapprehension of facts ; that they had not 
 been accredited from Richmond as stated. They said, however, that they 
 were in the confidential employment of their government ; that they were 
 familiar with its wishes ; that the circumstances disclosed in the correspond 
 ence, if they were communicated to Richmond, would at once bring them 
 the proper authority ; and that they desired to terminate the calamities of the 
 war at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Jacob Thompson is understood 
 to have been the third man referred to for safe conduct. The correspondence 
 
3l8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 went on until Maj. John Hay, Assistant Adjutant-General, appeared on the 
 scene. He intervened in behalf of the President. He displayed a letter 
 from President Lincoln, dated the i8th of July, 1864. In this letter it 
 was stated that "any proposal which embraced the restoration of peace, 
 integrity of the whole Union, and the abandonment of slavery, which comes 
 by and with an authority that can control the armies now at war against the 
 United States, would be received and considered by the Executive of the 
 government of the United States, and would be met by liberal terms on other 
 substantial and collateral points, and the bearer or bearers thereof shall have 
 safe conduct both ways." 
 
 This correspondence indicates, without doubt, President Lincoln's anxiety 
 for peace. But a misunderstanding interposed. The safe conduct was to be 
 given on the hypothesis that Mr. Clay and his confreres were duly accredited 
 from Richmond. This misapprehension being corrected, the negotiations 
 fell through. It is alleged by ex-Senator Harlan, in a letter dated April 
 10, 1885, that he knew that President Lincoln had no confidence in the good 
 faith of this movement, and that Mr. Greeley had a different opinion. But 
 Mr. Greeley was sent to Niagara. The writer agrees with Mr. Greeley 
 and differs from the ex-Senator. The latter produces no other proof of 
 his knowledge than an indefinite telegram from President Lincoln to Mr. 
 Greeley. It said: " I was not expecting you to send me a letter, but to 
 bring me a man or men." This telegram is consistent with the impressions 
 of the author. Mr. Greeley departed from Niagara Falls regretting the 
 sad termination of the initiatory steps taken for peace. Although this at 
 tempt was a failure, it was the first attempt looking in that direction. It 
 led to subsequent attempts which had more reasonable probability of success. 
 
 These peace missives were phrased most cautiously ; but they evinced the 
 anxiety of President Lincoln, Horace Greeley, and other influential Repub 
 licans to end the war on " liberal terms." Mr. Greeley, in reply to the 
 philippics of the press in a note of the 2Oth of July, 1864 stated that he 
 had no intercourse with the Confederate gentlemen at the Clifton House but 
 such as he was fully authorized by the President of the United States to hold, 
 and that he had done nothing in the premises but in fulfillment of his in 
 junction. This statement was fully confirmed in the sequence of events. 
 
 What had been going on in the Southern councils ? Were the Southern 
 statesmen contemplating measures for a peace? Henry S. Foote, Represent 
 ative from Tennessee in the Confederate Congress, had tendered, as early as 
 September, 1862, a resolution for commissioners, to be empowered to pro 
 pose the terms of a just and honorable peace. A substitute not unfriendly to 
 this object was offered by Mr. Holt, of Georgia. Both were tabled ; receiv 
 ing, however, twenty-six favorable votes, to fifty-nine adverse. Several 
 other propositions were offered in the Confederate Congress in 1863, looking 
 to pacification. Perhaps no man in the South gave more trouble to the Con- 
 
SOUTHERN PEACE PROPOSITIONS. 319 
 
 federacy than the famous statesman, Mr. Foote. He had distinguished him 
 self in the compromise struggle of 1850. He was then a Senator from Mis 
 sissippi. Although a man of great physical intrepidity, he was not reckoned 
 in all respects a sage adviser. Mr. Davis had been his foe in Mississippi. 
 Their antagonisms were carried, with the changing fortunes of time, into the 
 Confederate Capitol. Before the war ended, Mr. Foote was arrested by the 
 Richmond authorities ; but he was released on a promise to leave for the 
 North. Those who knew him will recall his chivalric devotion to his 
 changeful opinions. He was the author of an eccentric proposition which 
 he offered in the winter of i864~'65, looking to a reconstruction of the Con 
 federate Government with the Northwestern states. 
 
 In September, 1864, peace resolutions were introduced into the senate of 
 Virginia. Commissioners were named in them. They were discussed at 
 length and postponed unanimously. Similar resolutions were offered in the 
 legislatures of Georgia and North Carolina, and with like effect. Several 
 months before this, on the 23d of May, Mr. Leach, of North Carolina, created 
 a sensation in the Confederate Congress, by a resolution asking for an armis 
 tice and commissioners, with other provisions looking to the honor, dignity, 
 and independence of the states, and compatible with the safety of their social 
 and political rights. It created quite a discussion. All such discussions 
 were damaging to the party on the defensive. 
 
 It is evident from these movements that in the South there was perpetual 
 murmuring, either against the conduct of the war on the part of the Confed 
 erate rulers and armies, or against the condition in which the people found 
 themselves by reason of the devastation of the war and the infractions of per 
 sonal liberty by the Richmond authorities. 
 
 In the recent discussion between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis, 
 or their friends, in relation to the position of Mr. Davis on the question of 
 secession in and from the Southern Confederacy, the facts were not suffi 
 ciently developed for an intelligent judgment on the issue. But it is impos 
 sible to believe, or infer, from what has been developed, that the right to 
 secede had been denied by Mr. Davis to the Confederacy, after such vigorous 
 assertion of it by his resolutions in the Senate of the United States in 1860, 
 and after the great hazard which he and his friends ran in practically carry 
 ing out his theory. Pertinent to this discussion, there is in the archives at 
 Raleigh, a letter from Gov. Zebulon B. Vance to the Confederate President. 
 This letter was written on the 3Oth of December, 1863. It began by confessing 
 that there were sources of discontent in North Carolina with the Confederate 
 Government. The governor asserted that it would be impossible to remove 
 that discontent except by making some effort at negotiation with the enemy. 
 He asserted that the Northern men seemed to be looking for peace, and that if 
 fair terms were rejected, it would tend greatly to strengthen and intensify the 
 war feeling, and rally all classes to a more cordial support of the govern- 
 
320 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ment. He favored a constant tender of negotiations. In doing so, he would 
 keep conspicuously before the world a disclaimer of the responsibility of the 
 Confederate Government for the great slaughter of our race. He would con 
 vince the humblest of their citizens that the government was tender of their 
 lives and happiness. He did not suggest any method of negotiation, or any 
 terms. "The effort to obtain peace," said he, "is the principal matter." 
 Mr. Davis replied at length on the 8th of January, 1864. He desired Gov 
 ernor Vance to write his suggestions as to the method of opening the negotia 
 tions, and as to the terms. He spoke of the insuperable objections to the 
 line of policy proposed by the governor. He referred to the fact that he 
 had made three distinct unsuccessful efforts to communicate with the author 
 ities at Washington. He said that commissioners had been sent before hos 
 tilities were begun, and that the Washington Government refused to receive 
 them, or hear what they had to say. He referred to Vice-President Stephens, 
 as having made a patriotic tender of his services, in the hope of being able 
 to promote the cause of humanity. After alluding to many revolutionary 
 memories connected with North Carolina, Mr. Davis said : " I cannot recall 
 at this time one instance in which I have failed to announce that our only 
 desire was peace, and the only terms which formed a sine qua non, were pre 
 cisely those which you suggest, namely, a demand only to be let alone." He 
 referred ironically to the fact that peace was only possible by the gracious 
 pardon of the President of the United States, emancipation of the slaves, 
 swearing allegiance and obedience to him and his proclamation, and becom 
 ing, in fact, the slaves of their own negroes. Waxing indignant, President 
 Davis exclaims: " I do not believe that the vilest wretch would accept 
 such terms for himself." He advised Governor Vance that he might count 
 on his aid in every effort to spare North Carolina the scenes of civil war 
 fare which would devastate its homes if the designs of the traitors in her 
 midst should make headway. He expressed his fear that the governor 
 would be driven to the use of force to repress treason. It was well un 
 derstood that President Davis believed, if he did not say, that the war must 
 go on until the last of his generation fell in his tracks and his children 
 seized his musket to fight the battle, unless the right to self-government 
 were acknowledged by the United States. " We are not fighting for slav 
 ery," said he, "we are fighting for independence; and that, or extermina 
 tion, we will have." Such assertions as this had much to do with the 
 adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. 
 
 It has already been stated that as a part of the programme for strengthen 
 ing the Federal cause, the Thirteenth Amendment was then, in that winter 
 of i864~'65, considered a desideratum. Mr. Seward and the President con 
 sidered this amendment worth an army. Whether they were right or not, 
 the amendment was not pressed until just before the negotiations at Hampton 
 Roads, hereinafter narrated. This amendment had passed the Senate during 
 
THE POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. 321 
 
 the first session of the Thirty-eighth Congress. It failed then to pass the 
 House. Upon the 6th of January, 1865, it was called up by James M. Ash 
 ley, of Ohio. He moved to reconsider the vote by which it had been rejected 
 at the previous session. The motion was debated with much acrimony. 
 The debate was resumed with less feeling on the 9th, when Daniel W. Voor- 
 hees, then a member, now Senator, from Indiana, with rare felicities of elo 
 cution and cogency, made what was for him a temperate speech. / His speech 
 was noteworthy, because it was based upon the thorough success of the 
 Union cause. Whether the amendment was adopted or not, and he did 
 not favor it, he believed the Confederate cause was lost. It was a matter of 
 grave doubt as to its passage. It required a two-thirds vote for its adoption ; 
 and many Democratic votes were needed to carry the measure. Mr. Yea- 
 man, of Kentucky, and Mr. Odell, of New- York, made speeches in its favor 
 on the same day. The debate was continued. Its effect was to consolidate 
 the opposition. This postponed, if it did not imperil, its final passage. 
 
 Mr. Pendleton made an able speech on the i2th, in opposition. The 
 rumor was rife that three votes were lacking. Strenuous efforts were being 
 made to overcome the objections of members. The writer urged those whom 
 he could influence, to consider the proposition in the light of new events. 
 Many members, like Mr. Pendleton, doubted the power to amend as pro 
 posed. He held that the right to amend was limited in two ways : First, 
 by the letter ; and second, by the spirit, scope, and intent of the Constitution. 
 It was a question of compact. He held that one state, the smallest, Rhode 
 Island, could, of right, resist such an amendment by force. Her cause 
 would become sanctified by God. 
 
 The writer, in answering the speech of his colleague, Mr. Pendleton, 
 said: "The power of amendment is essential to peace, safety, and sover 
 eignty ; and it should be remembered that, even if the power may now 
 threaten to destroy, the power to save is forever bound up with it. Under 
 the very ribs of death, at the last moment this power may be invoked to create 
 the heart and soul of union, and that, too, by the array of states in their 
 sovereign capacity as modified by their granted powers." This remark had 
 reference to the rumor that a commissioner of the United States was then 
 in Richmond Mr. Blair with the confidence and assent of the Adminis 
 tration, to meet a commissioner on the part of the Confederate authority ; and 
 that they had agreed to call a national convention, in correspondence with 
 the Chicago platform upon which Mr. Pendleton had been a candidate for 
 Vice-President. In arguing upon the power to pass the constitutional amend 
 ment abolishing slavery, the writer said : " If a convention of states could 
 take jurisdiction to protect property, it could do so to destroy property. It 
 is admitted that the states individually could do this. If by the Constitution, 
 they as states consenting to it have provided a mode of doing it, what 
 matters it whether it be done by them in their individual capacity or in their 
 
322 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 conventional capacity? Whenever two-thirds here agree to propose an 
 amendment, and three-fourths shall ratify, either by convention or legislature, 
 that proposition becomes a part of the Constitution. It is the states that do 
 this in the first instance, all according in making the amendment clause ; 
 all again according by their conventions in proposing, and again by ratify 
 ing." There, the writer joined his colleague in singing hosanna to that 
 principle of our government known as the sovereignty of the states. All 
 the states, sovereign in their reserved spheres, dropped their sceptres before 
 the Federal emblem in all cases where, as in the making of an amendment, 
 the Constitution is declared to be the supreme law of the land. It did! not 
 matter that the power was dangerous when left unlimited in the Federal head ; 
 for all power tended to abuse. It had been argued that the states were un 
 limited and absolute in their sovereignty, and therefore that the Federal 
 Government was not sovereign. Was it forgotten that the states, in their 
 unlimited and sovereign convention, deriving their powers from the original 
 consent of all, gave up portions of their sovereignty and modified it, as Mr. 
 Calhoun held, by the mandatory clause? The states were the constituent 
 elements of the Federal Government, and by their state action they could 
 create and they could destroy. The writer, after quoting Mr. Madison in 
 corroboration of his argument, quoted Mr. Calhoun upon the subject. That 
 quotation absolutely settled the proposition in the minds of the House. It 
 was found in the sixth volume, page thirty-six, of his works. In 1828, 
 the South Carolina Legislature asked the opinion of Mr. Calhoun upon this 
 and kindred subjects. In his declaration of political powers, drawn up for 
 his state, he taught that the people of that state by adopting the Federal 
 Constitution had modified its original right of sovereignty ; and that, by 
 its consent in becoming a member of the Union, a portion of that sovereignty 
 had been placed in the hands of three-fourths of the states, in whom, he said, 
 the highest power known to the Constitution exists. 
 
 The right, therefore, to abolish slavery by the mode prescribed in the 
 Constitution, was vindicated by the dictum of the leading philosopher of the 
 state rights school. Quite a discussion arose during the debate, as to where 
 the power was lodged or limited in relation to the abolition of slavery. Be 
 fore the debate was concluded, however, very few upon either side denied that 
 the power to amend was unlimited, save by the exceptions mentioned, and 
 save by the mode prescribed in the Constitution. That mode is the only safe 
 guard against unwise amendments. It is ample, however, inasmuch as no 
 amendment can be made except by the concurrence of two-thirds of the Con 
 gress and three-fourths of the states. On the loth of January, 1865, while 
 Mr. Kasson was speaking, Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, asked whether, by an 
 amendment of the Constitution, the government might not be changed so 
 as to convert it into a monarchy, aristocracy, or a despotism. Mr. Kasson 
 evaded the question, but, with his permission, the writer answered it by 
 
THE AMENDMENT POWER UNLIMITED. 323 
 
 saying: u I carry the Democratic doctrine to such an extent, that I maintain 
 that the people, speaking through three-fourths of the states, in pursuance of 
 the mode prescribed by the Constitution, have the right to amend it in every 
 particular, except the two specified in that instrument; that this includes 
 the right to erect a monarchy ; to make, if you please, the King of Dahomey 
 our king." This expression excited surprise upon both sides of the House. 
 It was animadverted upon by Mr. Pendleton and by others, who had given 
 much study to the question. But as the debate progressed, this construction 
 of the power to amend became the fixed opinion of a majority even of those 
 who thought it then inexpedient to use the power. Mr. Boutwell held the 
 power to be limited only by the preamble of the Constitution. Mr. Thayer 
 thereupon argued that that was equivalent to saying there are no limitations, 
 which was his own position. Mr. Dawes, grasping the question compre 
 hensively at once, argued that since the preamble was submitted to three- 
 fourth of the states, they were the law-makers and law-expounders, who 
 could as well alter the preamble as any other part of the instrument ; that it 
 was competent for them, as a tribunal from which there was no appeal, to 
 say that anything, save the limitations prescribed by the instrument itself, 
 does or does not contribute to the ends set forth in the preamble, even to the 
 extent of permitting a man of foreign birth to be chosen President, even the 
 King of Dahomey himself, with which Mr. Thayer and others agreed. 
 
 A few quotations will be pardoned from this speech, as the theme was 
 the capital one of the war, and the bete noir in the path of peace. Having 
 proved that the strictest sect of Southern statesmen, including Davis himself, 
 Jefferson, and John C. Calhoun, acknowledged the power by amendment 
 over this subject of slavery, and sought to exercise it, and sought further by 
 amendment to prevent its exercise when it might impair or destroy their in 
 stitution, the writer then said, addressing the Chair : "Is my colleague (Mr. 
 Pendleton) a better states rights man than Jefferson Davis ? Or, to drop to 
 the other extreme, does he, nunc pro tune, join my other colleague (Mr. 
 Ashley), who then denied, and yet denies, the power by amendment to estab 
 lish slavery, as unrepublican ? It was with some amusement that I listened 
 to my two colleagues (Messrs. Pendleton and Ashley) yesterday. How 
 adroitly the Democratic member sought to catch the Republican. How he 
 plied him to admit the power to establish slavery ! How shrewdly my col 
 league on the other side evaded ! On the other hand, members on the other 
 side sought to entangle my colleague (Mr. Pendleton) with some of his former 
 votes ! How both evaded the issues presented in their former positions ! while 
 the humble member who now addresses you, sir, sat complacently consistent 
 amid the melo-dramatic performance, ready to admit that the power to 
 change the fundamental law by amendment is unlimited, under the guards 
 and modes prescribed, even to the establishment of slavery or a monarchy 
 of entire freedom or entire democracy. Both of my friends deny this as ex- 
 
324 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 treme and heterodox : the one, because he would have nothing but limited 
 republicanism as the form of our government ; that is my Democratic col 
 league who is so republican ; the other, because he would have nothing but 
 sweeping democracy as the basis of our Constitution ; that is my Republican 
 colleague who is so democratic. The wishes of each color their present argu 
 ments as to power. When slavery is to be guaranteed, my colleague from 
 Cincinnati believes with me in the power to amend, and my colleague from 
 Toledo denies it. When it is to be abolished, my colleague from Toledo 
 believes with me in the power to amend, and the other denies it. Both deny 
 the power when slavery is to be affected, and both admit it when slavery is 
 to be affected. I have them both on either side, and each on both sides, and 
 both with me. I accept the power in either case as they claim it, but go 
 beyond them both ; for I stand on a principle. They are enamored of the 
 power only when one case is absent. Like the fond lover of two maidens, 
 they love the one " when the other dear charmer's away." Yet they are 
 unfaithful to both, because they are so attached to either unfaithful, because 
 they are not upon the principle. I can extend to them (as a member from 
 New- York used to say here in olden times), from the serene Olympian 
 heights of my cerulean consistency, the eternal principle of republicanism 
 and democracy which will reconcile them both to duty and the Constitution. 
 Both my colleagues hold that to concede the power and exercise it in cer 
 tain cases is to subvert the Constitution. If slavery is to be protected, the 
 member from Toledo believes the government destroyed. His only appeal 
 is to the sword of revolution. Never \vould he consent that the power to 
 amend should include the power to establish slavery in Ohio ; never. He 
 would sound the tocsin of inevitable resistance. If slavery is to be abolished 
 by the same power, the other member blows the trumpet and beats the drum 
 to revolutionary defiance. Both march to the same discordant music, when 
 if they would take Calhoun, Story, or their own practice and principles, 
 only changing the time of their application, they would find in the granted 
 power to amend an unlimited authority as to the matter, and only limited 
 as to the mode. My colleague (Mr. Pendleton) derives, unconsciously, his 
 language from the South Carolina declaration of independence of Dec. 24, 
 1860. It says : 
 
 " ' Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found 
 within that article establishing the executive department, the means of 
 subverting the Constitution itself. The sectional combination for the sub~ 
 version of the Constitution has been aided by the elevation of the blacks.' 
 
 " The other member (Mr. Ashley) regards the denial by South Carolina 
 of President Lincoln as the legal President as the very essence of subversion, 
 and the denial of franchise to the blacks as subversive of republicanism. He, 
 therefore, strikes out the word white in his reconstruction bills. Where 
 gentlemen so eminent disagree as to what is subversion, and what is change 
 
THE AUTHOR'S VIEW OF SLAVERY. 325 
 
 or amendment, where is the tribunal to decide ? I answer, in Congress by 
 two-thirds of both houses, and in the states by three-fourths of the legisla 
 tures, and in the intelligent sovereignty of the people of each state who 
 have, in limine, consented to this mode of amendment." 
 
 The significance of the conclusion of the remarks made then by the 
 writer, becomes now apparent. They elucidate what followed on the final 
 passage of the amendment : 
 
 " Speaking for myself, slavery is to me the most repugnant of all human 
 institutions. No man alive should hold me in slavery ; and if it is my busi 
 ness, no man, with my consent, shall hold another. Thus I voted in 1851, in 
 Ohio, with my party, which made the new constitution of my own state. 
 I have never defended slavery ; nor has my party. 
 
 " Hence, I do not place my suggestions about this measure on any ground 
 of the immutability of the Constitution, or of our peculiar system. I place 
 my vote against immutability, because the system it would change is a good 
 one, made in wisdom, and to be perpetuated for the future happiness of the 
 people. If the system of internal police over state matters is not of value, 
 discard it altogether. Deny to Ohio her right to declare who are born in 
 wedlock, and who may inherit estates ; deny to us the right to have our 
 home courts for home justice ; centralize all power here, in one head, and 
 make the federation a despotic tyranny. I may admit the wrong of slavery. 
 It may be heinous in sight of God and man. I may admit the power by 
 amendment to abolish it. I am a radical Democrat, and believe in amend 
 ments of all organic laws in pursuance of the mode prescribed. I may 
 admit that such an amendment would impair only for a brief time the checks 
 and balances, the very substance and essence of our federative system ; and 
 yet I ask you, on the other side, whether, if I believed that this amendment 
 would place an impediment, insuperable to the restoration of the Union, I 
 ought to vote for it ? If I believed that the Richmond authorities would not 
 meet us in convention, and would stand out against the Union on their inde 
 pendence, I might consider anew what I ought to do. I have no authentic 
 information in that regard. So long as there is a faint hope of a returning 
 Union, I will not place obstacles in the path. I will rather illuminate, cheer, 
 and clear the pathway to the old homestead. If I believed, Mr. Speaker, 
 that peace could be restored with the Union by the abolition of slavery, I 
 would vote for it. All I do, and all I forbear to do, is to save our imperiled 
 government and restore our priceless Ijpon. Show me that that will be 
 the result, and I will vote for your amendment. But, as it stands to-day, I 
 believe that this amendment may be an obstacle to the rehabilitation of the 
 states. 
 
 "But if it is determined in the South, as it seems to be, that rather than 
 fail in independence slavery shall go, I for one, as a Democrat, shall be ready 
 to reconsider my resolution. The party to which I belong loves the Union 
 
326 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 as dearly as the South loves slavery. If they can let slavery go for independ 
 ence, the Democracy can let it go for the sake of the Union. If the South 
 should refuse to meet us in convention and abide by its arbitrament, then 
 there is no hope for slavery. If the South obtain independence, it will be 
 by freedom to the slaves and their enrollment as soldiers. If they do not 
 obtain their independence, then between the collisions of the belligerents the 
 institution will be gone, and it matters little what becomes of this amend 
 ment so far as its own peculiar subject is concerned. So far as the Union 
 slave-holding states are concerned, they are rendering this amendment use 
 less. Missouri on yesterday almost unanimously voted to abolish slavery. 
 Maryland has already done it, whether by force or freedom it is not now my 
 purpose to inquire. Kentucky will be enforced to do the same. What re 
 mains? Little Delaware. She had in 1860, eighteen hundred slaves, and 
 the enlisting agents have mostly sold them out to this humanitarian gov 
 ernment for soldiers costing $150 apiece in Delaware and selling for $1,000 
 in New -York ! Surely Delaware will soon be free ! 
 
 " It may with some propriety be urged that slavery is already dead. It 
 has the seeds of speedy dissolution. The blows of war are breaking down 
 its panting, exhausted body. If, then, slavery is dead, wha" is the object of 
 this amendment? A distinguished gentleman told us that, like Pharaoh and 
 his hosts, the South had rushed with slavery into the Red Sea of war, and 
 that slavery was destroyed. Well, if that be the case, if slavery is dead, 
 where is the necessity for invoking this extraordinary power of amendment ? 
 This amendment, according to the argument of gentlemen on the other side, 
 amounts to nothing. It is a mere brutum fulmen. It is only the register, 
 in other words, of what the war power with its blows is accomplishing 
 day by day. If gentlemen opposite really believed that slavery was dead, 
 they would not bring in this amendment. They do not believe it. But 
 there are men on that side of the chamber who will not favor a restoration 
 of the states until this amendment shall have become an organic law. 
 Therefore it is that they pertinaciously press this matter, even while nego 
 tiations are going on for the return of the states to a national convention, 
 and for the return of peace and fraternity among the states." 
 
 At last the decisive day approaches. The last day of January, 1865, is 
 here. The House recurs to the amendment. Speeches are made pro and 
 con. Three Democrats speak for the amendment. They are CofFroth and 
 McAllister, of Pennsylvania, and Herrick, of New- York. They vote as 
 they speak. Messrs. Ganson, Odell, Steele, Radford, Nelson, and Gris- 
 wold of New York, Baldwin of Michigan, King and Rollins of Missouri, 
 Hutchins, Brown of West Virginia, English of Connecticut, and Yeaman 
 of Kentucky, also vote for it. Several members who are expected to vote 
 for it are absent, designedly as it is alleged. Every Republican is in 
 his seat, and for the amendment. The roll is called at four o'clock in the 
 
THE VOTE FOR THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. 327 
 
 afternoon. Mr. Speaker Colfax, at the end of the roll-call, says, in ringing 
 tones: " Call my name as a member of this House! " He votes "aye," 
 amidst applause. Radford and Steele change their votes in its favor, on the 
 final passage. They are vociferously applauded by crowded galleries. Mem 
 bers keep careful tally, and give intense attention. The result is announced. 
 There are hand-shakings, hilarities, and congratulations. Members are 
 crowded in the hall by those admitted to the floor. A jubilee revels in the 
 chamber. 
 
 It was incomprehensible to some, that, while admitting the power to 
 amend, the author did not vote for the amendment. He had left himself free 
 to vote for it, in case its passage would not interfere with attempts at peace 
 negotiation. He had several conferences with party friends with that object. 
 He was anxious, as a Democrat, and with a view to the upbuilding of the 
 party he cherished, to drive this question, which had become abstract by the 
 death of slavery through powder and ball, from the political arena. Many 
 agreed with him whose votes were recorded with his against the amendment. 
 He fully intended, when he came to the House at noon of the last day of 
 January, when the vote was taken, to cast his vote for it ; for he had said, 
 publicly and privately, that if all hope of negotiation had failed and the South 
 stood upon its independence, and the people were freeing their negroes for 
 soldiers, he would not stop to consider further. The amendment would no 
 longer be a block in the path of reconciliation and union. He had been 
 advised by high officials that no further negotiations were possible ; that so 
 Mr. Blair, senior, had reported, who had just come from Richmond. 
 But on arriving at the House at half-past twelve, the writer learned that 
 commissioners were actually waiting to be conducted over the lines. Mr. 
 Ashley had been sent to learn if this were true. Mr. Ashley inquired of 
 Mr. Nicolay, the President's private secretary, who was present in the hall. 
 The latter declared that he knew of no such commission. The writer begged 
 Mr. Ashley, as his vote depended on that fact, to inquire of the President. 
 Mr. Ashley wrote a note, to which the President, about half-past one o'clock, 
 responded that he knew " of no such commission or negotiation." This was 
 signed u A. L." It was shown to the writer, who made further inquiries, 
 He was satisfied that either the President was mistaken, or was ignorant of 
 what was transpiring at General Grant's headquarters. It was upon infor 
 mation obtained from other than official sources that the writer voted. It 
 proved to be correct information ; for it afterward appeared that the com 
 missioners were in front of our army on Sunday afternoon. This was two 
 days before the amendment came up for action, which was on Tuesday. 
 They were delayed two days exactly, because of the absence of General 
 Grant at Wilmington. He arrived on Tuesday, and forthwith dispatched a 
 messenger to Wilmington with the information as to the nature of the com 
 munication they wished to make. These facts show that the President, Mr. 
 
328 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Nicolay, and General Ashley were correct in advising the writer as to their 
 ignorance of the presence of the commissioners at headquarters on Tuesday 
 noon. In some inscrutable way there were men in Congress who were 
 better advised as to their presence than Mr. Ashley or the President. Upon 
 fair assurance the vote of the writer was withheld from the affirmative. He 
 believed it to be then perilous to peace to pass the amendment. It would 
 have been an impediment to negotiations. It was an obstacle, as it turned 
 out, notwithstanding Mr. Seward's belief that it was an aid. Whether the 
 author's vote was correct or not, it was given upon the belief that, in the 
 negotiations then about to be begun at once, this amendment would prove 
 an obstacle to peace and union. Weighing in one scale the dead body of 
 slavery, which was to be formally abolished by this amendment ; and in the 
 other, peace and union, and these latter without slavery, how could he 
 doubt the unwisdom of an amendment which would postpone peace and 
 imperil the Union? But the speech below quoted, which was matured 
 in advance of these hurrying events, is the test by which the author's 
 motive and judgment are to be tried. It was not delivered ; and it never 
 saw print before its appearance on this page ! 
 
 " Mr. SPEAKER: Some weeks since, I appealed to the other side to 
 make efforts for peace ; and I said then that I would consider this amendment 
 under new lights. I then said, that if Jefferson Davis would refuse to 
 confer on the basis of the unamended Constitution, I would reconsider my 
 views. I urged, personally, the President upon this point. The Blair mis 
 sion was an honest effort for peace. Of all things, that was most desirable, 
 with union. Again, on the I2th inst., I discussed the power of amendment, 
 and found no objection except to its exercise then. All that I did, or forbore 
 to do, was for the Union. If the South stands on independence, I will vote 
 this amendment. The party I belong to loves the Union as well as the 
 South loves slavery. If the South could discard it for independence, I can for 
 the Union. This was my view before negotiations. They are ended. The 
 ultimatum came in writing. I knew just what the negotiations were and how 
 they ended. ' Separation, recognition. We will treat on no other basis/ 
 They are again preparing for war. They still defy us. If they obtain their 
 independence, this amendment will affect nothing but the North and the ad 
 hering border states. All the adhering slave states, save Kentucky, are now 
 free states. I have here a letter from Mr. James Guthrie, of Kentucky. 
 It states that though Kentucky does not wish to abolish slavery herself, she 
 would be glad to have the ship clear of the wreck. l The scars which are 
 to be made in the Constitution on the road to peace and reunion are not of 
 our making, but find their apology in the evils and necessities of the times.' 
 These are his words. If the South wish to defeat this amendment, they can 
 come back in two years and kill it in the states. If they do not come back, 
 it is of no consequence. If they do come back, war will have already de- 
 
EXPLANATION OF THE AUTHOR'S VOTE. 329 
 
 stroyed slavery. In a party light, slavery was not mentioned at Chicago in 
 the platform. It will not be a question of party fidelity or obligation. We 
 will carry no more wrongful odium for slavery into our campaigns. We 
 will have no more defeats. I am instructed by my state [Ohio] to vote for 
 this amendment. My district is for it. I will take the responsibility, after all 
 efforts for peace and union fail, to rid the party of these questions as to man 
 hood and bondage, and assist to turn the issues upon finance, tariffs, foreign 
 affairs, and personal liberty. I will cheerfully take reproach from those who 
 in one breath hold the Constitution to be an indenture of partnership, to be 
 broken by any party to it, and in the next say it is so binding as to be im 
 mutable. Differing from such, I will vote to thrust the question of slavery 
 from politics and Congress forever." 
 
 In striving to stay hostilities and prevent butchery, the author uncon 
 sciously saved his personal probity from undeserved reproach. This is the 
 incident : He was boarding at the house of an active radical Republican 
 who had been on General Fremont's staff. This man had heard read the 
 speech above quoted. He inferred correctly its bias for the amend 
 ment. The writer had spoken, in confidence, about the table and under 
 the roof of this landlord of his intention to vote for the amendment. One 
 vote was then most momentous to make the requisite two-thirds. This 
 ex-soldier of fortune counted, in a mercenary way, on improving his purse 
 by his confidential information. When the writer returned to his Tuesday 
 dinner, having given under the circumstances an adverse vote, the irascible 
 radical broke forth into such a torrent of abuse against the writer, that the 
 latter left the table in disgust and bewilderment. The abuser in his wrath 
 averred what he afterwards, when stricken with blindness and repentant, 
 directed his good wife to asseverate in writing that he was to get ten thou 
 sand dollars from New -York parties for influencing the writer's vote favor 
 ably to the amendment. The writer discovered the party who raised the 
 fund which was said to be ready and freely used for corrupting members. 
 Can anything be conceived more monstrous than this attempt to amend the 
 Constitution upon such a humane and glorious theme, by the aid of the 
 lucre of office-holders ? This statement was made in Congress after the war, 
 in response to Mr. Dawes, and with much detail. It was never challenged. 
 It is true. 
 
 The amendment required for its ratification twenty-seven of the thirty- 
 six states. There were enough in the Union. They were " loyal" enough 
 to carry it. Its ratification began in Maine, on the 7th of February, with the 
 firing of a hundred guns. It ended, not without much adverse criticism on 
 the compulsory measures resorted to for its ratification, when the Secretary 
 of State announced the result in a formal statement to Congress. Although 
 there was much questioning as to whether the President's proclamation 
 abolishing slavery would be valid, much questioning North and South, 
 21 
 
330 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 no one questioned any longer the power of Congress to submit the amend 
 ment in the form of the Senate proposition. 
 
 Whether the consultation had by Mr. Stuart and the author with the 
 President during the holidays had, or had not, impressed the latter so as to 
 energize a movement for peace, it is certain that upon New Year's Day it 
 was bruited about Washington that Frank P. Blair, Sr., and his son, Mont 
 gomery Blair, had gone to City Point upon a mission of peace. It was al 
 leged that they had gone there to meet the representatives of the Confed 
 erate Government. The truth, as it transpired afterwards, was that the elder 
 Mr. Blair had gone to Richmond to see his old friend, Jefferson Davis ; for 
 what purpose, the sequel will develop. When Mr. Blair went on his mis 
 sion he was denounced at Richmond as a spy. It was said that he deserved 
 hanging. It was charged that he had sinister designs, and that he wished to 
 break up the Confederacy by intrigue. He arrived at Richmond on Wednes 
 day evening, January nth. General Singleton, of Illinois, an ultra-peace 
 Democrat of pronounced views, also had safe conduct to Richmond. At the 
 same time Mr. Stanton was on his way to Savannah with less of healing on 
 his wings. But it was not known that either General Singleton or Mr. Blair 
 was clothed with powers to conclude negotiations or bind the Federal Govern 
 ment. It was only hoped that by conference with the leaders South, the 
 war might be ended by future negotiations. Mr. Blair returned to the Fed 
 eral capital on the i6th of January. His mission was given out as one of a 
 private nature. He was, as it was alleged, looking after the title-deeds of cer 
 tain property. But it was said by the Richmond journals that he only came 
 to see the cards in the Confederate hands. Montgomery Blair did not accom 
 pany his father any further than City Point. There is no room for doubt as 
 to the business the father had in charge. The authentic account of the inter 
 view is published in Jefferson Davis' second volume. This paper is labeled 
 a " Memorandum of a Confidential Conversation held this day with F. P. 
 Blair, of Montgomery County, Maryland." It is dated "Richmond, Vir 
 ginia, January I2th, 1865." After reciting some immaterial matters about 
 obtaining permission from Mr. Lincoln to visit Richmond, and that he was 
 a man of Southern blood and felt anxious to see the war between the states 
 terminated, Mr. Blair stated to Mr. Davis that he had two appointments to 
 converse with Mr. Lincoln about the object of his visit to Richmond. On 
 each occasion he was disappointed. He concluded that Mr. Lincoln avoided 
 the interview. Therefore, he came not only without credentials, but with 
 out instructions from Mr. Lincoln. His views, therefore, were his own. 
 " Perhaps," he said, u they are merely the dreams of an old man." He 
 asked permission to read the rough draft of a letter which he had prepared. 
 u I allowed him to read it without comment on my part," says Mr. Davis. 
 u When he had finished as to his main proposition, the cessation of hostilities 
 and the union of the military forces for the common purpose of maintaining 
 
F. P. BLAIR, SR., AND JEFFERSON DAVIS. 331 
 
 < the Monroe Doctrine,' he said that both the political parties of the United 
 States asserted the Monroe doctrine as a cardinal point of their creed, and 
 that there was a general desire to apply it to the case of Mexico." For that 
 purpose a secret treaty might be made. After referring to the attempt to 
 negotiate, on the part of Mr. Davis, and its failure heretofore, Mr. Blair ex 
 pressed the belief that Mr. Lincoln would not receive commissioners. He 
 proposed to return to Washington to explain his project to Mr. Lincoln. He 
 affirmed that Mr. Lincoln did not sympathize with the radical men who de 
 sired the devastation and subjugation of the Southern States, but that he was 
 unable to control the extremes of his party, which now had great power in 
 Congress, and would at the next session have still more. He avowed an 
 earnest desire to stop the further effusion of blood, as one whose every 
 drop of blood was Southern. He expressed the hope that the pride of power 
 and the honor of the Southern States should suffer no shock. He looked to 
 the extension of Southern territory even to the Isthmus of Darien. He reit 
 erated the idea of state sovereignty, with illustrations. After other conver 
 sations, detailed at length in this memorandum, the conference ended. It 
 had no other result than an agreement that Mr. Blair would learn whether 
 Mr. Lincoln would adopt his project, and send, or receive commissioners 
 to negotiate for a peaceful solution of the questions at issue. He would 
 report to Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Davis* readiness to enter upon negotiations, and 
 that there was no insurmountable obstacle to such a treaty of peace as would 
 secure greater advantage to both parties than any result which the existing 
 conflict of arms could achieve. 
 
 Mr. Blair confirmed this memorandum as verity. Mr. Davis expressed 
 his willingness to enter into negotiations for the restoration of peace, and his 
 readiness to send a commission when he had reason to suppose it would be 
 received, or to receive a commission from the United States Government if 
 they should choose to send one. But he was very guarded in his statements, 
 as will appear by the expression that he would ' ' thus renew the effort to 
 enter into conference, with a view to secure peace to the two countries.'* 
 Mr. Lincoln, on the i8th of January, wrote to Mr. Blair that he had seen 
 Mr. Davis* letter to him, and that he might say to him that he had constantly 
 been, and was now, and should continue to quote the words " ready to 
 receive any agent whom Mr. Davis, or any other influential person now 
 resisting the national authority, may informally send to me with a view to 
 securing a peace to the people of our own common country.*' It will be 
 observed that, like special pleading, the issue was clearly made. Mr. Lin 
 coln puts himself upon one country, and Mr. Davis upon two countries. 
 
 A suggestion was made that Generals Lee and Grant might enter into an 
 arrangement by which hostilities would be suspended and a way paved for 
 peace. Mr. Davis has said that he acquiesced in such a negotiation. The 
 
332 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 conference ended and Mr. Blair returned to Washington. The military con 
 vention idea was not favorably received at Washington. 
 
 Again, on the 2oth of January, Mr. Blair made another visit to Rich 
 mond. He embarked on a United States steamer from the navy yard. Be 
 fore his return the Confederate President was called upon to explain his 
 view of negotiations for peace. He ridiculed the idea of treating with 
 states like Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky or Missouri, which were in and 
 out of the Union. "Would delegates be received from both sides?" he 
 asked. "What of West Virginia? Would Virginia enter into a conven 
 tion with West Virginia ? " These were puzzling problems. 
 
 The radicals in Congress began a crusade against the effort of Mr. 
 Lincoln for peace, and the mission of the senior Mr. Blair. Resolutions 
 were introduced denouncing negotiations, and demanding war to the end. 
 Senator Harlan and others led those fierce radicals. They even demanded 
 retaliation instead of conciliation. They desired no peace until the condi 
 tions were fixed. These included the abolition of slavery by an amend 
 ment of the Constitution. The writer recalls the wild rumors then preva 
 lent about closing the war. It was said that Mr. Seward was at the 
 bottom of it all. Stories were current about Mr. Blair's reception by Mr. 
 Davis, and by Mrs. Davis with a kiss. Another rumor was, that Mr. 
 Blair brought back from Mr. Davis a communication for Mr. Lincoln ask 
 ing for commissioners representing "two countries." This was near the 
 truth. The writer distinctly rememfoers that, inasmuch as he had urged 
 President Lincoln to reach out the hand of amity, he inquired of the 
 President and of Mr. Seward as to the result of the Blair mission. He 
 was distinctly informed by both that Mr. Davis refused to treat unless his 
 government was recognized as an independent nation. To this Mr. Lin 
 coln and Mr. Seward would not listen for a moment. It was given out 
 in Richmond, on Mr. Blair's second mission, that the enemy were willing 
 to permit the Confederates to dictate their own terms, "provided only, we 
 will not dissolve the Union." The truth is, Mr. Blair found great confusion 
 in Richmond. Although the mission failed in results then, it brought forth 
 fruit afterwards. Without an armistice and a recognition of independence, Mr. 
 Davis could not take the responsibility of initiating proceedings to end the 
 war. Many who wished the trial made were now satisfied, although the 
 failure was disappointing. 
 
 It was alleged that Mr. Blair's was a partisan mission ; that he desired to 
 strengthen the Republican party by demonstrating the truculent and hopeless 
 recusancy of the Confederate President and his friends ; and that by its fail 
 ure, President Lincoln would know how to point and paragraph his In 
 augural. The opinion of the writer is that the mission was meant in good 
 faith ; and that while it was intended to induce members like himself to vote 
 for the Thirteenth Amendment, when it was seen that there was no hope 
 
THE CONFERENCE AT FORTRESS MONROE. 333 
 
 after a fair effort for peace, it was no less a legitimate and honest endeavor. 
 So history should record it. 
 
 Horace Greeley was instrumental in hastening this advent of Mr. Blair 
 upon Virginia. His paper was not uncandid when it said that the visit 
 would give a clearer understanding of the differences North and South, and 
 of the reasons or the ends for which further bloodshed might be deemed 
 necessary. It was no idle rumor which said that President Lincoln would 
 propose, through the elder Blair, to Jefferson Davis and his followers, an 
 exit over the Mexican frontier. Once over as armed emigrants, they were 
 to be furnished with the necessary means for a permanent lodgment. There 
 they could erect a splendid government upon the ruins of the cause of the 
 imperial puppet of France Maximilian. There they could vindicate the 
 Monroe doctrine and revel in a confederacy all their own. Such were the 
 phantoms born of war and its disasters. 
 
 In pursuance of the understanding between Mr. Blair and Jefferson 
 Davis, Messrs. Alexander H. Stephens, Robert M. T. Hunter, and John 
 A. Campbell were accredited, with a certificate of appointment, as commis 
 sioners to proceed to Washington for conference upon the subject to which 
 it related ; or rather for an informal conference with President Lincoln upon 
 the issues involved in the existing war, and for the purpose of securing peace 
 to the " two countries." Upon the 2d of February, 1865, they arrive at 
 Fortress Monroe upon General Grant's flag-boat, the M. Martin. It 
 anchors near the River Queen, on which is Secretary Seward. The 
 commissioners are treated with marked courtesy. They dine with the 
 Secretary on board his vessel. The fastest boat of the bay, the Thomas 
 Collyer, arrives at Old Point Comfort at ten o'clock that night. It has made 
 the fastest run on record, although the weather is severe and the bay full of ice. 
 It has on board no less a personage than President Lincoln. He advises the 
 Secretary of his presence. The parties do not land. Steam on water was 
 weaving an interchange of civilities and duties in this supreme hour. The 
 parties meet the next day on board the River Queen. Students may be re 
 minded by this incident, of the romantic interview upon a raft in the river 
 Nieman, between the great Napoleon and the Czar Alexander, to open ne 
 gotiations for peace after the long war between Prussia, Russia, and France. 
 
 On what do these Federal and Confederate dignitaries confer? All the 
 vexed questions, emancipation, amnesty, debt, finance, and the Monroe doc 
 trine are under discussion. Great hopes are excited that the preliminaries 
 of peace have been agreed upon. Gold drops down to 202. The ulti 
 matum is delivered to the commissioners. They leave for Richmond. The 
 next day the Cabinet at Washington meets. The President opens his budget. 
 All approve of his propositions. They approve of the simplicity and lack 
 of punctilio which characterized the conference. They look to the great end. 
 All minor questions have been subordinated by the clement President to stop 
 bloodshed, and only the main topics are uppermost in his thoughts. 
 
334 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Mr. Seward had proposed that the conference should be confidential. 
 This calls for an objurgatory paragraph from Mr. Davis in his published nar 
 ration of the affair. Mr. Davis thinks that the views of Mr. Lincoln had 
 changed after he wrote the letter of June iSth to Mr. Blair. This change 
 he attributes to what Mr. Blair heard and saw at Richmond. What he saw 
 and heard involved a conflict in the very heart of the Confederate councils. 
 The report of the commissioners to the President of the Confederate States 
 was dated on the 5th of February, 1865. It says nothing that, apparently, 
 changed the course of events or the previous state of affairs. It affirms that 
 the commissioners understood from President Lincoln that no terms or pro 
 posals of any treaty looking to an ultimate settlement would be entertained 
 or made by him with the authorities of the Confederate States. To treat 
 with the latter would be a recognition of their existence as a separate power. 
 Under no circumstances would he permit this. For a like reason, no such 
 terms would be entertained by him for the states separately. No extended 
 truce or armistice would be granted without a satisfactory assurance, in ad 
 vance, of the complete restoration of the authority of the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States over all the places within the states of the Confed 
 eracy. All the consequences which would follow the re-establishment of that 
 authority must be accepted. Mr. Stephens had previously intimated that a 
 surrender was not thought of. He said to Mr. Lincoln that his colleagues 
 and himself had no power for their own abdication. "Your proposition," 
 then said Mr. Lincoln, " is for independence. Mine for submission. We 
 cannot agree." 
 
 In this report, the commissioners plainly indicate that the President had 
 his mind fixed, without malice toward any and with charity for all. He 
 proposed if peace were restored, a liberal use of the power confided to him, 
 to remit pains and penalties. During the conference a significant reference 
 was made to the 3ist of January and the passage of the Thirteenth Amend 
 ment. The result of the conference was that there could be no arrangements 
 as the parties were then situated. 
 
 The comment, by those who looked at matters in a sinister way, upon 
 these remarkable meetings of the elder Blair with Jefferson Davis and the 
 commissioners with Lincoln and Seward was, that Mr. Blair was a scout, 
 and the Hampton Roads conference an official reconnoissance. If such had 
 been the object it was successful ; but the conferences were, undoubtedly, 
 intended to lead in good faith toward the cessation of hostilities and the 
 restoration of the Union. What the commissioners sought they did not 
 get an armistice and recognition. What the President sought he did not 
 get immediate submission. The reports of the respective Presidents show 
 that negotiations were impossible on any other " terms," as Mr. Davis 
 phrased it, "than those which the conqueror may grant." 
 
 Mr. Seward, in writing to Mr. Adams, Minister at London, under date 
 
THE MEXICAN DREAM. 335 
 
 of Feb. 9, 1865, states that the conference lasted four hours, and that all 
 points of difference were discussed amicably. Then he adds this significant 
 sentence : ' ' What the insurgent party seemed chiefly to favor, was a post 
 ponement of the question of separation, and a mutual direction of both sides 
 to some extrinsic policy or scheme, for a season, during which passions 
 might be expected to subside and the armies be reduced, and intercourse be 
 tween the people of both sections be resumed." It is no part of this narra 
 tive to discuss what might have happened had this extrinsic proposition as 
 to Maximilian, which first emanated from Mr. Blair and was now pro 
 pounded by these commissioners, been adopted. Fancy plays with suppo 
 sititious situations. The verities discard them as "stuff that dreams are 
 made of." 
 
 Upon the 6th of February, 1865, the writer offered a resolution in the 
 House of Representatives, stating that the gratitude of a suffering and dis 
 tracted country was due to the President for endeavoring, with a view to 
 negotiations for peace and the restoration of the Union, to ascertain the dis 
 position of the insurgents ; and that with a similar view he be respectfully 
 requested to omit no honorable exertions thereafter which might lead to the 
 desired object, to wit, peace and union. Against this humane testimony for 
 the American people, thirty-one Republicans in Congress assembled, voted, 
 while one hundred and five of all parties voted in favor of it. This resolution 
 greatly disturbed the extremists. Still, only one-third of that party opposed 
 the resolution on the vote ; but in private they were furious in their opposi 
 tion to any effort toward peace except through war. The writer was sur 
 prised that such leaders as Henry Winter Davis, Governor Frank Thomas, 
 of Maryland, Windom, of Minnesota, Wadsworth, of Kentucky, Morrill, 
 of Vermont, Dawes, of Massachusetts, and Allison, of Iowa, should have 
 opposed a tribute to their own President for such an exercise of his preroga 
 tive ; but he was not surprised w r hen Thaddeus Stevens led his small phalanx 
 in opposition, among whom were found two ultra Democrats who disliked 
 the President so much that they would not seek even the ways of peace and 
 pleasantness at his hands. These were Rogers, of New Jersey, and Long, 
 of Ohio. 
 
 One result of these conferences, or rather of their failure, was to give 
 fresh impulse to the passage of the bill for six hundred millions of dollars. 
 Another result, running to extremes, was a measure which the writer de 
 feated, and which had in a former session been vetoed, concerning the 
 "forfeiture of real property owned by rebels," so as to confiscate the fee 
 simple beyond the natural lives of the owners. On the motion to lay this bill 
 on the table, the yeas were 72, the nays 7 1 - What a rich fund of attorney 
 fees, what a wrangle of litigation, was thus avoided by adhering to the Con 
 stitution in reference to attainder and confiscation and corruption of blood. 
 
 In other respects the Union cause was the gainer by the Hampton Roads 
 
336 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 transaction, while the Confederates were the losers through distraction in 
 council and discouragement everywhere. The duty prescribed now for the 
 North was to conquer a peace, since peace could not be gained by treaty. 
 The North aroused itself to give a finishing blow to its brave but now stag 
 gering opponents. 
 
 On the loth of January, 1865, a debate was sprung upon the House in 
 regard to these peace negotiations. It was opened by James Brooks, of New- 
 York. He favored an armistice. He vigorously assaulted the President's 
 action. Thaddeus Stevens answered in a fierce onslaught on Jefferson 
 Davis, and the position which he assumed for the Confederate Government 
 as an independent state. The saturnine Pennsylvanian had forgotten that 
 he had by his own speeches and action regarded the Confederacy as an 
 independent power. The writer answered both speeches as extreme opin 
 ions. He defended the meeting at Hampton Roads. He asserted that if it 
 were followed up it would lead to peace and reunion. He quoted General 
 Grant's statement, that he (the General) was convinced, by conversations 
 with Messrs. Stephens and Hunter, that their intentions were good, and that 
 their desire to restore peace and union was sincere. " If we fail," said the 
 author in conclusion, u to make peace, the fault will lie at the door of the 
 radicals." The war fiercely continued to do its bloody work until April 19, 
 1865. Then peace was gained. It was contained in this simple proposition 
 of General Grant : 
 
 '* By the South laying down their arms, they will hasten that most de 
 sirable event, save thousands of human lives, and hundreds of millions of 
 property not yet destroyed." General Sherman, a short time afterward, 
 .made the same terms with General Johnston for the disbandment of the 
 army of the latter, which were given to Lee at Appomattox. Thus ended 
 the most momentous war known to history. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S POLICY OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 THE AMNESTY PROCLAMATION THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE THE CONDITIONS 
 OF PARDON THE EXCEPTED CLASSES RECONSTRUCTION BILL IN THE 
 HOUSE MILITARY PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS THE QUALIFICATION OF 
 VOTERS ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SENATE AMENDMENTS 
 REJECTED THE BILL PASSES CONGRESS IT FAILS TO BE SIGNED BY THE 
 PRESIDENT ITS POLICY ADOPTED BY HIM CRITICISMS OF HIS PARTY 
 MR. LINCOLN'S MODERATE VIEWS NEGRO SUFFRAGE PROPOSED EXTREME 
 MEASURES DEVELOPING AUTHOR'S ESTIMATE OF LINCOLN. 
 
 IN his annual message, dated Dec. 8, 1863, President Lincoln gives at 
 length his reasons for issuing the Amnesty proclamation of the same 
 day. The latter offers terms of reconciliation and a restoration of po 
 litical rights and relations under the government to the people of the 
 Confederate States. The policy is for a general amnesty with some ex 
 ceptions. The preamble to the proclamation recites the clause in the Consti 
 tution which provides that the President " shall have power to grant reprieves 
 and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of im 
 peachment." Reference is made to the acts of Congress declaring forfeitures 
 and confiscations of property and the liberation of slaves. The President 
 then grants the amnesty and pardon in these words : " Therefore, I, Abraham 
 Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make 
 known to all persons who have directly, or by implication, participated in 
 the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is 
 hereby granted to them, and each of them, with restoration of all rights of 
 property, except as to slaves, and in property cases where rights of third 
 parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person 
 shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and maintain said 
 oath inviolate ; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preserva 
 tion, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit: 
 
338 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 " I 5 --- 5 do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, 
 that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitu 
 tion 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 made by the President during the existing rebellion 
 having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified or declared 
 void by decision of the Supreme Court, so help me God." 
 
 The persons first excepted from the privileges of amnesty under this pro 
 clamation are : all those who left judicial stations, or seats in Congress, or the 
 army or navy of the, United States, to take part in the rebellion. Further 
 exceptions are : all army and navy officers in the service of the Confederacy 
 above the grade of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy, and all, of 
 whatever grade, who maltreated colored or white prisoners of war. The con 
 ditions of amnesty were those which, under the act of Congress, the President 
 was authorized to impose. They were deemed essential to the restoration 
 of peace and union. Under the conditions of this proclamation, Mr. Lin 
 coln sets forth his mode of reconstruction in these words: " Whenever, 
 in any of the eleven states in rebellion, a number of persons not less 
 than one-tenth of the number of votes cast in such state at the Presidential 
 election of the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, 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 in no wise 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 i 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/ " 
 
 While President Lincoln insisted that the freedom of the negroes must 
 be recognized, he fully appreciated the " confusion and destitution " which 
 would attend a sudden disruption of the labor system. On this subject he 
 proposed in his message to acquiesce in any reasonable temporary state ar 
 rangement for the freed people which might be made with the view of 
 modifying the confusion and destitution which must at best attend all classes 
 by a total revolution of labor throughout the Southern States. He expresses 
 the hope that the already deeply afflicted people in those states may be some 
 what more ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if, to that extent, this 
 vital matter be left to themselves ; while no power of the national Executive 
 
CONGRESS MODIFIES MR. LINCOLN'S POLICY. 339 
 
 to prevent an abuse is abridged by the proposition. The proclamation also 
 declared that the Executive claimed no right to insure to the reconstructed 
 states a representation in Congress. That matter the President regarded as 
 being exclusively within the control of the two Houses. 
 
 On the motion of Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, in the House of 
 Representatives, Dec. 15, 1863, so much of the President's message as 
 related to the duty of the United States to guarantee a republican form of 
 government to the states in which the recognized governments were over 
 thrown, was referred to a select committee of nine. Upon the question, the 
 yeas were 89, the nays 80. That committee had instructions to report bills 
 necessary and proper for carrying the constitutional guaranty into effect. 
 A bill was reported by the committee, which passed in the House by a strict 
 party vote, except that Mr. Whaley, Republican, of West Virginia, voted in 
 the negative. The yeas were 74, the nays 66. The leading features of 
 the bill were as follows : The President was authorized to appoint a pro 
 visional governor for each of the states declared to be in rebellion, with the 
 pay and emoluments of a brigadier-general. He was to be charged with 
 the civil administration until a state government should be recognized. 
 The governors were to direct the United States Marshals to enroll all the 
 white male citizens of the United States resident within the respective 
 states as soon as the insurrection should be suppressed, and whenever a ma 
 jority of them should take the oath of allegiance. The loyal people thus to be 
 ascertained were authorized to elect delegates to conventions for the purpose 
 of re-establishing the state governments. Qualified voters in the United States 
 Army were allowed to vote in the camps. No person who had held or exer 
 cised any civil or military office (except offices merely ministerial, and mili 
 tary offices below the grade of colonel), state or Confederate, under the usurp 
 ing power, was allowed to vote or be a member of the legislature, or governor. 
 Slavery was to be forever prohibited, and no debt, state or Confederate, 
 created by the usurping power, was to be recognized or paid by the state. 
 The constitutions framed by the conventions of the several states were to be 
 ratified by the people and reported to the President, who would lay them 
 before Congress ; and upon their approval by that body, the President would 
 make proclamation recognizing the governments so established, and none 
 others ; whereupon the people might proceed to the election of members 
 of Congress, and exercise all other functions of co-equal states. In the mean 
 time the governor would enforce the laws of the Union and of the particular 
 state, as they existed before the rebellion, except as regards slavery. 
 
 Mr. Wade, from the Committee on Territories, in the Senate, reported 
 the House bill with two amendments : one fixing the compensation of the 
 provisional governors at $3,000, and the other striking out the word " white" 
 where it occurs in defining the qualifications of voters and office-holders. 
 Mr. Brown, of Missouri, the Senate sitting as in committee of the whole, 
 
340 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 offered a substitute which deprived the people of the states in rebellion of 
 the right to elect Senators and Representatives in Congress and Presidential 
 electors, until the insurrection or rebellion should be abandoned or suppressed, 
 and until the return of the inhabitants to their allegiance should be acknowl 
 edged by proclamation of the President. This substitute was agreed to 
 yeas 17, nays 16; Messrs. Brown, Cowan, Doolittle, Grimes, Henderson, 
 Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Trumbull, and Van Winkle the latter of West 
 Virginia voting in the affirmative with the Democrats. The Senate then 
 adopted the substitute, by yeas 20, nays 13 ; Messrs. Harlan, of Iowa, Harris, 
 of New -York, and Pomeroy, of Kansas, voting with the Democrats, together 
 with the other Republicans named above. The bill then passed its final 
 reading yeas 26, nays 3. The nays were Messrs. Davis and Powell, of 
 Kentucky, and Saulsbury, of Delaware. An amendment proposed by Mr. 
 Sumner, making the Emancipation Proclamation a statute, was rejected 
 yeas n, nays 21. 
 
 When the bill came back from the Senate, Mr. Garfield, in the House of 
 Representatives, June 13, offered as a joint resolution the proposition of 
 Senator Brown. The resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
 third time, but after a brief colloquy, it was, on motion of Mr. Blaine, laid 
 on the table by a vote of 104 yeas to 33 nays. Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, asked 
 leave, on the 2oth of June, to offer a joint resolution of similar purport ; 
 but it was objected to. On the 22d of June, 1863, Mr. Dawes, of Massa 
 chusetts, in the House, reported from the Committee on Elections, a reso 
 lution proposing the appointment of a commission by the President, for the 
 purpose of visiting such of the states lately in rebellion as had taken steps 
 to re-establish their relations of allegiance to the Union. He desired to 
 ascertain whether the loyal people in them were sufficiently strong to main 
 tain the reorganized governments against the insurgents. Another resolu 
 tion declared that no state thus set up should be acknowledged until evi 
 dence was furnished of its ability to sustain itself. 
 
 The House non-concurred with the Senate's amendment, and asked for a 
 committee of conference. But the Senate receded from its amendment. It 
 adopted the House bill yeas 18, nays 14. Messrs. Doolittle, Henderson, 
 Lane of Indiana, Ten Eyck of New Jersey, Trumbull, and Van Winkle 
 voting in the negative, with the Democrats. This bill was in the main con 
 formable to the plans recommended by the President. It differed from them 
 in some respects. These he deemed essential. He was ready to approve the 
 action of any state which should be reconstructed by the people in con 
 formity with the congressional plan ; but he could not consent to the over 
 throw of what had already been done in Arkansas and Louisiana for the 
 restoration of their relations to the Union. In these states constitutions had 
 been re-formed, and officers had been elected under them on the plans recom 
 mended by the President. The bill passed by the two houses would have 
 
THE PRESIDENT DISPLEASES THE REPUBLICANS. 341 
 
 overthrown these inchoate state governments, inasmuch as it prescribed con 
 ditions which had not been complied with. For these reasons the President 
 withheld his signature from it, as stated in his proclamation. Congress ad 
 journed within an hour after its passage. To this fact the President refers as 
 an additional reason for the course he pursued. He thought that time should 
 be given him to consider its important provisions. He declares, however, 
 that he approves, in the main, the principles it contains, and that in con 
 formity with its spirit, he would appoint provisional governors in the rebel 
 lious states whenever the people should indicate a wish to return to their 
 allegiance. 
 
 The proclamations of President Lincoln with reference to reconstruction, 
 and especially that of July 8, 1864, in which, while announcing his refusal 
 to sign the Reconstruction bill, he proposes to carry out some of its provisions, 
 gave rise to great dissatisfaction among some very earnest Republicans. It 
 was in this connection that Senator Wade, of Ohio, and Representative 
 Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, published a vigorous protest. It ar 
 raigned the conduct of the President. Disregarding the reason assigned by 
 him for withholding his signature from this Reconstruction bill, namely, that 
 it set aside what had already been done in Arkansas and Louisiana by the 
 loyal people, Messrs. Wade and Davis charged him with having perpetrated 
 "a studied outrage upon the legislative authority of the people." They 
 said : i ' If electors for President be allowed to be chosen in either of those 
 states, a sinister light will be cast on the motives which induced the Presi 
 dent to 'hold for naught' the will of Congress, rather than his government 
 in Louisiana and Arkansas." These suspicions of Mr. Lincoln's motives 
 were without foundation, since it was manifestly impracticable for him to 
 authorize the reconstructed states to cast electoral votes and give effect to 
 them, without and against the consent of Congress. 
 
 Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia had loyal governments set 
 up within their limits during the war ; but they were regarded as too feeble to 
 be self-sustaining, even if Congress had reposed entire confidence in the men 
 who had charge of them. When Mr. Summer was appealed to, about this 
 time, for his influence and vote in favor of the recognition of the improvised 
 state government of Virginia, his reply was that it was too feeble to be 
 self-sustaining, and that he regarded it as a " seven months' child." Only 
 West Virginia, situated beyond the Alleghanies, and never having much 
 liking for slavery, nor affinity with the old state of which it was an outlying 
 territory, succeeded in being recognized by Congress during the existence of 
 the Confederacy. The division of Virginia being accomplished without the 
 consent of the major part of the people, who were in rebellion, must be re 
 garded as among the extra constitutional measures which were inevitable dur 
 ing the period of civil war. It would have been violative of the constitu 
 tional rights of the loyal men of the western counties, to make their status 
 
342 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 dependent on the will of the majority, who were at open war with the gov 
 ernment of the United States ; but the alternative to set them up as an in 
 dependent state was not the only one. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, Dec. 20, 1864, Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, 
 reported from the select committee a bill similar in its provisions to Mr. 
 Brown's substitute for the original bill of the preceding session. It de 
 clared the slaves free, recognized the reconstructed state governments of 
 Louisiana and Arkansas, and provided for the organization of governments 
 in the other Southern states on the same conditions. It excluded from the 
 right of suffrage and of office-holding, all the higher civil and military offi 
 cials of the Confederacy. The voters were to be the loyal white male citi 
 zens of the United States. Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend 
 by adding, " and all other male citizens of the United States who may be 
 .able to read the Constitution thereof." This direct proposition to declare a 
 qualified suffrage by act of Congress failed to receive the sanction of that 
 body. Other propositions were made in the form of substitutes not materially 
 differing from the foregoing. Finally, on Feb. 21, 1865, the bill was, on 
 motion of Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, laid on the table. The next day 
 the subject came up again on the report of a bill from the Judiciary Com 
 mittee, by Mr. Wilson, of Iowa. But it, too, was laid on the table, fourteen 
 Republicans voting with the Democrats. 
 
 A joint resolution was reported from the House Judiciary Committee 
 by Mr. Wilson, Jan. 30, 1865, declaring that the states in rebellion were 
 not entitled to be represented in the Electoral College, and that no electoral 
 votes from them should be received or counted, in the choice of a President 
 and Vice-President. It was adopted without a division ; and after undergoing 
 a slight verbal amendment, it was passed by the Senate. The House agreed 
 to the Senate's amendment, and the President gave it his signature, while 
 disclaiming, in a brief message, any right to control the two houses as to 
 the admission of members and the counting of electoral votes. Mr. Trum- 
 foull, from the Judiciary Committee, Feb. 18, 1865, reported on the creden 
 tials of Charles Smith and R. King Cutter, as Senators from the State of 
 Louisiana, with a joint resolution recognizing the state government adopted 
 at New Orleans in April of the preceding year. Similar applications were 
 made from Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. But nothing came of them, 
 and the matter was postponed until the next session of Congress. 
 
 On the subject of reconstruction, the last utterances of Mr. Lincoln, in 
 his last public speech, will be read with interest. April n, 1865, four days 
 before his death by assassination, he addressed a number of citizens who 
 had called to congratulate him on the fall of Richmond, and the surrender of 
 General Lee with the army of northern Virginia. After the expression of 
 his joy at " the evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender 
 of the principal insurgent army," he proceeds to say: " By these recent 
 
MR. LINCOLN'S RESPONSE TO RADICAL DEFAMATION. 343 
 
 successes, the re-inauguration of the national authority, reconstruction, 
 which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more 
 closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. Unlike the 
 case of a war between independent nations, there is no authorized organ for 
 us to treat with. No one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any 
 other man. We simply must begin with and mould from disorganized and 
 discordant elements. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, 
 the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and means 
 of reconstruction. As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports 
 of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I can 
 not properly offer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however, it comes 
 to my knowledge that I am much censured, from some supposed agency in 
 setting up and seeking to sustain the new state government of Louisiana. 
 In this I have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows." 
 
 The new government of Louisiana here referred to by Mr. Lincoln was 
 adopted by a convention held in New Orleans in April, 1864, and the con 
 stitution on which it was founded was ratified by twelve thousand white 
 voters. He regarded this government as the first fruit of his Amnesty procla 
 mation, and was desirous of its recognition by Congress. The new con 
 stitution contained an article abolishing and forever excluding slavery, and 
 the other provisions required by the proclamation ; but it contained no pro 
 vision for the enfranchisement of the colored race. This was now made a 
 serious ground of objection by many. When the proclamation was issued, 
 public opinion had not advanced far enough to sustain a measure so radical as 
 negro suffrage ; but, as the sectional struggle drew to a close, and after the 
 colored men had borne their part in it, the sentiment in favor of their politi 
 cal equality with white men or, at least, Southern white men grew 
 stronger in the Republican party. Thus, while the people of the Northern 
 states were not yet quite ready to grant political equality even to the best 
 educated colored men within their own borders, the radical Representatives 
 in Washington were intent on bestowing universal suffrage upon the utterly 
 illiterate negroes of the South. 
 
 The suggestion of the President in his Amnesty proclamation, that, as a 
 temporary arrangement for the preservation of order and the prevention of 
 anarchy, the Southern legislatures might institute a sort of guardianship over 
 the freedmen, now became a serious ground of complaint against him. 
 But the proposed plan for new governments went not so far as this. On the 
 contrary, it secured immediate and entire freedom to the negroes. 
 
 Another question on which Mr. Lincoln fell behind the current of party 
 opinion, and upon which he was arraigned by men of extreme, or " ad 
 vanced " views, was that in regard to the status of the lately insurgent 
 states ; in other words, on the question whether they were in the Union, or 
 out of it. In the speech above quoted from, the President, alluding to 
 
344 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 complaints that he had not defined his position on this subject, declared 
 that he had " purposely forborne any public expression upon it." But, 
 answering these complaints, he said: "As appears to me, that ques 
 tion has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and any discus 
 sion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no 
 effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, what 
 ever it may hereafter become, that question is bad, as the basis of a contro 
 versy, and good for nothing at all a merely pernicious abstraction. We 
 all agree that the seceded states, so-called, are out of their proper practical 
 relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and 
 military, in regard to those states, is to again get them into that proper prac 
 tical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but, in fact, easier to do this 
 without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have ever been 
 out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would 
 be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. . . . The 
 amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana govern 
 ment rests would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, 
 or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it 
 really does. It is also unsatisfactory, that the elective franchise is not 
 given to the colored men. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred 
 on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still, 
 the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite 
 all that is desirable. The question is : Will it be wiser to take it as it is 
 and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it ? . . . Can Louisiana be 
 brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, 
 or by discarding her new state government ? " 
 
 Mr. Lincoln was not in harmony with the radical leaders in regard to 
 reconstruction ; and, contrary to their views, or rather schemes, he held that 
 the ratification by three-fourths of all the states, including those then lately 
 in rebellion, was necessary to make valid a constitutional amendment. On 
 this subject, he said, in the same speech : " Again, if we reject Louisiana, 
 we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national 
 Constitution. To meet this proposition it has been argued that no more 
 than three-fourths of those states which have not attempted secession are 
 necessary to ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, 
 further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure 
 to be persistently questioned ; whilst a ratification by three-fourths of all the 
 states would be unquestioned and unquestionable." 
 
 On the night of the I4th of April, three days after the delivery of this, his 
 last public speech, its great and good author received the fatal shot from that 
 infamous assassin which instantly deprived him of consciousness and ter 
 minated his life on the following morning. His death was a sad event to 
 the people. It was the saddest event in our history and especially sad in 
 
RECONSTRUCT/ON GOVERNORS. 
 
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S POSITION IN HISTORY. 345 
 
 its consequences to the Southern people. President Lincoln was not without 
 faults, but his goodness and virtues far overshadowed them. None more 
 than he ever better illustrated the maxim that the good alone are great. 
 
 It was almost a peculiarity of Mr. Lincoln, among the great men of his 
 tory, that all his public and private utterances bear the impress of an honest, 
 conscientious regard for whatever he believed to be right and wise. Though 
 "popular beyond all others of his time," he never sought station or ad 
 vancement by the sacrifice of the public welfare on the shrine of party or 
 personal ambition. He was singularly free from sectional and partisan pas 
 sion and animosity. It was a privilege of the writer to see him often while 
 he was in the possession of his great office, and to hear him converse upon 
 public affairs. At no time did Mr. Lincoln utter a harsh or unkind word in 
 regard to political opponents, or toward the insurgent South. When no 
 great public concern engaged his attention, and perhaps as a temporary relief 
 from the cares of state, his conversation was often light and humorous ; but 
 Mr. Lincoln could discard frivolity when confronted by a serious demand on 
 his powers. He could always rise up to the occasion. He possessed a clear 
 and vigorous understanding, and a sincere love of truth. His reasoning 
 powers were remarkable. He could, upon occasion, rise to the most sublime 
 flights of eloquence. His little introductory speech at the Gettysburg ceme 
 tery dedication will outlive the elaborate and eloquent oration delivered by 
 Mr. Everett on the same day. There were men in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet 
 eminent for learning and talents ; trained statesmen distinguished for the 
 moral courage with which they had encountered the fierce and unbending 
 antagonism of the Southern slave-holding leaders ; but in virtue of his native 
 resolution, single-hearted love of truth and right, his clear and strong under 
 standing, cultivated and sharpened by the study and practice of law, Abraham 
 Lincoln was more than the peer of the best of them. In these qualities, in 
 broad humanity and in devotion to country, Abraham Lincoln stands the 
 peer of the purest and greatest men of whom history leaves a record. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POLICY OF RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 WHEREIN IT DIFFERED FROM MR. LINCOLN'S THE END OF THE BLOCKADE 
 ALL THE PORTS OPEN REVENUE AND POSTAL LAWS IN FORCE THE 
 CIVIL PROVISIONAL GOVERNORS THE MILITARY AID THEM THE MILI 
 TARY NOT TO OBSTRUCT THE VOTERS LOYALTY AND WHITE SUFFRAGE 
 THE RULE INTENSE RADICAL DISSATISFACTION - SENATOR HOWE'S PE 
 CULIAR VIEWS OF STATE RIGHTS A STATE AS A MANUFACTURED PRO 
 DUCT! "IF THE STATES ARE ADMITTED " THE RADICAL ARGUMENT AB 
 INC ONVENIENTI REMARKS OF THE AUTHOR - THE COMPATIBILITY OF 
 STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHTS INDESTRUCTIBLE STATES AND UNION. 
 
 THE reconstruction policy of President Lincoln, as has been shown 
 in the preceding chapter, was to offer amnesty to all participants 
 in the rebellion, excepting only certain classes of persons who had 
 been prominent as leaders. Those to whom the amnesty was ex 
 tended would be required to renew their allegiance to the United States 
 under the solemnity of an oath which required a pledge to support the 
 acts of Congress and the President's proclamation in regard to slavery. 
 The classes excluded from amnesty, until a special pardon should be granted, 
 were : All civil and diplomatic officers or agents of the Confederate States ; 
 all who had left judicial stations, or seats in Congress, or the army or navy 
 of the United States, to take part in the rebellion ; all army and navy offi 
 cers in the service of the Confederacy above the rank of colonel in the 
 army or lieutenant in the navy ; and all who had been engaged in treating 
 colored soldiers, or white officers in command of them, otherwise than law 
 fully, when prisoners of war. Those included in these classes numbered but 
 a few hundred persons in each state. All others who so desired could take 
 the oath, and exercise their political franchise. 
 
 President Johnson's policy was not so liberal as that of his predecessor. 
 In his Amnesty proclamation, issued on May 29, 1865, he excepted from its 
 benefits all the classes mentioned in his predecessor's proclamation, and also 
 the following classes : All officers who had resigned or tendered resigna 
 tions of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade 
 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S AMNESTY PROCLAMATION. 347 
 
 duty in resisting rebellion. All persons who had been, or were then, ab 
 sentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion. All 
 military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the 
 government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States 
 Naval Academy. All persons who had held the pretended offices of gov 
 ernors of states in insurrection against the United States. All persons who 
 had left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United 
 States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Con 
 federate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion. All persons who 
 had been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States 
 upon the high seas. All persons who had made raids into the United 
 States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the 
 United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British provinces 
 from the United States. All persons who at the time might seek to obtain 
 the benefits of the amnesty by taking the oath presented in the proclama 
 tion, and were in military, naval, or civil confinement or custody, or under 
 bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United 
 States, as prisoners of war, or who were detained for offenses of any kind, 
 either before or after conviction. All persons who had voluntarily partici~ 
 pated in the rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property 
 was over twenty thousand dollars. And all persons who had taken the 
 oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's proclamation of Dec. 8, 
 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since 
 the date of that proclamation, and who did not keep and maintain the same 
 inviolate. 
 
 It was provided in President Johnson's proclamation, that special appli 
 cation might be made to the Executive for pardon by any person belonging 
 to the excepted classes ; and it was stated therein that such clemency would 
 be liberally extended as might be consistent with the facts of the case, and 
 with the peace and dignity of the United States. All persons who had di 
 rectly or indirectly participated in the rebellion, save those in the excepted 
 classes, were by this proclamation granted amnesty and pardon, with res 
 toration of all rights of property, except in slaves, or in cases where legal 
 proceedings had been instituted under the confiscation acts of Congress. 
 This amnesty and pardon was granted on the condition that the persons to 
 whom it was offered should take an oath to support, protect, and defend the 
 Constitution of the United States ; and to abide by, and faithfully support 
 all laws and proclamations which had been made during the rebellion, with 
 reference to the emancipation of slaves. Pursuant to this proclamation, 
 rules were made by the Secretary of State for administering and recording 
 the amnesty oath prescribed. 
 
 On the day President Johnson issued this Amnesty proclamation, May 
 29, 1865, he also declared his policy of reconstruction in another procla- 
 
348 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 mation, in which he announced the appointment of William W. Holden as 
 provisional governor of North Carolina. In the latter document he stated 
 the constitutional grounds on which he acted, as follows : " The fourth sec 
 tion of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares 
 that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republi 
 can form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion 
 and domestic violence ; and whereas, the President of the United States is 
 by the Constitution made commander-in-chief of the army and navy, as well 
 as chief civil executive officer of the United States, and is bound by solemn 
 oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and 
 to take care that the laws be faithfully executed ; and whereas, the rebellion 
 which has been waged by a portion of the people of the United States 
 against the properly constituted authorities of the government thereof in the 
 most violent and revolting form, but whose organized and armed forces have 
 now been almost entirely overcome, has in its revolutionary progress de 
 prived the people of North Carolina of civil government ; and whereas, it 
 becomes necessary and proper to carry out and enforce the obligations of 
 the United States to the people of North Carolina, in securing them in the 
 enjoyment of a republican form of government : Now, therefore, ... I, 
 Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, and Commander-in-chief 
 of the army and navy of the United States, do hereby appoint William W. 
 Holden provisional governor of the State of North Carolina." 
 
 Mr. Holden was to prescribe, at the earliest period practicable, the neces 
 sary rules and regulations for calling a convention. The delegates were to 
 be chosen by that portion of the people of the state who were loyal to the 
 United States. The convention was to meet for the purpose of altering or 
 amending the state constitution. The provisional governor was author 
 ized to exercise all the powers necessary and proper to enable the loyal peo 
 ple to restore the state to its constitutional relations with the government. 
 A proviso in the proclamation declared all persons of the fourteen ex- 
 cepted classes to be ineligible to vote for delegates, or to be delegates ; and 
 another required voters to take the pi escribed oath of allegiance. With 
 these limitations, the convention had the power to define the qualifications 
 of electors and office-holders under the state government. The military 
 commander of the department, and all officers and persons in the military 
 and naval service were directed to aid the governor, and not to hinder or 
 discourage the people in their efforts to organize the state government. 
 And the heads of departments were severally directed to appoint all neces 
 sary Federal officers, and to put the laws of the United States in force 
 within the limits of the state. 
 
 June 1 3th, of the same year, William L. Sharkey was appointed pro 
 visional governor of Mississippi, by a proclamation conferring like powers. 
 June 1 7th, James Johnson was appointed ^provisional governor of Georgia, 
 
THE END OF THE BLOCKADE. 349 
 
 and Andrew J. Hamilton, provisional governor of Texas. June 2ist, 
 Lewis E. Parsons was appointed provisional governor of Alabama. June 
 3oth, Benjamin F. Perry was appointed provisional governor of South Caro 
 lina, and July i3th, William Marvin was appointed provisional governor of 
 Florida. Each of these temporary governors was clothed with like powers 
 to those conferred on the governor of North Carolina. The reconstructed 
 loyal government of Virginia, with Francis H. Pierpont as governor, was 
 recognized by Mr. Johnson. In Tennessee a similar reconstruction had 
 taken place. William G. Brownlow had been elected governor of that state 
 on March 4, 1865. The loyal white people of Arkansas had organized a 
 new state government, which President Johnson recognized in a telegram to 
 Governor Murphy, dated Oct. 30, 1865. The reconstructed state govern 
 ment of Louisiana, with J. M. Wells as governor, was in like manner recog 
 nized by President Johnson. In the state governments which were organ 
 ized under President Johnson's proclamation like the four last mentioned, 
 which were organized under Mr. Lincoln's proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863 
 the suffrage was confined to the loyal white men ; the test of loyalty being 
 the oath of allegiance to "the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 On May 22, 1865, President Johnson issued a proclamation declaring all 
 ports which had previously been subjected to blockade except the ports of 
 Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago, and Brownsville, in the State of 
 Texas open to foreign commerce, from and after the first day of July follow 
 ing. On the 23d of June, 1865, another proclamation opened the excepted 
 ports to foreign commerce. By the proclamation of May 22, all restrictions 
 of trade in the states east of the Mississippi River were removed, except in 
 regard to articles contraband of war, property purchased in the territory of 
 an enemy, and the levy of twenty-five per cent, on purchases of cotton. This 
 proclamation directed, further, that all provisions of the revenue laws 
 were to be carried out in these states by the proper officers. These pro 
 clamations were followed by others providing for the operation of the cus 
 toms laws, internal revenue laws, and postal laws, and for the opening of the 
 United States courts throughout all the Southern States. 
 
 These independent measures of the Executive for reconstruction were far 
 from giving satisfaction to the Republican party. Within a few days after 
 the meeting of Congress, in December, 1865, Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, 
 asked leave to introduce a joint resolution which provided that a committee of 
 fifteen members should be appointed nine of whom were to be members of 
 the House and six to be members of the Senate for the purpose of inquiring 
 into the condition of the states which had formed the so-called Confederate 
 States of America. This committee was to report whether these states or 
 any of them were entitled to be represented in either house of Congress. 
 Leave was given to report at any time, by bill or otherwise, and until such 
 report should be made and finally acted upon by Congress, no member was 
 
350 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 to be received into either house from any of those states. All papers re 
 lating to this representation in Congress were to be referred to this com 
 mittee without debate. This resolution was adopted in the House by a vote 
 of yeas 133, nays 36. 
 
 A caucus of Republican Senators was held with reference to this joint 
 resolution, in which certain amendments were agreed to. The resolution 
 was taken up in the Senate on December 12, and on motion of Mr. An 
 thony, the enacting clause was amended so as to make it a concurrent, in 
 stead of a joint resolution. The Senator also moved to strike out the fol 
 lowing clauses : " 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 said so-called Confederate States ; and all papers relating to the 
 representation of the said states shall be referred to the said committee with 
 out debate." The resolution as amended was then adopted. On the fol 
 lowing day, on motion of Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, the House con 
 curred in the amendments of the Senate, and adopted the resolution. The 
 two houses then severally agreed to refer all papers relating to representa 
 tion of the seceded states to the concurrent committee. 
 
 Senator Howe introduced a joint resolution on Jan. 10, 1866, in regard 
 to the temporary government of the states lately in rebellion. The pream 
 ble recited the facts of the secession of the states, and their war upon the 
 government of the United States, " whereby," according to its words, " the 
 political functions formerly granted to those people have been suspended." 
 The resolution went on to say that, " whereas, such functions cannot yet be 
 restored to those people with safety to themselves or to the nation ; and 
 whereas, military tribunals are not suited to the exercise of civil authority ; 
 therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in 
 Congress assembled, that local governments ought to be provisionally organ 
 ized for the people in each of the districts named in the preamble hereto." 
 In his elaborate speech upon this resolution, Senator Howe quoted the 
 sixth article of the Constitution, second clause, which declares that, "This 
 Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pur 
 suance thereto, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the 
 authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and 
 the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitu 
 tion or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." He insisted that 
 the framers of the Constitution meant literally what that article declares, 
 and not that the constitution and laws of the states are the supreme law of 
 the land. " The war," said he, " was designed to demonstrate that the will 
 ot each state was supreme, and that the United States must defer to it." 
 Before the Constitution was adopted, such was the case precisely. The 
 several states were sovereign, and for that very reason the union formed be 
 tween them was worthless. The Congress of the old Confederation might 
 
SENATOR HOWE'S VIEWS OF STATE RIGHTS. 351 
 
 enact laws, but, as their laws were addressed to the states and the states were 
 sovereign, the states would obey or not as they pleased. Showing from this 
 defect the reasons for the Union, Mr. Howe set forth his views of national 
 sovereignty as follows : " The national plan was adopted. Thirteen weak 
 and thriftless sovereignties were welded into one great and prosperous re 
 public. It was not the purpose of the convention to destroy the states, but 
 to change their character, to strip them of sovereignty and leave them no 
 manner of authority to impede the execution of the national will. There 
 can," said he, "be but little danger that the several states will be despoiled 
 of their rights by a government constituted like that of the United States." 
 
 Continuing his argument on which he based the radical doctrine of re 
 construction, Mr. Howe said : " To my mind the states have another security 
 against the encroachments of the national government, even more reliable than 
 this. It is in the fact that the people who compose the several states make the 
 government of the United States. It is not much to be apprehended that the 
 creature will devour the creator. But the states rights party resembles a con 
 gregation of dervishes dancing before an idol their own hands have created, 
 and frantically imploring it not to destroy them. It is not the business of the 
 national government to sway states. That was the business of the old Con 
 federation. It is the business of this government to control people, and I 
 estimate its strength, as I estimate the strength of all other powers, by the 
 extent of its territory, by the number, the wealth, the intelligence, and the 
 loyalty of its people. . . . Has any one yet attempted to explain what 
 principle that is which renders a state indestructible ? Does any one com 
 prehend it ? For myself I do not. A state is a manufacture as much as a 
 wagon is. It is not, indeed, made in the same way nor at the same shops ; 
 but it is, nevertheless, made, and made by mortals. My friend from Nevada 
 has just helped to make one. A state can be made only by those who are 
 permitted by the nation to make one, by those who are willing to make it. 
 ' But once made,' we are told, 4 a state can never die.' ' Once a state 
 always a state,' they shout. And when, a few years since, it was hinted that 
 the rebellious states had committed suicide, politicians laughed the sugges 
 tion to scorn. Galileo, when condemned to renounce the heresy of the 
 earth's motion, is said to have made his abjuration with all the formality 
 commonly attending such proceedings. Clad in sackcloth and kneeling, he 
 swore upon the Gospels never again to teach the earth's motion, or the sun's 
 stability. Then, rising from the ground, he exclaimed, l It does move, after 
 all.' And so I, rising as well as I can under this load of derision, cannot 
 refrain from assuring the Senate that the states can commit suicide and can 
 die. History is but little more than a grave-yard in which one reads the 
 epitaphs upon buried states. 
 
 44 It is poetical license, and not political science, which talks of the immor 
 tality of states. Have the people of Nevada made an organization which 
 
352 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 they cannot unmake? If they refuse hereafter to choose governors, and 
 legislators, and judges, and municipal officers, will the state survive the 
 mere neglect? On the contrary, would it not be the imperative duty of 
 Congress, in such an event, to resume the prerogative you have just granted 
 to that people, and provide a government to save the people from anarchy ? 
 Do Senators comprehend what consequences result necessarily from restor 
 ing the functions of those states? It will add fifty-eight members to the 
 House of Representatives, more than one-fourth of its present number. It 
 will add twenty-two members to the Senate, nearly one-half its present num 
 ber. The Constitution designed the Legislature to be independent of the 
 Executive. But what independence has that Legislature into which the 
 Executive may at his pleasure pour so many votes ? " 
 
 Truly this is radical, especially the closing argument, ab inconvenient t. 
 What would be said to-day, if such an address were to be made in the Senate 
 on this view of the Constitution ? Surely it was nothing short of the in 
 sanity of extreme partisanship. Would any one to-day say that the con 
 gressional will is the only limitation upon national authority ? Is there no 
 constitutional restraint upon that authority? The Democratic doctrine is, 
 and ever has been, that the states and the Union are each sovereign in their 
 respective spheres ; neither possessing unlimited sovereignty ; both having 
 their limited sovereignty defined by the Constitution, so far as the Federal 
 Government is concerned. Aside from this limitation on state sovereignty, 
 there is none, except in so far as it may, in the respective states, be defined 
 in their organic laws. The people of each state, subject to the powers they 
 granted in the Federal Constitution, enlarge or restrain the powers of their 
 state government to any extent they may deem desirable for their own wel 
 fare. There can be no mortality of a state while the Union exists while 
 there is a vital nationality under the Constitution. Nothing short of success 
 ful revolution can destroy the autonomy of the states of the Union. The 
 Union itself must first be destroyed. That never has been destroyed. It was 
 the constant assertion of President Lincoln and Secretary Seward, the two 
 greatest men in the Republican party, throughout the whole period of the 
 Civil War, that the Union remained undissevered. Secretary Seward never 
 departed from the doctrine of the indestructibility of the states. " We are not 
 only a nation, but we are states also," said he in his first letter of instruction 
 to Mr. Adams, on the appointment of the latter as our minister to England. 
 This was on the loth of April, 1861. Mr. Seward set forth the President's 
 views in that letter, so that Mr. Adams would clearly understand the policy 
 which the Administration proposed to pursue. All our ministers abroad were 
 to conform their action to that policy. In the first place, there was to be 
 no coercion of any state. "The President," said Mr. Seward, " would not be 
 disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs [the secession leaders], namely, 
 that the Federal Government could not reduce the seceding states to 
 
INDESTRUCTIBLE STATES AND UNION. 353 
 
 obedience by conquest, even, although he were disposed to question that 
 proposition. But, in fact, the President willingly accepts it as true." The 
 doctrine of Lincoln and Seward was not subjugation nor conquest, but the 
 assertion and restoration of the Federal authority in every seceding state. 
 
 There might be a national agreement without states ; but there could be 
 no Union without states to unite. All the states must have existence. It was 
 the secessionist only, who asserted that " the Union is a purely voluntary 
 connection, founded on the revocable assent of the several states." Mr. 
 Seward and Mr. Lincoln said to Mr. Adams, in regard to the seceding 
 states: " You will . . . all the while remember that these states are now, 
 as they always heretofore have been, and notwithstanding their temporary 
 self-delusion they must always continue to be, equal and honored members 
 of this Federal Union ; and that their citizens, throughout all political 
 misunderstandings and alienations, still are, and always must be, our kindred 
 and countrymen." There can be no such thing as disloyalty to the Union 
 and at the same time loyalty to a state. The converse is also true. "All 
 public officers, as well as all citizens," said Mr. Seward, u owe not only 
 allegiance to the Union, but allegiance also to the states in which they re 
 side." There can be no conflict between the state and Federal allegiance of 
 the citizen. The two allegiances constitute but one whole fealty and faith. 
 This is the Democratic doctrine also. That party never faltered in the asser 
 tion or in the acceptance of all its logical conclusions. But how long did 
 the Republican party adhere to it? Mr. Lincoln, in the last days of his 
 life-time, and Mr. Seward after him, were sadly in the minority in their 
 states rights views. 
 
 The states must ever exist. Not one could suicide or die, without 
 bringing mortality upon all. Such mortality can come solely, either by 
 overpowering force, or a voluntary abandonment by all the states of the exist 
 ing Federal compact. " No new state shall be formed or erected within the 
 jurisdiction of any other state," so say the people of the United States in 
 their Constitution. How can this decree be repealed? Only by revolution. 
 True, it is possible to suppose a voluntary abandonment by the people of 
 their present form of government. But would not that be revolution ? This 
 possibility is foreign to any argument that admits the excellence of our pres 
 ent form of government. Mr. Howe was arguing from the Constitution, 
 hence his ridicule of states rights could only reflect upon his own argu 
 ment. Speaking from the Constitution, the question may be asked : Must 
 Massachusetts always be a state of the Union ? She must. No new state 
 can be formed or erected within her jurisdiction. She must always be and 
 be known as "Massachusetts." We will never be without that common 
 wealth. She is one of the old states. It is " new states" that can come 
 into the Union, not old states, for they cannot get out of the Union. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF STATE VITALITY. 
 
 A TEST OF POSITIONS IN DEBATE SENATOR JOHNSON TRIUMPHANTLY AN 
 SWERS SENATOR HOWE THE SENATOR IN THE ARENA WITH THE LOGICAL 
 RAPIER THE SOCRATIC METHOD OF JOHNSON HOWE'S COOL PARRIES 
 AND JOHNSON'S KEENER THRUSTS THE SCENE IN THE SENATE COM 
 PARED WITH THE WARREN HASTINGS TRIAL THE IMMORTALITY OF 
 THE STATES SECESSION ORDINANCES VOID NOT WAR, BUT INSURREC 
 TION THE FEELING SOUTH WAS PROBATION NECESSARY ? NORTHERN 
 APPREHENSIONS WAR RESULTS SAFE NEGRO ENFRANCHISEMENT THE 
 BALLOT INEVITABLE PARTISANSHIP PILLORIED THE CONSTITUTION AS 
 THE PALLADIUM OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH. 
 
 THE author has, in the preceding chapters, set forth the views, re 
 spectively, of the two great political parties in regard to the policy 
 of the war for the Union. In the Second Decade of this volume, 
 the issues growing out of that war in regard to the relations of the 
 victorious to the vanquished states, constitute the great theme for debate and 
 congressional settlement. For the purpose of enabling the reader to get a 
 clear understanding of the positions taken by the same parties in regard to 
 those issues, the author has selected one debate in the Senate between dis 
 tinguished representatives of the two parties. A few extracts from it, and 
 a few comments on the arguments, will be sufficient for that purpose. 
 The leading contestants in this debate, after which there were so many 
 similitudes, were two Senators of very different types. The Senator from 
 Wisconsin, Timothy O. Howe, was a man of the New England style. He 
 was born in Livermore, Maine, and was an admirable judge less advo 
 cate than judge. He was slow in speech and almost melancholy in manner. 
 He seemed to be fatigued at the end of every sentence. He was of the 
 same class of the genus homo as William H. Seward and Simon Cameron. 
 He was tall and thin, pallid as death, and immobile in his restful and unim- 
 passioned habitudes. How unlike the sturdy and fervid Marylander, Rev- 
 erdy Johnson, who so triumphantly replied to his dialectics. The willowy, 
 dilatory mode of the one was in contrast with the sturdy robustness of the 
 
THE SECEDING STATES ON TRIAL. 355 
 
 other. The voice of Senator Howe was not resonant. He spoke as if he were 
 exhausted. Reverdy Johnson's elocution, albeit trained in the solemn hush 
 and reclusiveness of the Supreme Court, was loud, orotund, and defiant. 
 What a venerable English form the latter had ; what a peculiar eye, which in 
 after years became sightless ; what an expressive mouth and form. His por 
 trait in the Attorney-General's office is quite unlike the original, except 
 in a certain artistic repose. The writer remembers these Senators with a 
 social pleasure, derived from a knowledge of their remarkable and genial 
 qualities. Other men have been more praised than Timothy O. Howe, 
 the Postmaster-General under President Hayes ; but other men never 
 deserved more encomium than he from his side in this great argument. But 
 when the Maryland Senator brought his interrogative skill into the arena, 
 his rapier pierced the heart of the contention at every thrust. The parry 
 ing of the Wisconsin Senator was adroit, but the cunning of fence and the 
 courage of conviction of the Marylander were resistless. 
 
 To complete the surroundings of such a momentous contest, one would 
 wish for the picturesque pencil of Macaulay. There is no equal for graphic 
 style of that scene in the High Court of Parliament, when the peers sat in the 
 great hall of William Rufus "to try an Englishman for tyranny over the 
 holy city of Benares, and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude ! " 
 True, no such garniture of traditions had gathered about the new Senate 
 Chamber. There was no military or civic pomp ; no avenues lined with 
 grenadiers ; no peers robed in velvet and ermine ; no judges in the vest 
 ments of state, or earl-marshals and princely personages, resplendent with 
 golden cordons and knightly orders. Our freshly-decorated Senate Chamber 
 was not hung with scarlet. Its colored lights from the ceiling shed a 
 garish, not a dim religious radiance upon the prevailing drab of the walls. 
 From the galleries, in eager interest, leaned forward forms of female grace, 
 companies of soldiers in undress uniforms, and citizens who served in the 
 departments. Here and there, mingling in the crowded audience, were seen 
 colored men, their heads crisp with Numidian curl, *' but dazed with the 
 recondite issue and scene ! " Fox and Sheridan, the British Demosthenes 
 and Hyperides ; Burke and Windham ; and supreme above all, Hastings 
 himself, give human interest to the picture which glows in Macaulay's page. 
 But here in our Senate House, the fate, the condition, the contumacy, and 
 the so-called crime of many republics is in grand inquest. The writer clearly 
 recalls the scene of that eleventh of January, one and twenty years ago. 
 Members of the House of Representatives, since eminent at home and 
 abroad, flock to the Senate to hear Senator Johnson reply to the superb 
 speech made the day before by the Wisconsin Senator ; and of which the 
 essence of its argument has been given in the preceding chapter. The 
 prayer is offered ; the journal is read ; petitions, reports, bills, and a dull 
 debate about assessors are listened to impatiently. Some words from Senator 
 
356 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Anthony are heard, and remarks from Sumner, Fessenden, Trumbull, Doo- 
 little, Grimes, and others about the Paris Exposition ; and then a vote is had 
 on the latter. Now, a sharp rap is heard from the president pro tempore, 
 Lafayette Foster. He calls up the great problem of the provisional govern 
 ments and of the vitality of the states. The reporters sharpen their pencils, 
 and the Senators settle themselves in their chairs. They are all intent to 
 catch each syllable. Upon the left of the chair sit the few Democrats remain 
 ing in this august body. Observe the keen, intellectual, close-shaven face of 
 Buckalew, of Pennsylvania ; the suave expression which marks the handsome 
 countenance of Hendricks, of Indiana ; the unmistakable pioneer and reck 
 less air of Nesmith, of Oregon ; the small but defiant figure of Garrett 
 Davis, of Kentucky ; the debonair Stockton, of New Jersey ; and the solid 
 solemnity of Guthrie, of Kentucky. These are about all of the regulars of 
 the old party present. They constitute about one-tenth of the seated Sena 
 tors. But what new Senators are these, now anxiously waiting to hear the 
 accents of the grand Marylander? Doolittle, Gratz Brown, Dixon, Cowan, 
 and Trumbull, all rare and accomplished in debate, soon to become giants of 
 those fierce and fervent days of discussion. They are ready to accept the 
 new situation, as champions of Andrew Johnson's administration, for the 
 unimpaired energy of statehood. 
 
 What an array upon the other side ! Chandler, Lot Morrill, Poland, 
 Nye, Pomeroy, Sprague, Williams, Yates, Ramsay, Henderson, Wilson, 
 Fessenden, and Sumner, like Jove u above them all, by his great looks, and 
 power imperial." Others there are, who are inconsiderable as dust, in the 
 balances of debate. The Lanes of Indiana and Kansas, genii of that day 
 of weird Western politics, McDougall, of California, and Saulsbury, of 
 Delaware, twin relics of that hour of excitement, these are absent. Rough 
 Ben Wade and courtly John Sherman soon come in, and Ohio, through 
 them, gives heed to the utterances of the logical and leading member of the 
 reconstruction committee. 
 
 There are many debates on these reconstruction questions. Many might 
 be chosen to bring out the salient points, but they would not answer the 
 author's purpose as well as this one. They cover thousands of pages of 
 the legislative records. They evince patriotism and partisanship, loyalty 
 and learning, enthusiasm and eloquence. Indeed, never were contests be 
 tween embattled armies more thrilling than these debates in the legislative 
 arena. Throughout, whether in the House or the Senate, two lines of argu 
 ment, determined by opposite views of constitutional construction, are faith 
 fully pursued, one line by the orators of one party, the other by the orators 
 of the other party. The Democrats are always upholding the Constitution 
 as a grant of limited powers, with indestructible, reserved rights remain 
 ing in the states and people of the Union. The Republicans are holding, 
 in effect, the same doctrine for a time of peace ; but another one for 
 
PARTY POSITIONS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 357 
 
 a time of insurrection. In the latter condition, the Republicans would sus 
 pend the constitutional provisions, and make them inoperative at the will of 
 the National Legislature. Both parties are undoubtedly acting with unfalter 
 ing loyalty to the Union ; and neither is, at any time, entirely free from the 
 dangerous spirit of partisanship. Naturally this spirit most exhibits itself in 
 the dominant party, when the war has ceased with the defeat of secession. 
 Power is never willingly surrendered. 
 
 The debate between Senators Howe and Johnson was conducted entirely 
 as upon a constitutional question. Mr. Johnson's reply was a masterly 
 elucidation. It set forth the Democratic doctrine respecting the constitu 
 tional status of the states that had attempted to secede from the Union. He 
 commenced by defining the Republican position, as follows : 
 
 44 1 understand the honorable member from Wisconsin to say that the effect 
 of the hostilities which we have been carrying on to suppress the insurrec 
 tion in certain of the states where it has prevailed for some four years, is to 
 extinguish altogether the states as such, and to reduce the territory of which 
 those states were composed at the time when the insurrection broke out to 
 the condition of territories, and to subject the people of those states to be 
 governed under that clause of the Constitution which gives to Congress the 
 power to govern the territories, or upon the ground that they may have been 
 conquered by the United States, and that the power to govern is to be im 
 plied from the right of conquest when the conquest is completed." 
 
 To this Mr. Howe replied : " If the honorable Senator is simply stating 
 what he understands to be the effect of my argument, I cannot object to it ; 
 but if he understood me to say that the purpose for which we prosecuted this 
 war was to extinguish those states, he misunderstood me." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON : " I have not so stated. I did not understand the honor 
 able member as saying that the purpose for which the war was prosecuted, 
 but that the result of the prosecution of the war, was to reduce those states to 
 the condition of territories. It is to that proposition " 
 
 Mr. HOWE: " If the honorable Senator will pardon me for one mo 
 ment, my position was not that the result of the prosecution of the war was 
 to reduce the states to territories, but that they assumed the' legal character of 
 territories by reason of their own acts, independent of the war. They de 
 stroyed the state organizations, not we." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON : " I so understood you." 
 
 Mr. HOWE : " And the effect of the war was simply to reduce them to 
 obedience to the United States, to be governed by such instrumentalities as 
 the Constitution has provided." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON : " I am sure I have not misapprehended the Senator. It 
 would have been very difficult for any one to misapprehend him, for he was 
 exceedingly lucid in everything he said. It may be possible that I may fail 
 to explain what I understand to have been his propositions, and if I should 
 
358 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 do so in any part of the remarks I am about to make, I hope the honorable 
 Senator will set me right." 
 
 Here Mr. Johnson entered into the discussion of the question as to the 
 effect of the war itself. First. Did it reduce the states to the condition of 
 territories? Second. If this was not its effect, was that effect produced by 
 any conduct upon the part of the citizens residing within the limits of those 
 states? As shown above, Mr. Howe had put himself on the affirmative 
 side of the latter question. "No member of the Senate," said Mr. John 
 son, "is now to learn that there is no power in the Constitution of the United 
 States given to Congress, or any other department of the government, to 
 declare or carry on a war against any state. The power to declare war, 
 devolved upon Congress by the eighth section of the first article, is a power 
 evidently looking to a war between the United States and a foreign nation." 
 He held that the power to protect the United States, or a state, by military 
 force against insurrection was a different power from that given to Congress 
 for protection against foreign invasion. " If," said he, "there could be any 
 doubt, looking to the character of the government, that such is the limita 
 tion of the war power, that doubt would be removed by the fact that there 
 is in another part of the same section a provision which looks to the carry 
 ing on of such a contest as the one in which we have just been engaged." 
 He denied that there had been any exercise of the war power of the govern 
 ment in quelling the late insurrection. The power which had been exercised 
 was granted in the same section in express terms, namely, in that which 
 provided for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the United States 
 and suppress insurrection. The latter he regarded as a police power. No 
 conquest, in the proper sense of the term, could be achieved under this police 
 power. It could extinguish no existing institution in any state, and cer 
 tainly it was not intended to destroy any state in which it might be exer 
 cised. He enforced this view by a reference to the proceedings of the con 
 stitutional convention. It had been suggested in those proceedings that Con 
 gress should have the authority to make war against a state. This propo 
 sition was repudiated as fatal to the government by two leaders of that body 
 of mighty men, Hamilton and Madison. They both denied that, as far as 
 the convention had proceeded at that time, any such authority was given to 
 Congress, and they protested against the propriety of conferring any such 
 power. It was never conferred. 
 
 The question of the national war powers had been before the Supreme 
 Court of the United States in the recent Prize cases. The opinion in these 
 had been very much relied upon as maintaining in part the doctrine for which 
 the Republican party contended. Mr. Justice Grier, in delivering the opin 
 ion of the Court in these cases, had used this language : 
 
 " By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national 
 or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a state, or any number of 
 
WERE THE SECESSION ORDINANCES VALID? 359 
 
 states, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers 
 on the President the whole executive power. He is bound to take care that 
 the laws be faithfully executed. He is commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when 
 called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to ini 
 tiate or declare war either against a foreign nation or a domestic state. But 
 by the acts of Congress of Feb. 28, 1795, and of March 3, 1807, he is 
 authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the 
 United States, in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insur 
 rection against the government of a state, or of the United States." The 
 same doctrine was held by the minority in the dissenting opinion delivered 
 by Mr. Justice Nelson, who said : " The acts of 1795 and 1807 did not, and 
 could not, under the Constitution, confer on the President the power of de 
 claring war against a state of this Union." 
 
 This language gave full support to Mr. Johnson's position. He logically 
 drew the conclusion that when the insurrection had been suppressed by the 
 exercise of the police power, there could be no justification for its further 
 exercise ; for, said he, " To carry on a war against a state in which there is no 
 insurrection is a simple absurdity." It must be plain to every reader of the 
 Constitution that Mr. Johnson's position was correct. That instrument pro 
 vides for " war" and " insurrection " as frwo distinct calamities to which the 
 people of the United States would be liable. War is " declared" between 
 independent nations under the sanction of their sovereign power. It is of 
 two sorts ; offensive, and defensive. Insurrection, on the other hand, is a 
 rebellious rising against the established civil authority of a nation or state ; 
 an active opposition to the execution of its laws by armed force. The sup 
 pression of an insurrection is for the purpose of preserving the state, not of 
 destroying it. 
 
 Having demonstrated that there was no constitutional authority for the 
 national government to carry on a war against the states, and no authority 
 to exercise the power to suppress insurrection for the purpose of destroying 
 any state, Mr. Johnson addressed himself to the second part of the ques 
 tion under discussion, namely, that in which the Republicans claimed that 
 because of the action of the people the insurrectionary states had fallen into 
 the condition of territories, and were therefore subject to be governed by 
 rules to be prescribed by Congress. Here Mr. Johnson showered the Re 
 publicans with interrogative argument. Was the sovereignty of these states 
 at an end? If so, on what ground? Was it because the people had passed 
 ordinances of secession and attempted to enforce them against the national 
 authority ? Was it because we had acquired any right of conquest in sup 
 pressing that attempt. Were these ordinances valid? Had they any legal 
 operation whatever? Did they take any of these states out of the Union? 
 Did they dissolve the connection to any extent, which existed as between 
 
360 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 those states and the Union, by force of the Constitution? If they did, must 
 it not be admitted that the ordinances were valid ? Were the states out, as the 
 Senator from Wisconsin asserted, because their people determined that they 
 should go out ? Were they out, because they declared by ordinances that 
 they were now out ? Were they now out because the people were still alleged 
 to be disloyal, although the insurrection had been, in fact, suppressed and the 
 authority of the government reinstated? If the ordinances were void, con 
 tinued Mr. Johnson, they could not take the states out. If the citizens had 
 not a right to be disloyal, their disloyalty could not put them out. If, not 
 withstanding the ordinances, the states were as much in the Union on the 
 day after they were passed as on the day before, and if, after the ordinances 
 were adopted and hostilities were being carried on, their citizens had no 
 more right to be disloyal than they had before hostilities commenced, then 
 they were just as much in the Union after the insurrection as they were 
 before it. No Senator would admit that an ordinance of secession had any 
 validity whatever. If it was valid in any state, then the North was the ag 
 gressor, and the suppression of secession was, on its part, a great crime. 
 Admit the validity of any ordinance of secession, and it follows that the 
 Unionists were traitors to the obligations of the Constitution, and not those 
 who, exercising the right of secession, had attempted to separate themselves 
 from the Union. 
 
 What answer could be made to this argumentation? None. Even in 
 this condensed form Mr. Johnson's argument must appear unanswerable to 
 the unprejudiced reader. Every Senator held that the Constitution not only 
 confers no right of separation, but it imposes an obligation upon every citi 
 zen, in every state, to maintain the Union, no matter what may be his con 
 duct or the conduct of his fellow-citizens. Every Senator held that every 
 citizen in the Southern States was at all times bound by this obligation. It 
 must follow, therefore, that the ordinances of secession were absolutely void. 
 They had no more effect to sever the connection of those states, and the peo 
 ple of those states, with the government of the Union, than if they had been 
 passed by a foreign nation. Mr. Johnson conclusively proved that while the 
 citizen who takes part in insurrection may fall under the ban of the law, no 
 acts of citizens who take part in an unsuccessful insurrection can overthow 
 the previous order of the government or erase one word from its Constitu 
 tion. With a view to show how naturally the Republicans themselves had, 
 in their war legislation, acted on the principles for which he thus contended, 
 Mr. Johnson called attention to vertain laws which had been passed with the 
 unanimous concurrence of both branches of Congress since hostility had 
 been flagrant between the sections, in which the seceded states were recog 
 nized as still remaining in the Union, subject to constitutional legislation. 
 On the 5th of August, 1861, there was passed the act entitled " An Act to 
 provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, 
 
CONGRESSIONAL DENIAL OF DISUNION. 361 
 
 and for other purposes." The eighth section imposed a direct tax of twenty 
 million dollars, and apportioned it among the several states, as provided in 
 the Constitution. To all the seceded states were apportioned their quotas in 
 like proportion with the others. In consequence of the impracticability of 
 collecting this direct tax in the insurrectionary states, a special provision was 
 made by the act of June yth, following, for the collection of the quotas of 
 those states. They were directed to be apportioned and charged in each 
 state and territory, or part thereof, wherein the civil authority was then 
 obstructed, upon all the lands and lots of ground situated therein respect 
 ively. Going back of these acts, Mr. Johnson cited the proclamation of 
 President Lincoln which declared that the citizens in certain states were in 
 rebellion, that the ports within the limits of certain states would be closed, 
 and that the laws were obstructed by persons claiming to act under the au 
 thority of those states. He quoted, also, the act of July 13, 1861, in which 
 it is said that when the insurgents claimed to act under the authority of any 
 state or states, and such claim was not disclaimed or repudiated by the per 
 sons exercising the functions of government in such state or states, it would 
 be lawful for the President, by proclamation, to declare that the inhabitants 
 of any such state are "in a state of insurrection against the United States" ; 
 and that thereupon all commercial intercourse, by and between the same and 
 the citizens of the other states of the United States, should cease and be un 
 lawful. Mr. Johnson cited the orders issued by the Supreme Court in 1862 
 and in 1865, by which the justices were assigned to the several judicial cir 
 cuits, including the fourth and fifth circuits, composed of the states which 
 claimed to have seceded. If the seceded states were territories, then the Su 
 preme Court could have no circuit in them, for states only constitute its cir 
 cuits. Here, while insurrection was flagrant in the South, was a direct re 
 cognition by every branch of the Federal Government, legislative, executive 
 and judicial, that the constitutional union of the states still remained. The 
 Republicans had been left no constitutional ground to stand upon by Mr. 
 Johnson when he concluded his reply. The argument ab inconvcnienti of 
 Senator Howe against admitting the South to its rightful constitutional repre 
 sentation in Congress was all that was left to them. Who will not now 
 regret that partisanship should have fallen so low as to have resorted to such 
 a desperate argument? What patriot will not blush that it was successful, 
 even in that ordeal of our institutions ? 
 
 The author by no means intends to ignore the real difficulty of the pecu 
 liar status of the Southern States at the time of this debate. While holding 
 that at the very moment that these states were unquestionably entitled, under 
 the Constitution of the United States, to resume their Federal relations, he 
 admits that much of the difficulty must be attributed to the Southern people 
 themselves. Human nature, with its passions and prejudices, is stronger 
 than any law, written or unwritten. We had just emerged from an inter- 
 
362 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 necine war. It had stained every hearth-stone in the land with brothers' 
 blood. That the animosities engendered by this struggle did not soon dis 
 appear, is no more than could reasonably be expected. There was a natural 
 aversion in the North to any immediate settlement of Federal relations that 
 would admit into the direction of national affairs men who had exhausted the 
 whole power of the South in that long and desperate contest. It was im 
 practicable to indict or punish, by process of law, a whole people for engag 
 ing in that struggle. Whether the United States Government was or was 
 not estopped from such a mode of punishment by having conducted the war 
 as against a belligerent power, it was impossible, under our judicial system, 
 to bring the offenders to trial in any judicial district where the juries them 
 selves were not equally amenable before the law. The Southern people 
 did not feel that they had committed any crime. They regarded their resist 
 ance to the Federal authority as a rightful act. They held it to be patriot 
 ism and self-defense. So feeling, and if allowed to exercise their constitu 
 tional right to be represented in the national Congress the moment their 
 armed resistance had ceased, how would their Senators and Representatives 
 have acted ? Would their course have tended to reconcile the lately warring 
 sections ? Would it have had the effect of defeating the results of the war ? 
 These questions suggest the gravity of the situation at that time. That 
 gravity consisted more in the fact that the people of the South, almost in 
 mass, still believed that their cause was just. It is now, and was then, the 
 belief of the writer that our government was pledged, in its conduct of the 
 war, to that course which would, on the moment the hostilities terminated, 
 take immediate steps for the complete extension of the Federal relations to 
 all parts of the Union, under conditions of generous and not grudging am 
 nesty. It was these relations that were destroyed, and not the existence of 
 sovereign states. It was these relations which were involved in the insurrec 
 tion. The Crittenden resolutions, adopted in the House of Representatives 
 on July 22, 1861, with but two dissenting votes, and afterwards in the Sen 
 ate by a vote of thirty to five, pledged the national faith to this course in 
 these words : " That this war is not prosecuted 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 and established institutions of 
 those states, 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 ; that as 
 soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." 
 
 Mr. Howe had voted for this resolution. Did it admit the doctrine of 
 valid secession or state felo-de-se? The object " to defend and maintain the 
 supremacy of the Constitution and all laws in pursuance thereof, and to pre 
 serve the Union," could not be effected while the dominant political party of 
 
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S THEORY OF THE WAR. 363 
 
 the country was refusing to recognize as unimpaired the dignity, equality, 
 and rights of the late insurrectionary states. 
 
 The Democratic party was loyal to this resolution throughout the war. 
 The hand-writing of Mr. Crittenden in that historic document is as familiar 
 to the eye of the writer as if it were the face of an old friend. He was 
 elected upon its principles in 1862, in the midst of the war and by a Repub 
 lican district. Its principles were understood to be Mr. Lincoln's cautious 
 shibboleth. It was because of its essential loyalty to the Union and Consti 
 tution that the Democratic party was anxious at all times during the war to 
 propose or accept terms of compromise looking to the restoration of the 
 Union. But it never did nor would consent to a disruption of the Union. 
 The Democratic party did not support the war for the purpose of destroying 
 slavery, nor with a view to obtain and retain control of the government. It 
 would at any time have embraced the " Union as it was," and let slavery 
 disappear, as it must necessarily have done, in the peaceful mode by which 
 the advance of liberal ideas would have brought about emancipation. 
 
 Many good men, in and out of Congress, feared to trust the South with its 
 rightful constitutional power when the Civil War terminated. It was feared 
 that its power would be exercised to defeat, as far as possible, the results of 
 the war. It might bring ruin to our financial system. It might lead to the 
 repudiation of the national debts and the just claims of those who had given 
 up their blood and treasure for the maintenance of the Union. This appre 
 hension gave great strength to the Republican party during the protracted 
 period of reconstruction. It was easy for the selfishness of partisan 
 ship to exaggerate the dangers that would ensue if a period of probation, or 
 purgation, was not passed through by those who had " sought to destroy the 
 Union." But there were men of undoubted loyalty who had no fear of any 
 evil results from the immediate restoration of Federal relations. Suppose 
 the South had been at once admitted to representation in Congress ? Would 
 that section have been able to destroy any legitimate object for -which the 
 national government had contended in the struggle ? Certainly not. In such 
 case, if the South had not accepted amnesty as freely and in as good faith 
 as it was offered by the President of the United States, she would soon have 
 found herself in a minority so small as to leave her nothing else to do than 
 to honestly accept the results of the war. There would, if the South re 
 mained sullen, soon be, as practically there was during the early part of 
 the war, but one party in the North. 
 
 Extreme partisanship always defeats itself. It ruled during the period of 
 reconstruction following the close of armed hostilities. Had not the domi 
 nant party an overweening, and many of them a malicious desire to perpetu 
 ate their power, no such chaos would have come to mark that period. It is 
 this partisanship that deserves to be pilloried by patriotic rebuke. It is not the 
 sincere fears that gave it strength. There was indeed some apparent reason 
 
364 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 for these fears in the course pursued in the South against the colored people. 
 The emancipation of the slaves was one of the legitimate results of the war. 
 What was the legitimate result of emancipation? Had not that great 
 Southerner, John C. Calhoun, always said that with emancipation must 
 come equality before the law civil and even political rights? Was not 
 the latter result hastened by the unwisdom of extremes ? It was extremes 
 on both sides that hastened the grant of the franchise to a class who were 
 unprepared to exercise it. But it was only hastened, for eventually the 
 South herself would concede the franchise when it would be more intelli 
 gently exercised. 
 
 One of the main difficulties of intelligent discussion in respect to the 
 constitutional questions involved in secession and reconstruction, is the misuse 
 of terms. Secession was not u war" ; it was " insurrection." The effort for 
 its suppression had to be made in the mode of civilized warfare, because of 
 the force and extent of the resistance to be overcome ; and because foreign 
 governments recognized the South as a belligerent power. But these facts 
 could not affect the true relation of the national government to the question, 
 which was simply one of insurrection and the constitutional requirement 
 for its suppression. 
 
 Before closing this chapter, the writer takes a patriotic pride in being able 
 to say that throughout the whole period of civil war and reconstruction, in 
 every debate in the National Legislature, in every act of the Executive, and 
 in every decision of the Judicial branch of the government, there was ever an 
 earnest protestation of submission to the Constitution of the United States. 
 The worst excesses of partisanship did not dare to openly evade its mandates. 
 Even the South, which had tried to dissever its Federal relations, again 
 appealed, as it had the right to do, to the protection of that palladium of their 
 government THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 DIALECTICS AND SOPHISTRIES OF THE RADICALS THADDEUS STEVENS ASA 
 LEADER A MAN OF IRON HIS TALISMANIC POWER THE VICTORS' 
 SPOILS PERPETUATION OF REPUBLICAN RULE THE DEAD STATES 
 THE CONSTITUTION IGNORED THE LAW OF NATIONS FOR THE SOUTH 
 BELLIGERENT RULES IN PEACE PRIZE LAW FOR THE STATES UNION ON 
 CONDITION OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE THE RADICAL FALLACIES THE FED. 
 ERAL GANGLION THE DOCTRINE OF CONQUEST CONFISCATION AND 
 CONFEDERATE DEBTS INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE STATES CONSTITU 
 TIONAL RECONSTRUCTION. 
 
 THE author was not at first impressed with the genius and ability 
 of Thaddeus Stevens. In the Thirty-sixth Congress, when Gov 
 ernor Pennington was elected Speaker after a prolonged struggle, 
 this Pennsylvanian of Vermont birth did not appear to advant 
 age. His only effort in that struggle was a motion of immaterial conse 
 quence about the deadlock. He then subsided into a seeming stolid me 
 diocrity. But he was far removed from mediocrity. He had a will of 
 audacious and intolerant quality. His humor was not like that of 
 "Ben" Harden or "Tom" Corwin, iridescent and genial. It smacked 
 of Voltaire. It had lurid lights. The intensity of his hatred was only 
 next to infernal ; but he seldom indulged it. He never hated a fair op 
 ponent. He did hate, bitterly, some of his own party who would not 
 follow his doctrine, and obliterate states in order to territorialize and ter 
 rorize them. He had Pluto's iron countenance ; but he could unbend and 
 be kindly. His neighbors of all classes and colors and of both sexes, in 
 and about Lancaster County, remember him as almost genial, notwith 
 standing the inflexibility of his countenance and the determination of his 
 character. He was, more even than Judge Howe or Mr. Sumner, the 
 constructionist of the new order and the obstructionist to the rebuilding 
 of the older order. In the House of Representatives, early in the first ses 
 sion of the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 5th of December, 1865, he arose 
 
366 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 to dictatorship. He commanded universal party obedience. That Congress 
 had great parliamentary ability. It had its Washburnes, its Wilsons, its 
 Binghams, its Shellabargers, and its Blaines. It had but one Thaddeus 
 Stevens. This man was not superficial. He was profound. He knew that 
 the times called either for retrogression from his war policies, or else organic 
 and risky forwardness. He would not ask to carry out the Constitution. He 
 would, at least, first amend it. How? Thus, for example: "Neither the 
 United States, nor any state in the Union, shall ever assume or pay any part 
 of the debt of the so-called Confederate States of America, or of any state, 
 contracted to carry on war with the United States." On the same day that 
 he offered this he proposed the following amendment to the Constitution : 
 " Amend the ninth section of the first article by expunging so much thereof 
 as says : ' No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state/'* 
 This was a cunning, tentative tender to his party. It was to be followed 
 by almost inconceivable audacities of policy ; for, on the same day, he moved 
 another amendment to the Constitution. It was this: "Representatives 
 shall be apportioned among the states which may be within the Union, ac 
 cording to their respective legal voters, and for this purpose none shall be 
 named as legal voters who are not either native-born citizens or naturalized 
 foreigners. Congress shall provide for ascertaining the number of said voters. 
 A true census of the legal voters shall be taken at the same time with the 
 regular census." Would he stop here? By no means. On the same day 
 he introduced the following amendment : " Article XIII. All national and 
 state laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination 
 shall be made on account of race and color." All of these proposed amend 
 ments, except that which was intended to authorize the taxation of exports, 
 have been incorporated into the Constitution, substantially, though in more 
 guarded language. The failure to adopt the proposed amendment allowing 
 a tax on exports did not prevent Congress, however, from imposing a tax on 
 cotton, a product mostly raised for exportation. Sixty-seven millions of dol 
 lars of cotton taxes were collected. 
 
 The right to govern the insurgent states as territories, Mr. Stevens 
 asserted as necessary. Many curious logical difficulties arose from the ad 
 mission of that right. To deny the right of secession and to assert the 
 right to suppress a rebellion in which the authorities in the states are in 
 volved, and at the same time to concede to the people of such states, upon 
 surrendering their arms, the right to resume their position as citizens, with 
 all the privileges of citizens, would seem to some minds >to be at least im 
 politic. But, admitting that the United States Government has the right 
 to maintain its authority against the authorities of a state, or a combination 
 of state authorities, does it follow that the right to govern these states as ter 
 ritories must be conceded to the United States when no insurrection exists ? 
 The idea of holding, for a generation perhaps, any people, whether they 
 
CAN CONGRESS GOVERN STATES? 367 
 
 be citizens of revolted states, or foreigners, under governments arbitrarily 
 forced upon them by a power external to them, is repugnant to republican 
 principles, to the spirit of liberty, and to sound policy. No such idea was 
 suggested by Congress, or the Executive, when the people arose to defend 
 and maintain the Union. But Mr. Stevens cared little for the motives that 
 actuated the defenders of the Union who suppressed secession. That iron 
 man of an iron state gave his reasons with colorless rhetoric for these amend 
 ments. He seldom spoke at length ; but on the i8th of December, 1865, 
 he unfolded with no unmusical nor unpersuasive voice his audacious, sweep 
 ing, and vindictive policies. History demands its reproduction, for it pre 
 sents the whole architectural design of radical reconstruction. He said to the 
 listening House, taking the President's message for his text : 
 
 "A candid examination of the power and proper principle of recon 
 struction can be offensive to no one, and may possibly be profitable by 
 exciting inquiry. One of the suggestions of the message which we are 
 now considering has special reference to this. Perhaps it is the principle 
 most interesting to the people at this time. The President assumes, what 
 no one doubts, that the late rebel states have lost their constitutional re 
 lations to the Union, and are incapable of representation in Congress ex 
 cept by permission of the government. It matters but little, with this 
 admission, whether you call them states out of the Union, and now con 
 quered territories, or assert that because the Constitution forbids them to 
 do what they did do, that they are therefore only dead as to all national 
 and political action, and will remain so until the government shall breathe 
 into them the breath of life anew, and permit them to occupy their for 
 mer position. In other words, that they are not out of the Union, but 
 are only dead carcasses lying within the Union. In either case it is very 
 plain that it requires the action of Congress to enable them to form a 
 state government, and send representatives to Congress. Nobody, I be 
 lieve, pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of government 
 they can be permitted to claim their old rights under the Constitution. 
 They have torn their constitutional states to atoms, and built on their 
 foundations fabrics of a totally different character. Dead men cannot 
 raise themselves. Dead states cannot restore their own existence ' as it 
 was.' Whose especial duty is it to do it ? In whom does the Consti 
 tution place the power ? Not in the judicial branch of the government, 
 for it only adjudicates, and does not prescribe laws. Not in the execu 
 tive, for it only executes, and cannot make laws. Not in the comman- 
 der-in-chief of the armies, for he can only hold them under military rule 
 until the sovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them 
 law. 
 
 ''There is fortunately no difficulty in solving the^question. There arc two 
 provisions in the Constitution, under one of which the case must fall. The 
 
368 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 fourth article says : * New states may be admitted by the Congress into this 
 Union.' In my judgment this is the controlling provision in this case. 
 Unless the law of nations is a dead letter, the late war between two ac 
 knowledged belligerents severed their original compacts and broke all the 
 ties that bound them together. The future condition of the conquered 
 power depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as new 
 states or remain as conquered provinces. Congress the Senate and House 
 of Representatives with the concurrence of the President, is the only 
 power that can act in the matter. But suppose, as some dreaming theorists 
 imagine, that these states have never been out of the Union, but have only 
 destroyed their state governments, so as to be incapable of political action, 
 then the fourth section of the fourth article applies, which says : ' The 
 United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form 
 of government.' Who is the United States? Not the Judiciary. Not 
 the President ; but the sovereign power of the people, exercised through 
 their Representatives in Congress, with the concurrence of the Executive. 
 It means the political government the concurrent action of both branches 
 of Congress and the Executive. The separate action of each amounts to 
 nothing, either in admitting new states or in guaranteeing republican gov 
 ernments to lapsed or outlawed states. Whence springs the preposterous idea 
 that either the President, or the Senate, or the House of Representatives, 
 acting separately, can determine the rights of states to send members or Sen 
 ators to the Congress of the Union ? To prove that they are, and for four 
 years have been, out of the Union for all legal purposes, and being now con 
 quered, subject to the absolute disposal of Congress, I will suggest a few 
 ideas and adduce a few authorities." 
 
 Before citing these authorities Mr. Stevens took the position that the so- 
 called " Confederate States of America " were either an independent bel 
 ligerent power, and were so acknowledged by the United States and by 
 Europe, or else they had assumed and maintained an attitude which entitled 
 them to be considered and treated as a belligerent for four years. During 
 such time, they were precisely in the condition a foreign nation would be 
 with whom we were at war. Their independence as a nation need not be 
 acknowledged by us to produce that effect. This was Mr. Stevens' position. 
 He cited the able opinion delivered by that accomplished^ and as he said, 
 "loyal jurist," Mr. Justice Grier, in the Prize cases, where all the law on 
 these points is collected. (2 Black, page 66.) Following Vattel, he at 
 tempted to show that international law would regard the insurrection in the 
 South as a war a civil war. 
 
 "When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a 
 certain portion of territory ; have declared their independence ; have cast off 
 their allegiance ; have organized armies ; have commenced hostilities against 
 their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents and the 
 
A TECHNICAL RADICAL ARGUMENT. 369 
 
 contest is a war." So says Vattel. Again: " The parties belligerent in a 
 public war are independent nations. But it is not necessary, to constitute 
 war, that both should be acknowledged as independent nations, or foreign 
 states. A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign 
 rights as against the other." The idea that the states could not and did not 
 make war, because the Constitution forbids it, and that their effort for inde 
 pendence must be treated as a war of individuals, Mr. Stevens regarded as 
 a very injurious and groundless fallacy. "Individuals cannot make war. 
 They may commit murder, but that is not war. Communities, societies, 
 states, make war." He cited Phillimore to prove that war between private 
 individuals who are members of a society cannot exist ; and that the use of 
 force in such case is trespass, and not war. 
 
 " But why appeal to reason," triumphantly asks Mr. Stevens, " to prove 
 that the seceded states made war as states, when the conclusive opinion of 
 the Supreme Court is at hand ? In the Prize cases already cited, where the 
 Supreme Court say of the seceding states, that in organizing the rebellion 
 they have acted as states claiming to be sovereign over all persons and prop 
 erty within their respective limits, and asserted a right to absolve their citi 
 zens from allegiance to the Federal Government ; that these states had com 
 bined to form a new confederacy, claiming to be acknowledged by the world 
 as a sovereign state ; that their right to do so is now being decided by wager 
 of battle ; that the ports and territory of each of these states are held in hos 
 tility to the general government ; that it is no loose, unorganized insurrection, 
 having no defined boundary or possession ; that it has a boundary marked by 
 lines of bayonets which can be crossed only by force ; and that south of this 
 line is enemy's territory, because it is claimed and held in possession by an 
 organized hostile and belligerent power." 
 
 Mr. Stevens was astonished that any one should doubt that the proclama 
 tion of blockade was of itself, as the Court declared it to be, official and con 
 clusive evidence that a state of war existed. 
 
 What was the legal result of such war? Mr. Stevens answered from 
 Vattel and Halleck that the conventions, the treaties made with a nation, are 
 broken or annulled by a war arising between the contracting parties. He 
 said, referring to Vattel, that a civil war breaks the bonds of society and 
 government, or at least suspends their force and effect ; and that it produces 
 in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies, 
 and acknowledge no common judge. These two parties must therefore, he 
 concluded, be considered as thenceforward constituting, at least for a time, 
 two separate bodies ; two distinct societies. " They stand, therefore, in pre 
 cisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest, and, 
 being unable to come to an agreement, have recourse to arms." 
 
 No one can refute the following propositions : When a nation becomes 
 divided into two parties absolutely independent, and no longer acknowledging 
 
370 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 a common superior, the state is dissolved, and the war between the two 
 parties stands on the same ground, in every respect, as a public war between 
 two different nations ; the belligerent need not be acknowledged as an inde 
 pendent nation ; insurrection, when belligerent parties are in hostile array, is 
 not the less a civil war because it may be called an " insurrection," and the 
 insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors by one of the parties ; it is not 
 necessary that the independence of the revolted province or state be acknowl 
 edged, in order to constitute it a party belligerent, according to the law of 
 nations. 
 
 These doctrines, contended for by Mr. Stevens, had been clearly estab 
 lished by publicists, and distinctly stated by Mr. Justice Grier. They have 
 been frequently reiterated since by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 In Mr. Alexander's case (2 Wallace, 419), Chief Justice Chase, delivering 
 the opinion of the Court, says : 
 
 " We must be governed by the principle of public law, so often an 
 nounced from this bench as applicable to civil and international wars, 
 that all the people of each state or district in insurrection against the 
 United States must be regarded as enemies until by the action of the 
 Legislature and Executive, or otherwise, that relation is thoroughly and 
 permanently changed." But neither on these principles nor on the ground 
 of estoppel, for which Mr. Stevens contended, had the United States a right 
 to elect to adjudge the seceding states out of the Union. " They are estopped,"" 
 said Mr. Stevens, " both by matter of record, and matter in pats" He 
 cites in estoppel one of the first resolutions passed by seceding South Carolina, 
 in January, 1861, as follows : 
 
 ''''Resolved, Unanimously, That the separation of South Carolina from 
 the Federal Union is final, and she has no further interest in the Consti 
 tution of the United States ; and that the only appropriate negotiations 
 between her and the Federal Government are as to their mutual relations 
 as foreign states." 
 
 How completely Mr. Stevens puts himself outside of the Constitution ! 
 At every step he relies on the law of nations and not on the law of the Union 
 or the law of love. Continuing his argument he said, treating of the seces 
 sion ordinances : " Similar resolutions appear upon all their state and Con 
 federate records. The speeches of their members of Congress, their generals 
 and executive officers, and the answers of their government to our shameful 
 suings for peace went upon the defiant ground that no terms would be offered 
 or received except upon the prior acknowledgment of the entire and permanent 
 independence of the Confederate States. After this, to deny that we have 
 the right to treat them as a conquered belligerent, severed from the Union 
 in fact, is not argument, but mockery. Whether it be our interest to do so, 
 is the only question hereafter, and more deliberately, to be considered. But 
 suppose these powerful but now subdued belligerents, instead of being out 
 
TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE SOUTH. 371 
 
 of the Union, are merely destroyed, and are now lying about as dead corpses, 
 or with animation so suspended as to be incapable of action, and wholly 
 unable to heal themselves by any unaided movements of their own ? Then 
 they may fall under the provision of the Constitution which says, the 
 United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form 
 of government.' Under that power, can the Judiciary, or the President, 
 or the commander-in-chief of the army, or the Senate, or House of Rep 
 resentatives, acting separately, restore them to life and re-admit them into 
 the Union? I insist that if each acted separately, though the action of 
 each was identical with all the others, it would amount to nothing. Nothing 
 but the joint action of the two houses of Congress and the concurrence of 
 the President could do it. If the Senate admitted their Senators, and the 
 House their members, it would have no effect on the future action of Con 
 gress. The Fortieth Congress might reject both. Such is the ragged record 
 of Congress for the last four years. In Luther vs. Borden, the Supreme Court 
 says : < Under this article of the Constitution [the one above cited] , it rests 
 with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a state. 
 For as the United States guarantee to each state a republican government, 
 Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the 
 state before it can determine whether it is republican or not.' Congress 
 alone can do it. But Congress does not mean the Senate, or the House of 
 Representatives, and President, all acting severally. Their joint action consti 
 tutes Congress. Hence a law of Congress must be passed before any new 
 state can be admitted, or any dead state revived. . . . It is obvious 
 from all this that the first duty of Congress is to pass a law declaring the 
 condition of these outside or defunct states, and providing proper civil gov 
 ernments for them. Since the conquest, they have been governed by martial 
 law. Military rule is necessarily despotic, and ought not to exist longer 
 than is absolutely necessary. As there are no symptoms that the people of 
 these provinces will be prepared to participate in constitutional govern 
 ment for some years, I know of no arrangement so proper for them as 
 territorial governments. There they can learn the principles of freedom, 
 and eat the fruits of foul rebellion. Under such governments, while electing 
 members to the territorial legislatures, they will necessarily mingle with 
 those to whom Congress shall extend the right of suffrage. In territories 
 Congress fixes the qualifications of electors ; and I know of no better place, 
 nor better occasion for the conquered rebels and the conqueror to practice 
 justice to all men, and accustom themselves to make and obey equal laws. 
 u According to my judgment," said Mr. Stevens in making his conclud 
 ing application, " they ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in 
 the Union, or of being counted as valid states, until the Constitution shall have 
 been so amended as to make it what its framers intended ; and so as to 
 secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the Union ; and so as to render 
 
372 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 our republican government firm and stable forever. The first of those 
 amendments is to change the basis of representation among the states 
 from Federal numbers to actual voters. Now all the colored freemen in 
 the slave states, and three-fifths of the slaves are represented, though none 
 of them have votes. The states have nineteen representatives of colored 
 slaves. If the slaves are now free, then they can add, for the other two-fifths, 
 thirteen more, making the slave representation thirty-two. I suppose the 
 free blacks in those states will give at least five more, making the representa 
 tion of non-voting people of color thirty-seven. The whole number of repre 
 sentatives now from the slave states is seventy. Add the other two-fifths and 
 it will be eighty-three. If the amendment prevails, and those states withhold 
 the right of suffrage from persons of color, it will deduct about thirty-seven, 
 leaving then but forty-six. With the basis unchanged, the eighty- three 
 Southern members, with the Democrats that will in the best times be elected 
 from the North, will always give them a majority in Congress, and in the 
 Electoral College. They will at the very first election take possession of the 
 White House, and the halls of Congress. I need not depict the ruin that 
 would follow. Assumption of the rebel debt, or repudiation of the Federal 
 debt, would be sure to follow. The oppression of the freedmen ; the re- 
 amendment of their state constitutions, and the re-establishment of slavery 
 would be the inevitable result. That they would scorn and disregard their 
 present constitutions, forced upon them in the midst of martial law, 
 would be both natural and just. No one who has any regard for free 
 dom of elections can look upon those governments, forced upon them in 
 duress, with any favor. If they should grant the right of suffrage to persons 
 of color, I think there would always be Union white men enough in the 
 South, aided by the blacks, to divide the representation, and thus continue 
 the Republican ascendency. If they should refuse to thus alter their elec 
 tion laws, it would reduce the representatives of the slave states to about 
 forty-five, and render them powerless for evil. It is plain that this amend 
 ment must be consummated before the defunct states are admitted to be capable 
 of state action, or it never can be." 
 
 Mr. Stevens insisted that homesteads should be given to the emancipated 
 slaves. But the mode proposed confiscation of land did not agree 
 with his war theory. Conquerors are presumed to respect property rights. 
 His theory in regard to the effects of secession and resistance to the laws of 
 the United States, differed in mode only from that of the secessionists. 
 They claimed that the states had the constitutional right to secede, while he 
 conceded to them the physical power to secede. On either theory, their 
 condition in the event of defeat would seem to be as Mr. Stevens de 
 scribed it, that of conquered territories, without governments and without 
 laws. He held that they were completely at the mercy of the conqueror. 
 As a conquered people, they might be dealt with as the monarchies of 
 
THE TRUE RULE FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. 373 
 
 Europe deal with conquered provinces, without regard to the nature of our 
 republican institutions, or the limits of constitutional authority. There 
 is no authority given by the Constitution to hold conquered territory as a 
 province, with the people inhabiting it deprived of the right of self-gov 
 ernment and equal representation in Congress. Whenever our government 
 shall enter upon a career of conquest and subjugation, it will forfeit its 
 character of a free republic, in which equal rights are guaranteed to all 
 men. 
 
 In regard to the political weight which the South derived from the pres 
 ence and representation of its colored population, Mr. Stevens was a little 
 in error. Instead of the South being entitled to seventy representatives 
 under the apportionment based on the census of 1860, counting three-fifths 
 of the negroes, it was entitled to eighty-five. He said that the seventy 
 would be increased to eighty-three if the remaining two-fifths were repre 
 sented ; whereas, on that basis the eighty-five would have risen to ninety- 
 eight. He proposed to take from the South the whole negro representation, 
 which, he said, would reduce the representation to about forty, whereas it 
 would have remained at about fifty-five or fifty-six. He doubtless had in 
 his mind the representation of the Confederate States, when he spoke of 
 the Southern representation being seventy. 
 
 Does the line of argument followed by Mr. Stevens touch the real merits 
 of the question ? Does it show any acknowledgment that the Constitution 
 is the ganglion, the productive organ of Federal action ; and that its powers 
 are the nerve-fibres which alone give vital force to the will of Congress? 
 His points, citations, and conclusions might be convincing in a prize case, 
 where the court ' c must be governed by the principles of public law . . . 
 applicable to civil and international wars." They might do very well in any 
 suit involving only personal or property rights. But his argument was not 
 in the line of statesmanship. There was no precedent applicable to the case. 
 The question presented was political. No Federal or state court could take 
 jurisdiction for its determination. Neither municipal nor international law 
 could furnish principles for determining the relation of any state of the 
 Union to the government of the United States while the Federal Constitu 
 tion remained a binding instrument on that government and the states 
 respectively. There, in that charter, in it alone is to be found the decisive 
 rules for congressional action. Where in that charter is to be found the 
 doctrine of forfeiture of state rights? Where the doctrine of $tete felo-de-se f 
 Where of war between the states ? 
 
 If by reason of the extent of the insurrection, and (he action of foreign 
 powers we were compelled to suppress secession under the rules of war, does 
 it follow that the insurrection was a war.? The words " rebel " and " insurg 
 ent" imply citizenship. They do not imply alienage. Suppose the State 
 of Maine were now to pass an ordinance of secession, assert her independ- 
 
374 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ence, and resist with all her force the national authority, would that be felo- 
 de-se? Would she be no longer a state of the Union ? If not, by what right 
 could we assume to make a conquest of her territory? If Mr. Stevens' 
 argument were a sound one, would not the Canadians have as good a right 
 to ask her to join their Confederation as we should have to ask her to return 
 to the Union ? Would they not have as much right to use force in defending 
 her as we should have to make 'war on her ? 
 
 The argument from belligerency, like that for the right of secession, be it 
 ever so strong, can have no force where there is devotion to brotherly unity. 
 Could separation be effected without warlike hostilities? If it can, it must 
 be because parties are so evenly balanced, and so distinctly marked and 
 divided by a geographical line athwart the continent, that war between them 
 would be manifest folly. On the contrary, if secession must always be 
 effected by war, it will never be resorted to unless there is great unanimity 
 in a large and contiguous portion of the Union. Wherever and whenever 
 this is the case, no one can successfully dispute the right of the government 
 to resist separation in the modes of war. What would any one care for the 
 abstract "rights" of secession? Even the secession leaders disregarded their 
 own theory when they apprehended that it might be turned against them 
 selves. They stood ready to overwhelm the menaced secession of North 
 Carolina from the Confederacy, by the troops of adjacent and sister states. 
 To hold states as territories after a war for a Union of states, is just as 
 illogical. 
 
 Suppose the radical doctrine is admitted, on what grounds of ethics or 
 international law is the " Confederate war debt " to be repudiated? Suppose 
 we should conquer Mexico, could we lawfully repudiate the debts of her 
 government? When we came to amend the Constitution, after the national 
 authority had asserted itself over the insurgent states, did we speak of war or 
 conquests, or prohibit the payment of any war debts? No. We said: 
 " But neither the United States, nor any state, shall assume or pay any debt 
 or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United 
 States." Was this an admission that we had conquered territories in a war? 
 Was it not a plain assertion that the strife was an insurrection and rebellion, 
 and that all contracts in aid of it were null and void. Payment of them can 
 not even be voluntary. States and Congresses which might desire to pay 
 them are prohibited from so doing. When secession is treated in the consti 
 tutional way, as an insurrection or rebellion, no questions can arise that will 
 involve contradictory conclusions. The moment the Federal power with 
 drew its action into its own sphere, that moment the sovereignty of the 
 states asserted itself. To this course, the calming influences of better judg 
 ment at last brought the people of the North. It would have been reached 
 in a very short time if moderation, and not passion, had obtained sway in 
 the councils of the Nation. 
 
CHAPTER XXL 
 
 TEMPORARY STATE REORGANIZATION IN THE SOUTH. 
 
 STATUS OF THE COLORED PEOPLE DEMANDS FOR THEIR ENFRANCHISEMENT 
 THE FIRST RECONSTRUCTION ACT PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S VETO THE AT 
 TORNEY-GENERAL'S OPINION MARTIAL LAW TO GO VERN THE SOUTH DIS- 
 FRANCHISEMENT OF THE INTELLIGENT PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POLICY 
 ITS OPERATION REORGANIZATION IN TENNESSEE WILLIAM G. BROWN- 
 LOW ELECTED GOVERNOR SECESSION ORDINANCES ANNULLED CONFED 
 ERATE ACTS AND OBLIGATIONS MADE VOID CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND 
 MENTS D1SUNIONISTS DISFRANCHISED SLAVERY ABOLISHED CIVIL 
 RIGHTS GRANTED TO COLORED PEOPLE THEY ARE NOT TO VOTE, HOLD 
 OFFICE, OR SIT ON JURIES CONGRESS APPROVES OF THIS COURSE TEN 
 NESSEE ADMITTED TO FEDERAL RELATIONS, JULY 24, 1866 UNION SENTI 
 MENT IN NORTH CAROLINA PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S ATTEMPT TO REHA 
 BILITATE THAT STATE GOVERNOR VANCE'S ADVICE PROVISIONAL GOV 
 ERNOR HOLDEN APPOINTED HEARTY REPEAL OF THE SECESSION ORDI 
 NANCECONVENTION AND LEGISLATIVE WORK IT DOES NOT SATISFY 
 CONGRESS NORTH CAROLINA TO REMAIN A CONQUERED PROVINCE. 
 
 THE temporary organizations of the Southern States under the procla 
 mations of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson were suffered to remain 
 in force until the spring of 1867. In none of them was the suffrage 
 conferred upon colored men, and in some of them the legislatures 
 enacted laws which discriminated against the colored people in other 
 respects. Some tutelary legislation was contemplated by Mr. Lincoln in 
 behalf of the freedmen. It was hinted at in his proclamation of Dec. 8, 
 1863, as a temporary expedient consistent " with their present condition as a 
 laboring, landless, and homeless class." But this concession to the state leg 
 islatures was far from being satisfactory to the majority of Congress. The 
 discriminating laws, though guarded in terms, and intended to protect the 
 emancipated slaves, were to be enforced by men who had held them in 
 slavery. It was surmised that these men would abuse a trust which was 
 a limitation upon their long-exercised, hereditary and absolute authority. 
 Loud complaints were soon heard of the tyranny and cruelty exercised over 
 
376 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the blacks. Congress was in no mood to listen to such complaints with in 
 difference. Northern and congressional sentiment was rapidly developing in 
 favor of a more radical treatment of the South. It began to be believed that 
 nothing short of an unqualified grant of suffrage to the negroes would secure 
 them peace, with justice. It was also thought that the predominance of the 
 Republican party would be assured by such a grant. As a tentative meas 
 ure, bills were introduced in each house for the establishment of negro suf 
 frage in the District of Columbia, and in all the territories. The bill for the 
 District encountered strenuous opposition. Many Republican Representa 
 tives from states which confined the right of suffrage to white men, or en 
 cumbered it in the case of colored men with educational or property qualifi 
 cations, naturally hesitated. When called on by the exigencies of party to 
 invest with the franchise the whole mass of illiterate blacks in other commu 
 nities which had no voice in determining the question, they hesitated. But 
 they overcame their scruples, and in January, 1867, the District bill was 
 passed, over President Johnson's veto. The Territorial Suffrage bill was 
 adopted by both houses, during the same month, by overwhelming majorities. 
 
 In pursuance of the same policy, the act known as the Reconstruction act 
 was likewise passed by Congress over the President's veto, on March 2, 1867. 
 This bill goes under a misnomer. It is entitled, "An Act to provide for the 
 more efficient government of the rebel states." It should have been called, 
 " An Act for the more thorough military subjugation of the states lately 
 in insurrection against the United States." The act, after alleging that no 
 legal state governments or adequate protection for life and property existed in 
 the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, 
 Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, provided that these states 
 should be divided into five military districts, under the command of officers 
 of the army assigned thereto by the President. Each of these commanders 
 was to have under his control troops enough to enforce his authority. The 
 power conferred on these commanders within their districts was almost un 
 limited. The fifth and sixth sections of the act authorized the people to re 
 construct their state governments by spontaneous action, though on prescribed 
 conditions. These sections, however, were superseded by the act of March 
 23d, following. This act not only fixed the conditions of reconstruction, 
 but provided that the process should be inaugurated and conducted by the 
 military commanders. 
 
 In assigning his reasons for withholding his signature from this measure, 
 President Johnson denied that the states in question were without legal 
 governments. He insisted that the true purpose of the bill was not to en 
 force peace and good order, but to compel the people of those states to con 
 fer the right of suffrage on the negro, and to ratify the Fourteenth Amend 
 ment to the Constitution of the United States. In the course of his long and 
 searching analysis of the bill, the President criticised the powers it conferred 
 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON DEFENDS THE CONSTITUTION. 377 
 
 on the military commanders. He said : " The power thus given to the com 
 manding officers over all the people of each district is that of an absolute 
 monarch. His mere will is to take the place of all law. . . . Every 
 thing is a crime which he chooses to call so, and all persons are condemned 
 whom he pronounces to be guilty. . . . He may arrest his victims 
 wherever he finds them, without warrant, accusation, or proof of probable 
 cause. If he gives them a trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives it 
 of his grace and mercy, not because he is commanded to do so. To a casual 
 reader of the bill, it might seem that some kind of a trial was secured by it 
 to persons accused of crime, but such is not the case. The officer ' may 
 allow local civil tribunals to try offenders,' but, of course, this does not re 
 quire that he shall do so. If any state or Federal court presumes to exercise 
 its legal jurisdiction by the trial of a malefactor without his special permis 
 sion, he can break it up, and punish the judges and jurors as being them 
 selves the malefactors. It is plain that the authority here given to the mili 
 tary officer amounts to absolute despotism. . . . Such a power has not 
 been wielded by any monarch in England for more than five hundred years. 
 In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such 
 servitude." 
 
 This was strong language, but it cannot be regarded as exaggerated. 
 The South was subjected to military despotism, pure and simple. It is vain 
 to attempt to disguise the fact. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, as shown in 
 a preceding page, denounced President Johnson's reconstruction policy as 
 arbitrary, and the constitutions formed under it as having been adopted under 
 duress ; and lo ! his own measure was tenfold more arbitrary and despotic 
 The little finger of the legislature was thicker than the President's loins. 
 
 Mr. Johnson went on to show, in an elaborate argument, that the act 
 violated the plainest provisions of the Constitution. It established martial 
 law in a time of profound peace ; it suspended the writ of habeas corpus; 
 it swept away every vestige of republican government in ten states ; and it 
 was, in fact, a bill of attainder against nine millions of people at once. He 
 exposed the tyrannical and unconstitutional character of this act, with force 
 and clearness. But it was so flagrant a departure from all the landmarks of 
 civil liberty, as set up and observed from the days of Magna Charta to the 
 present times, that argument would seem entirely superfluous. Apart from 
 the absolute despotism which the act established over the Southern people, 
 there were wholly unnecessary infractions of the Constitution, in the clauses 
 which ignored and attempted to exclude the legitimate authority of the Pres 
 ident of the United States, in favor of the commander of the army, who in 
 effect, was made the executive of the Nation. Mr. Sumner, in ante-bellum 
 days, was wont to refer to the congressional enactment in reference to fugitive 
 slaves, as the " Fugitive Slave Bill." He would never allow it to be an 
 " act." That term implied, as he said, a constitutional exercise of power by 
 
 24 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Congress. Mr. Webster, while voting for the measure of 1850, admitted 
 that, but for the decision of the Supreme Court, he should deny the power 
 of Congress to legislate on the subject. But it could at least be said in be 
 half of the constitutionality of that "bill," that there was a clause in the 
 Constitution which required the return of " fugitives from labor," while no 
 clause in the Constitution can be tortured into an authority for setting up 
 military satrapies in any part of the Union, whether in states or territories. 
 Yet the Massachusetts Senator, in his zeal for liberty, was actively instru 
 mental in passing this ' ' bill " for the establishment of a military despotism 
 in the South. The President's reasoning proved of no avail to prevent the 
 passage of the bill. It became an " act." On the i2th of June, Attorney- 
 General Stanbery addressed a letter to the President upon the proper con 
 struction of the act. In this letter he applied the rule that " a statute creat 
 ing a new jurisdiction ought to be construed strictly," so as to strip the mili 
 tary commanders of the power to remove and appoint governors, judges, and 
 other state officers, to suspend the execution of the process of the courts, and 
 to make laws for the people. 
 
 Two days after the date of this opinion, the commander of the Second 
 military district addressed a telegram to the Attorney-General, in which he 
 represented that the power to remove civil officers was indispensable to the 
 proper discharge of his duties. It is probable that other military commanders 
 in the South urged similar reasons for the exercise of unlimited power. 
 The effect was to induce the passage by Congress of the act of July I9th, 
 of the same year, declaratory of the true intent and meaning of the Recon 
 struction acts. This swept away the construction placed upon the former 
 acts by the Attorney-General, and gave each district commander the power to 
 remove any officer whose authority was derived from the local government ; 
 subject only to the disapproval of the general of the army. The tenth section 
 of the last mentioned act provided, " That no district commander, or member 
 of the board of registration, or any of the officers or appointees acting under 
 them, shall be bound in his action by any opinion of any civil officer of the 
 United States." The justice of Mr. Johnson's strictures upon the Recon 
 struction act of March 2, 1867, will not be questioned. It was in violation of 
 the Constitution. It did not merely hold the conquered people under military 
 subjection, after their surrender, until order and civil rule could be re-estab 
 lished ; but it deliberately overthrew and superseded an established civil rule, 
 in order to constrain the people to the adoption of certain organic measures. 
 
 The intrinsic difficulties of the situation are not to be denied. The ruling 
 classes of the Southern people had attempted to disrupt the Union in order 
 to establish their own independence. The overthrow of their armies had 
 not changed their opinions nor their feelings. Necessity compelled their 
 submission, but necessity could not make them love a union with the victorious 
 North, nor make them cordially recognize and support the rights of the freed- 
 
THE LAW OF NECESSITY. 379 
 
 men. The local state officials of the eleven confederated states were as 
 hostile to the Union and to the freedom of the negroes as those of the ex 
 ploded Confederacy had been ; and they had all committed treason, as defined 
 by the Constitution. When the Confederate armies surrendered, the people 
 of those states had neither governors nor judges, nor administrative officers 
 that the government of the Nation could at once recognize. Hence it did not 
 seem politic to treat any of them as having official authority over the peo 
 ple. To deny this, at that time, was simply to deny the right of the gov 
 ernment to suppress the rebellion and to maintain the Union. Recon 
 struction, therefore, became a political necessky. But it was wholly 
 inconsistent with the theory of our government to hold millions of peo 
 ple, inhabiting extensive territories, in military, or even in provincial subjec 
 tion a moment longer than might be absolutely necessary. Besides this, 
 it would involve the necessity of a large standing army. It might lead to 
 the overthrow of state governments, and to the consolidation of the Union 
 into a military despotism. Better far, that the Union should be dissolved, 
 than that it should be made the instrument of military ambition. The 
 right of the people in every state to self-government is inherent and inalien 
 able. The Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee to 
 every state a republican form of government. The government of the 
 United States may, and must, therefore, for this sole purpose, take temporary 
 charge of the people of a state whose legitimate government is overthrown. 
 It may not establish a military despotism, but it may temporarily, from the 
 necessity of the case, maintain peace and order, through the instrumentality 
 of a military government until civil authority can assert itself. The consti 
 tutional guarantee of " a republican form of government" cannot be made 
 good unless this exercise of Federal power be conceded. 
 
 It is equally clear that the government may impose conditions of recon 
 struction ; for, otherwise, a rebellious people might re-establish their former 
 constitutions and laws, and reinstate their disloyal officials. President 
 Johnson, in the message accompanying his veto of the Reconstruction 
 bill, seemed to deny this right of interposition on the part of the general 
 government for the purpose of dictating the conditions of restoration, 
 though he had set the example by exercising it himself. In the course of 
 his argument he said that the bill not only thrusts the privilege of voting 
 into the hands of the negroes, but compels them, as well as the whites, to 
 use it in a particular way. Therefore he desired to ask the attention of Con 
 gress to the universally acknowledged rule of constitutional law, which de 
 clares that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, authority, or power 
 to regulate such subjects for any state. To force the right of suffrage out of 
 the hands of the white people and into the hands of the negroes, he pro 
 nounced an arbitrary violation of this principle. This reasoning of the Presi 
 dent cannot be reconciled with his position and action in his Amnesty 
 
380 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 proclamation of May 29, 1865, nor with his proclamation of the same date, 
 appointing William W. Holden provisional governor of North Carolina. 
 In that initial measure of reconstruction, he made it the duty of Governor 
 Holden to prescribe the necessary rules for calling a convention to amend 
 the constitution of the state. He established qualifications for the elec 
 tors and delegates that excluded from taking any part in the conven 
 tion, nearly all the former governing class of the state. And in extending 
 the like measure to the other Southern states, he followed the same dis 
 franchising policy, which produced the same result. He commenced recon 
 struction in North Carolina and the other states by setting aside their ex 
 isting governments. He could see no other course. In principle there was 
 no difference between the former mode of the President and the present 
 mode of Congress. But in motive there was a difference as far apart as the 
 poles. 
 
 In dispatches to the provisional governors whom he had appointed in 1865, 
 the President, and his Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, urged the necessity of 
 forming state constitutions which would abolish slavery, and repudiate all 
 obligations to pay the state and Confederate war debts These injunctions 
 amounted to commands, since compliance with them was made an essential 
 condition of restoration to Federal rights. At that time there was a manifest 
 necessity for Federal intervention and dictation, in the work of reconstruction. 
 But the success of President Johnson in constraining the adoption of meas 
 ures which he then deemed to be essential conditions of reconstruction, under 
 forms of government reinstituted by the people themselves, proves that the con 
 gressional policy might have been carried out in the same way, and by the 
 same state governments. Under the President's policy, constitutions were 
 framed which abolished slavery, repudiated the state war debts, and declared 
 the union of the states to be perpetual and inviolable. With the back 
 ground of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, in effect, restricts representa 
 tion to the voting population, and with the certainty that Represent 
 atives would never be received on any other basis, negro suffrage 
 would have been adopted more cheerfully, and by a larger proportion of the 
 white vote, without the aid of the congressional military governments. 
 As it was, the constitutions which embraced those radical changes were 
 adopted mainly by negro votes. Not more than one white vote in ten was 
 cast in their favor, except in North Carolina. In that state, not more 
 than three in ten. Half the white people, who were not disfranchised, 
 stood aloof, sullen and passive, or intimidated spectators. There could be 
 no doubt that the adoption by Congress of Mr. Johnson's exceptions, which 
 excluded a large portion of the intelligence and wealth of the South from 
 the privileges of amnesty and suffrage, added much to this unfortunate 
 temper of the people. The aged, the experienced, the cool-headed, and the 
 sagacious men of the South were excluded by the exceptions. The very 
 
TENNESSEE SECEDES FROM THE CONFEDERACY. 381 
 
 men who would most clearly see the folly of further resistance to the general 
 government, and the necessity of acquiescence in the inevitable results of the 
 war, were excluded. Those of the white people who were permitted to vote 
 under Mr. Johnson's measures of reconstruction voted against the adoption 
 of the Fourteenth Amendment, for the sole and avowed reason that it proposed 
 to engraft on the Constitution those very exceptions from the privileges of 
 amnesty and leadership. The younger and less distinguished classes refused 
 to be made instrumental in fastening a stigma and a yoke upon their elders, 
 their leaders, and their superiors in intelligence and wealth, whom they had 
 followed, and whom they felt to be no more obnoxious to the penalties of 
 rebellion than themselves. They refused to liberate themselves from political 
 thraldom by the adoption of a measure which would degrade and disfran 
 chise their dearest friends ; and their conduct in this respect was manly and 
 worthy of all praise. 
 
 Tennessee was the first of the seceding states to resume her proper 
 authority. She contained a larger proportion of pronounced Union men 
 than any other state that entered the Confederacy. A controlling majority 
 of the people of East Tennessee remained loyal to the government. There 
 were, also, many leading men in the middle and western counties who 
 never swerved from their attachment to the Union. Within her borders 
 the war was indeed internecine. What was the consequence? Great 
 destruction of private property, with murder and rapine. But there was 
 some compensation for her special sufferings. She escaped from the 
 Caudine Forks without passing beneath the yoke of the Reconstruction acts. 
 She was the first of the Confederate sisterhood to succumb to the Union 
 arms. She was also the first re-admitted to representation in Congress 
 and to the enjoyment of the "practical relations" in the Union. The 
 national forces took possession of the state in the latter half of February, 
 1862. The constitutional authority was promptly re-established over the 
 greater part of the state. Immediately after the capture of Nashville, 
 President Lincoln appointed Andrew Johnson military governor of Tennes 
 see. Mr. Johnson had been a life-long member of the Democratic party. 
 He had served five terms in the House of Representatives. He had been 
 governor of the state. When the war came he was a member of the United 
 States Senate. In that body he took a firm stand for the Union, and greatly 
 distinguished himself in debate in reply to Jefferson Davis and other extrem 
 ists. The author confesses to a partiality that may affect his judgment of this 
 tribune of the people. Now that he has gone to another tribunal, his eulogy 
 may not be accounted ecstasy, but honesty. How he helped to save the Re 
 public, through this grand state of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, and 
 Felix Grundy, will appear in the sequel. As military governor he was 
 chiefly employed in efforts to restore order and win back the people to the 
 
382 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 support of the Union. He acted with characteristic vigor and resolution, 
 and thus gained the confidence of the country. Into the details of these 
 efforts it is not the purpose here to enter. 
 
 In 1864, attempts were made to re-establish civil government in the state. 
 A popular convention at Nashville, on Jan. 9, 1865, nominated William G. 
 Brownlow for governor. It proposed amendments to the state constitution, 
 which were ratified on Feb. 22d, by a vote of 25,293 to 48. The result was 
 announced by a proclamation of the governor, and a state election was held 
 on March 4th, for governor, legislature, and state officers. By the constitu 
 tional amendments adopted, slavery was abolished, the ordinance of secession 
 was annulled, all acts of the Confederate authorities were declared void, the 
 payment of any obligations contracted by them was forbidden, and all of 
 Governor Johnson's appointments were confirmed. The legislature thus 
 chosen proceeded to reorganize the state government, and to take measures 
 necessary for carrying into effect the new provisions of the organic law. 
 The most important of these measures was the franchise act, passed on June 
 5, 1865, and amended on May 3, 1866. This act restricted suffrage to loyal 
 white men; in the language of the act to those who were "publicly 
 known to have entertained unconstitutional Union sentiments from the out 
 break of the rebellion until the present time." Acts were also passed early 
 in 1866, to secure the civil rights of persons of color ; but expressly except 
 ing therefrom the right to vote, to hold office, and to sit on juries. None of 
 them required the education of colored and white children in the same 
 schools. In consequence of these enactments all freedmen's courts in Ten 
 nessee were abolished. The course of the new government was approved 
 by Congress. A joint resolution restoring Tennessee to her relations to the 
 Union was passed on July 23, 1866. It received the President's signature on 
 the 24th. The preamble reads as follows : 
 
 u 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 government can only be restored to its former practical relations 
 in the Union by the consent of the law-making power of the United States ; 
 and whereas, the people of said state did, on the twenty-second day of Feb 
 ruary, 1865, by a large popular vote, adopt and ratify a constitution of gov 
 ernment, 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 of the United States 
 abolishing slavery ; also the amendment proposed by the Thirty-ninth Con 
 gress, and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty." 
 
 The resolution was: "That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored 
 
TENNESSEE BACK IN THE UNION. 383 
 
 to her proper practical relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be 
 represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress." 
 
 President Johnson, in an elaborate protest which accompanied his sig 
 nature of the joint resolution, stated his position, as follows : " Earnestly 
 desiring to remove every cause of further delay, whether real or imaginary, 
 on the part of Congress to the admission to seats of loyal Senators and Rep 
 resentatives from the State of Tennessee, I have, notwithstanding the anom 
 alous character of this proceeding, affixed my signature to the resolution. 
 My approval, however, is not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the 
 right of Congress to pass laws preliminary to the admission of duly qualified 
 Representatives from any of the states. Neither is it to be considered as 
 committing me to all the statements made in the preamble, some of which 
 are, in my opinion, without foundation in fact. If," he continued, " a state 
 government can only be restored to its former practical relations in the Union 
 by the consent of the law-making power of the United States, it would really 
 seem to follow that the joint resolution which at this late day has received 
 the sanction of Congress should have been passed, approved, and placed on 
 the statute-books before any amendment of the Constitution was submitted to 
 the legislature of Tennessee for its ratification. Otherwise the inference is 
 plainly deducible that while, in the opinion of Congress, the people of a state 
 may be too strongly disloyal to be entitled to representation, they may, never 
 theless, during the suspension of their former proper practical relations to the 
 Union, have an equally potent voice with other and loyal states in proposi 
 tions to amend the Constitution, upon which so essentially depend the sta 
 bility, prosperity, and very existence of the Union." 
 
 No state of the South had less of the secession spirit before the com 
 mencement of hostilities, nor more of devotion to the Union, than North 
 Carolina. In February, 1861, her people voted down the legislative propo 
 sition to hold a state convention to consider the question of secession. On 
 the same day, however, delegates were elected to the proposed convention, 
 of whom a large majority, chosen by nearly thirty thousand majority of the 
 popular vote, were against secession. But the secessionists, who controlled 
 the legislature, were not satisfied with this decision of the people. They 
 passed another convention bill. This time they very shrewdly provided that 
 the action of the convention should be valid without a ratification by the peo 
 ple. Still a majority of the delegates, although chosen amid active prep 
 arations for war, the din of arms, and the threats and clamor of demagogues 
 engaged in " preparing the hearts of the people for war," were against 
 secession. They only yielded when the adjoining states adopted their dis 
 astrous ordinances. The anti-secession party in the state elected Zebulon B. 
 Vance governor. They secured a majority in the legislature. These anti- 
 secessionists of the South were in a predicament not unlike that of those 
 
384 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Northern Democrats who were opposed to making war while compromise 
 was possible. The Southern Unionists were swept along in the current 
 against their will, until many of them came to sympathize in a cause for 
 which their neighbors, friends, and relatives were fighting. But there was 
 this difference in the situation. In the Northern states public opinion was 
 not so intolerant but that, by holding his peace, a man might now and then 
 go unquestioned, and attend to his usual vocation. In the South this was 
 not the case. The achievement of independence was felt to be an enter 
 prise which nothing short of the most desperate determination could carry. 
 This consciousness, in conjunction with the intolerance of opposition, made 
 it necessary for every man to " show his hand," and to show it on the side 
 of secession and war. 
 
 Governor Vance was elected as an anti-secessionist, even after he had 
 drawn his sword as a Confederate colonel. But during the progress of the 
 war, his sympathies gradually became enlisted in the success of the cause 
 which his official position required him to support. Before the close of 
 the contest he was ranked among the foremost "war governors," for the 
 energy and efficiency of his measures. But when further resistance was no 
 longer possible, when Lee and Johnston surrendered, when Mr. Davis 
 and his government abandoned Richmond, and when Governor Vance him 
 self found it necessary to flee before Sherman's advancing army, he had 
 the wisdom and the regard for the welfare of the people, to issue an 
 earnest appeal in behalf of peace and order on April 28, 1865. This appeal, 
 and the admirable general orders issued at the same time by Major-General 
 Schofield, had no doubt a large share in the almost immediate restoration of 
 peace and good order within the state. General Schofield was practically 
 the military governor of North Carolina until May 29th. Then President 
 Johnson superseded him by the appointment of Mr. Holden as provisional 
 governor, to carry on the work of reconstruction. The provisional governor 
 announced by proclamation, on June 12, 1865, his purpose to order an 
 election of delegates to a convention, and to appoint justices of the peace 
 to administer the oath of allegiance and hold the election. The conven 
 tion was duly elected by the class of people who could run the gauntlet of 
 President Johnson's stringent conditions. It met at Raleigh, the seat of 
 government, on Oct. 2, 1865. It was composed of men who for the most 
 part had opposed secession. They had never been in hearty sympathy with 
 the attempts to overthrow the general government. But there was, per 
 haps, not one among them who came up to the Republican standard of 
 loyalty. They were not only compromised by having given some sort of 
 "aid, counsel, countenance, or encouragement" to the rebellion, but they 
 were all opposed to the radical changes in the constitution and laws of the 
 state which were required by the Republicans. They cheerfully complied 
 with the demand for the repeal of the ordinance of secession. They con- 
 
NORTH CAROLINA SEEKS HER FEDERAL RELATIONS. 385 
 
 ceded the fact that slavery had been abolished by the President's procla 
 mation and by the disastrous results of the rebellion. They accordingly 
 made no objection to the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution for 
 ever excluding that institution from the state. They complied with the 
 President's demand for the repudiation of the whole war debt, though not 
 without some reluctance. The best "Union men" among them had lent 
 money to the state, or to the counties, to equip and to provide comforts for 
 their friends and neighbors, their sons and kindred, when they were about to 
 march to the field. Nothing but the imperative demand of the President 
 and Secretary Seward could have induced the convention to repudiate this 
 class of claims. But the convention obeyed the unavoidable behest, and its 
 work was ratified by the people. 
 
 The ordinance in regard to secession is remarkable for the decided and 
 hearty manner in which it disposes of the subject. It reads as follows : "Be 
 it ordained by the delegates of the people of North Carolina, in conven 
 tion assembled, and it is hereby declared and ordained : That the ordi 
 nance of the Convention of the State of North Carolina, ratified on the 2ist 
 day of November, 1789, which adopted and ratified the Constitution of the 
 United States, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly, 
 ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are now, and 
 at all times since the adoption and ratification thereof have been in full 
 force and effect, notwithstanding the supposed ordinance of the 2oth of 
 May, 1861, declaring the same to be repealed, rescinded and abrogated ; and 
 the said supposed ordinance is now, and at all times hath been null and 
 void." This ordinance was unanimously adopted by the convention. It 
 was ratified by the popular vote, together with the one prohibiting slavery. 
 Slavery was abolished by another ordinance, without a preamble, such as 
 was employed by the other state conventions, implying acquiescence in a 
 necessity. It simply declared "that slavery and involuntary servitude, 
 otherwise than for crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly con 
 victed, shall be, and is hereby forever prohibited within the state." 
 
 In the subsequent election, Provisional Governor Holden was defeated by 
 Jonathan Worth ; a result which greatly disappointed the President. The 
 legislature chosen ratified the constitutional amendment proposed by Con 
 gress for the abolition of slavery throughout the Union, with only six dis 
 senting votes. This and similar acts of ratification of the amendments to 
 the Constitution by the seceded states, as conditions of restoration to their 
 rights, were held by many to be invalid, being performed under duress, 
 as was alleged. Mr. Worth, who was elected governor under the newly 
 formed constitution, received 32,529 votes to 25,809 cast for Governor 
 Holden. Both candidates were regarded as Union men during the war. 
 Mr. Worth was a Whig, of Quaker ancestry. He had never wavered in his 
 allegiance to the Union, except so far as it became necessary to accept citi- 
 
386 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 zenship under the de facto Confederate government. He was a man of 
 rigid integrity, tenacious of his principles, and as little inclined to the Re 
 publican party, with its radical principles, as to the secession Democracy. 
 
 Governor Holden, prior to the war, was a Democratic editor and leader. 
 He had taken strong ground in favor of the right of secession, and of the 
 imperative duty of secession, on the part of the South, in the event of the 
 election of an abolitionist to the Presidency. This was his position in 1856, 
 when there seemed to be a possibility of the election of Fremont. But in 
 1859 ne began to withdraw his support from the secessionists ; and in 1861 
 he took a leading part with the conservatives, who were for the most part 
 Whigs, against secession as the "rightful remedy" for Southern griev 
 ances. This change of position is attributed by his enemies to the fact that 
 he was not nominated for governor. He was elected to the state convention 
 in February, 1861, by the people of Wake County, along with the late Mr. 
 Badger, as a Unionist. But as a member of the convention, Mr. Holden, 
 like all others of similar views, succumbed to the overwhelming pressure 
 of Southern opinion. Those were " times that tried men's souls." Among 
 the Unionists of the South who then participated in public affairs, there 
 was not one who did not yield a passive or active obedience to the inflexi 
 ble will of the ruling class. There seems to have been no alternative 
 for a man of earnest convictions of duty and high resolves and purposes, 
 but to get out from among them, or to become a martyr. Mr. Holden, as an 
 old and practiced politician, yielded, and yielded gracefully. He voted for 
 the ordinance of secession, and not without the manifestation of a cordial 
 sympathy with the cause. His declaration that he would leave the pen 
 with which he affixed his signature to the fatal paper as an heir-loom to 
 his posterity was doubtless inspired by the desire to regain the confidence 
 of his former friends and associates. His pledge of " the last dollar and 
 the last man" in the state to the cause was probably given in the same 
 policy. But if such was his expectation, it utterly failed him. The breach, 
 so far from closing up, grew wider. Mr. Holden gradually drifted into the 
 ranks of the disaffected and despairing subjects of the Confederacy. His 
 newspaper, the Standard, became their organ. In his capacity of editor 
 of a newspaper which was not in sympathy with the cause, he came to 
 be regarded as a public enemy of secession. He was subjected to galling 
 insult and persecution. There can be no doubt of the sincerity of the joy 
 with which he hailed the overthrow of the Confederacy and the restoration 
 of the Union. It was to his career as a successful Democratic editor and 
 party leader that he owed his appointment by President Johnson. The 
 latter, a native of Raleigh, and thoroughly conversant with North Carolina 
 politics, was in full sympathy with Mr. Holden in his hatred of the seces 
 sion leaders, and in his distrust of the Whigs. Each had risen from poverty 
 to eminence and influence ; and each had relied on the support of the masses, 
 
PEDDLING AMNESTY IN NORTH CAROLINA. 38? 
 
 rather than on the favor of the wealthy and aristocratic leaders of the De 
 mocracy. Their support, in former years, of these leaders had been regarded 
 as highly conducive, if not essential, to the success of the party in the two 
 states to which they belonged, but they were never favorites with the aris 
 tocracy. 
 
 It was with such antecedents that Mr. Holden was appointed provisional 
 governor of North Carolina. The work of reconstruction would have tasked 
 the resources of any man. He was expected to reconcile a high-spirited and 
 defeated people to the great revolution in the social order which followed 
 from the overthrow of secession. He had to preserve the peace be 
 tween the white and colored races under their changed conditions ; and to 
 enforce equal laws between men who, up to that time, had stood to each 
 other in the relation of master and slave. To accomplish these ends the 
 governor should have possessed, or have set about acquiring, the confidence 
 and esteem of the best portion of society. He should have endeavored to 
 draw to his support every man whose character and whose interests in 
 society were guarantees and pledges of a desire to see peace and order 
 restored. This Governor Holden failed to do. His solicitude seemed to be, 
 to form a parry devoted to President Johnson and himself, rather than to 
 reform society by giving his confidence to men who could be relied on to 
 stand by the laws, and by the renewed pledges of fidelity to the Union. It 
 was impossible for any one to imagine, for instance, that Governor Graham 
 would be false to his oath of allegiance, that he would become the leader of 
 a guerrilla band, or that he would in any way give countenance to any des 
 perate or unlawful enterprise. The same might be said of the great body 
 of the property-holders in the state, and of the people at large. But the 
 former were disfranchised. Mr. Johnson's *' policy" put every man who 
 was deemed to be worth twenty thousand dollars under the ban, and left it 
 to the discretion of Mr. Holden to say how long they should remain under it. 
 The execution of this " policy" was called by Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, 
 " peddling amnesty." There was never a suspicion that the business was 
 attended by pecuniary corruption; but that amnesty was withheld, and 
 granted, from mere party considerations, is a proposition too plain to be con 
 troverted. Many who had been active secessionists were promptly pardoned ; 
 while many others who had reluctantly acquiesced in secession were refused 
 pardon. This policy failed, of course, to win over the better part of the peo 
 ple. It was pursued ever after by the Republican administrations, but it 
 never succeeded in any one state. If the contrary policy had been adopted, 
 of calling on all law-abiding citizens of the South to stand by the govern 
 ment not by the party in power in the preservation of peace and the 
 enforcement of the laws ; and if the best and highest characters in the South 
 not the violent, or extreme men, but the wise, discreet, substantial men 
 
388 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 had been called on to assist in the work of reconstruction, the best results 
 would have followed. This, to some extent, was the policy of Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 Under the amended state constitution an act was passed in March, 1866, 
 " concerning negroes and persons of color, or of mixed blood." It declared 
 that negroes and their issue, even where one ancestor in each preceding gen 
 eration to the fourth inclusive was white, should be deemed persons of color. 
 This was the ante-bellum definition of persons of mixed blood. It is still 
 the law, and may be brought into requisition with reference to prohibited 
 marriages. The same statute gave to negroes all the rights of white persons 
 before the courts, in prosecuting and defending suits. It made them competent 
 witnesses in all cases of law or equity in which persons of color were con 
 cerned. Their exclusion from the witness-box in cases involving the rights 
 of white persons only, was unwise. It was not in the interest of justice ; but 
 it cannot be regarded an oppressive regulation for the colored race. 
 Under the law of slavery in this state and throughout the South, the mar 
 riage relation between slaves was not recognized. It might be broken by 
 either party, or by the masters. This barbarism was removed. The laws 
 relating to marriage were made applicable to the colored population ; and 
 where a man and woman, lately slaves, had lived together as man and wife, 
 they were to be deemed lawfully married from the commencement of 
 their cohabitation. They were required to go before the clerk of the 
 county court and acknowledge the cohabitation. Of this a record was to be 
 made, which was to be prima facie evidence of marriage. 
 
 On May 24, 1866, the convention of the preceding year met pursuant to 
 adjournment. It made amendments that were found to be necessary in order 
 to induce the military commander to relax his hold upon the state and people, 
 and allow the laws to be enforced by the civil officers. The governor in 
 a message stated that General Robinson, then in charge of the Freedmen's 
 Bureau, was desirous of turning over to the jurisdiction of the state courts 
 all cases relating to the freedmen, but that he could not do so in consequence 
 of certain provisions of the recent act of the legislature in regard to negroes. 
 This act restricted negro testimony, and it inflicted on a negro, and on a 
 white man, different penalties for the same crime. This discrimination be 
 tween the races was at once removed by the convention. The general there 
 upon turned over the enforcement of the laws to the civil courts. Other 
 changes were made ; but the whole constitution being submitted to the people 
 for ratification, it was voted down, though by a vote of less than two thousand 
 in above forty-one thousand. Governor Worth was re-elected in August by 
 a large majority of the small vote given. He was superseded in the early 
 part of 1867, under the Reconstruction acts, by Gen. Daniel E. Sickles, the 
 military commander of the district. Thus North Carolina continued to be a 
 " conquered province." 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI AND HER GOVERNORS JUDGE SHARKEY- PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S 
 TERSE ORDER -LEGISLATION IN DETAIL GEORGIA RECONSTRUCTED HER 
 TERRIBLE CONDITION IN 1865 ACTION OF HER PEOPLE TEXAS RECON 
 STRUCTEDGOVERNOR HAMILTON AND HIS PROCLAMATIONS ALABAMA- 
 VANDALISM THERE GOVERNOR PARSONS' DESCRIPTION OF IT HIS SER 
 VICESALABAMA CONVENTION.- QUARREL OVER THE EPISCOPAL PRAYERS 
 MEDDLESOME MILITARY ORDER SOUTH CAROLINA BRECKENRIDGE ON 
 THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHI VALRY GOVERNORS MAGRATH, PERRY, AND 
 ORR- OBSTACLES OVERCOME. 
 
 GENERAL CLARK was the governor of Mississippi when the 
 Confederate armies surrendered. He called an extra session of 
 the legislature, to meet on the i8th of May, 1865 ; but General 
 Canby, by direction of the President, forbade the meeting of that 
 body. On June 13, Judge William A. Sharkey was appointed provisional 
 governor by the President, with powers like those conferred upon Governor 
 Holden, of North Carolina. A convention was then called by Governor 
 Sharkey, the members to be elected on August 7, and the voters to have the 
 same qualifications as those prescribed in the North Carolina proclamation. 
 
 Judge Sharkey was a lawyer who had a thoroughly professional mind. 
 He could drive a legal proposition through every impediment. It may not 
 do to liken him to Chief Justice Marshall, who gave such logical decisions that 
 they required no precedent to support them. For eighteen years he presided 
 as chief justice of the High Court of Errors and Appeals in Mississippi. 
 In that domain he had no peer in his state. He was a Tennessee man, 
 born on the River Holston, just before the incoming of the present century. 
 His maternal grandfather was a German belonging to the Rhine. His father 
 was an Irishman whose name was Patrick Sharkey. This combination pre 
 saged very much to the credit of the chancellor who became so famous, and 
 who played such an important part during the war. When a boy of fifteen, 
 young Sharkey entered the army of General Jackson. He was a substitute 
 
390 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 for an uncle. He was at the battle of New Orleans, and witnessed the over 
 throw of the British on the Plains of Chalmette. His military fame was won 
 on the 8th of January, 1815. After that adventure he returned to Tennessee. 
 There, at a school of some note in Greenville, he learned more or less of the 
 English branches of education, and he afterwards read law with Dr. Hill, of 
 Lebanon, Tennessee. After that he went to Mississippi, where his ability, 
 integrity, and genius for the law gave him a large practice. In 1827, he was 
 sent to the legislature. He was an eminent judge as early as 1832. No man 
 who ever sat upon the bench of the High Court of Errors and Appeals in 
 Mississippi settled more questions or made more authoritative precedents 
 than Judge Sharkey. His work in the Mississippi state reports is a monu 
 ment to his legal fame. He had an immense treasure of common sense. 
 He never failed in minute detail. He never failed on a legal principle. 
 When he left the bench in 1850 it was to rescue his little fortune. President 
 Fillmore tendered him the position of Secretary of War, which he declined. 
 He preferred to devote his talent and thought to the Constitution. Years 
 afterwards, when the dire work of civil war had ended, he became one of 
 the heroes of reconstruction. . As stated, President Johnson made him pro 
 visional governor of Mississippi. It was a difficult, delicate, and most un 
 grateful office ; yet all parties were satisfied with his administration. At the 
 first election under the new system he was chosen Senator from his state. 
 But the reconstruction policy of the President having been abrogated, he was, 
 with other Southern members, refused a seat. It would have been better, 
 perhaps, if he had been elected governor. He returned to Mississippi and 
 continued to practice his profession. The writer remembers him well as a 
 man of kind, polished manner, with a rare fund of conversation, as brilliant 
 as it was attractive. He was a man who looked to the unseen world. He 
 was a strict Methodist, in which communion he died, but he was worthy to be 
 called, as Wendell Phillips once said of Samuel Adams, " one of Plutarch's 
 men." His name is all over, and all through, and all under the jurisprudence 
 of his state. No one lives so gloriously in the annals of Mississippi as Judge 
 William L. Sharkey. 
 
 It is said of Judge Sharkey by men of his own state who took part in 
 its resurrection, that he was not successful in the office of governor ; that 
 he did not materially assist in restoring its statehood or its prosperity. Their 
 criticism is, that he was a specimen of that class of wonderful men who make 
 great judges, jurists, and chancellors, but are utter failures in that field of 
 politics in which motives must be divined at each stage of human vicissitude 
 and progress. However this may be, it must be said that he had little op 
 portunity to show much administrative ability as governor. 
 
 His successor, Governor Humphreys, accomplished nothing. He could 
 not have done any good for the state, with such a legislature as came into 
 power with him. His recommendations to that body might have suited the 
 
REORGANIZATION IN MISSISSIPPI. 391 
 
 temper of the people of the state, but it is not improbable that Judge 
 Sharkey's recommendations would have better impressed them with the 
 importance of liberal action towards the freedmen. Judge Sharkey had 
 visited Washington, and had there met the leaders of both parties. He 
 knew the vital necessity of temperate action in the South. 
 
 The convention called by Provisional Governor Sharkey met at the city 
 of Jackson on the i4th of August, 1865. The next day the governor re 
 ceived a dispatch from President Johnson, of which the following is a copy : 
 
 " 1 am gratified to see that you have organized your convention without 
 difficulty. I hope that without delay your convention will amend your state 
 constitution, abolishing slavery, and denying to all future legislatures the 
 power to legislate that there is property in man ; also that they will adopt the 
 amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery. If 
 you could extend the elective franchise to all persons of color who can read 
 the Constitution of the United States in English, and write their names, and 
 to all persons of color who own real estate valued' at not less than two hun 
 dred and fifty dollars, and pay taxes thereon, you would completely disarm 
 the adversary, and set an example the other states will follow. This you can 
 do with perfect safety, and you thus place the Southern States, in reference to 
 free persons of color, upon the same basis with the free states. I hope and 
 trust your convention will do this, and, as a consequence, the radicals, who 
 are wild upon negro franchise, will be completely foiled in their attempt to 
 keep the Southern States from renewing their relations to the Union by not 
 accepting their Senators and Representatives. ANDREW JOHNSON." 
 
 This was excellent advice. It would have been much better for the peo 
 ple of Mississippi and of the South had it been followed. It would have left 
 no pretext for denying the state her Federal rights. The Mississippians did 
 not credit the President with good intentions. They were not in a mood to 
 receive advice from him. They were familiar with his career during the 
 war, and immediately following its close. To them he seemed to be inspired 
 with all the bitter antagonism to the South which animated the Northern 
 radicals. His recommendation was regarded as the essence of radical 
 policy. Had not President Lincoln, in the early part of the preceding year, 
 March 13, 1864, addressed a letter similar in purpose to Provisional Gov 
 ernor Hahn, of Louisiana ? No ; Mississippi was not yet prepared to accept 
 such advice. Mr. Lincoln's letter is brief. It is worthy of a place in this 
 connection : 
 
 " MY DEAR SIR : I congratulate you on having fixed your name in his 
 tory as the first free state governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to 
 have a convention, which, among other things, will define the elective fran 
 chise, I barely suggest, for your private consideration, whether some of the 
 colored people may not be let in as, for instance, the very intelligent, and 
 
392 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would proba 
 bly help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty in the 
 family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to 
 you alone. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN." 
 
 But the Mississippi convention was not alone in its objection to negro 
 suffrage. Even the Republicans of the North were slow to adopt such a 
 policy for their own states. Nevertheless, the convention did some notable 
 work. It did enough to disarm even the radicals, if the latter had not been 
 determined to make the South the stronghold of their party. The conven 
 tion passed ordinances for the amendment of the state constitution : 
 
 first. Declaring null and void the ordinance of secession, passed in 
 state convention on Jan. 9, 1861. 
 
 Second. Declaring that, slavery having been destroyed, neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment .of crimes 
 whereof the party should have been duly convicted, should thereafter exist 
 in the state. This ordinance further provided that the legislature at its next 
 session, and thereafter as the public welfare might require, should provide 
 by law for the protection and security of the freedmen and their property, 
 and guard them and the state from any evils that might arise from their 
 sudden emancipation. 
 
 An amendment to the twelfth section of the State Declaration of Rights 
 contained a germ of evil consequences to the state. It had much to do with 
 defeating President Johnson's beneficent plans for reconstruction. That sec 
 tion provided " That no person shall, for any indictable offense, be pro 
 ceeded against criminally by information ; except in cases arising in the land 
 and naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, or, by leave of the 
 court, for misdemeanor in office." The amendment provided "That the 
 legislature, in cases of petit larceny, assault, assault and battery, affray, riot, 
 unlawful assembly, drunkenness, vagrancy, and other misdemeanors of like 
 character, may dispense with an inquest of a grand jury, and may authorize 
 prosecutions before justices of the peace, or such other inferior court as may 
 be established by the legislature ; and the proceedings in such cases shall be 
 regulated by law." 
 
 The ordinances were adopted, and an election was held on Oct. 9, 1865, 
 for governor and other state officers, congressmen, and members of the 
 state legislature. The legislature elected under the new constitution met on 
 October i6th, of the same year. Benjamin G. Humphreys, a prominent gen 
 tleman of the state, was elected governor. He recommended, in his message, 
 that the negroes be placed on the footing of white men as to the right of 
 suing and being sued, and of giving testimony ; that the negroes be encouraged 
 to engage in the pursuits of industry ; and that the militia laws be revised so 
 as to protect the people " against insurrection, or any .possible combination 
 of vicious white men with negroes." 
 
REORGANIZATION IN MISSISSIPPI. 393 
 
 This legislature refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment to the United 
 States Constitution, abolishing slavery. The members legislated with a 
 view to recognize as little as possible any of the results of the war. As an 
 evidence of gratitude toward those who had fought for Southern independ 
 ence, they appropriated twenty per centum of the state revenues " for the re 
 lief of the destitute and disabled Confederate States soldiers." The old 
 United States pensioners who had fought for the Confederacy were exempted 
 from payment of state taxes. There was nothing objectionable in these lib 
 eral provisions in a state where all the tax-payers had been to some extent 
 in sympathy with secession. They were, however, construed in Congress, 
 with other provisions passed by that body, as giving evidence that the peo 
 ple were not fit to conduct their own state government. 
 
 Pursuant to the spirit of the governor's recommendation, and to the 
 spirit of the people also, the legislature passed, on November 22d " An 
 Act to regulate the relation of master and apprentice." This act related 
 exclusively to the colored race. It required sheriffs, justices of the peace, 
 and other civil officers to report to the probate courts of the several coun 
 ties, semi-annually, " all freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes, under the 
 age of eighteen," who were orphans, or whose parents had abandoned or 
 failed to provide for them. The courts were required to bind as apprentices 
 all such persons, on such terms as the judge might direct, " having a par 
 ticular care to the interest of said minors." It was provided that the minors 
 should be bound to their former owners, when, in the opinion of the court, 
 the latter were persons suitable for that purpose. The court was enjoined 
 to have a particular care of the interests of such minors. The males were to 
 be bound until they were twenty-one years old, and the females until their 
 eighteenth year. The usual authority for the moderate chastisement of ap 
 prentices was given, and for their recovery if they should run away. 
 
 A vagrant act was passed on November 24th. It provided that all freed 
 men, free negroes, and mulattoes, over the age of eighteen years, who, on 
 or after the second Monday in January, 1866, might be found without lawful 
 employment or business, or unlawfully assembling themselves, either in the 
 day or night time, and all white persons so assembling, or usually asso 
 ciating with them on terms of equality, or living in adultery or fornication 
 with a freed-woman, free negro, or mulatto, should be deemed vagrants, 
 and on conviction thereof be fined in a sum not exceeding, in the case 
 of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto, fifty dollars, and of a white man, 
 two hundred dollars, and be imprisoned at the discretion of the court, the 
 free negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six 
 months. Jurisdiction was conferred on all justices of the peace, mayors, 
 and aldermen, to try offenders against the act without a jury, and to sentence 
 them. Sheriffs and constables were punishable for neglecting to report 
 25 
 
394 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 such cases. If the convicted parties failed to pay the fine within five days 
 after its imposition, they were to be hired out for a sum equal thereto, the 
 proceeds to be paid into the county treasury. By another act a poll tax, not 
 to exceed one dollar, was imposed on every freedman, free negro, and mu 
 latto, between the ages of eighteen and sixty, for the support of the poor. 
 Failure to pay this tax was made prima facie evidence of vagrancy, and the 
 party was to be dealt with accordingly. 
 
 An act to confer civil rights on the colored people was passed on Nov. 
 25, 1865. It gave them the right to sue and be sued, plead and be im- 
 pleaded, in all the courts of law and equity in the state ; and to intermarry 
 with each other, but not with white people. Power was given them to ac 
 quire and hold personal property, and to dispose of it in the same manner 
 as white people. But it was expressly provided that no colored person 
 should be allowed to rent or lease any lands or tenements, except in incor 
 porated towns or cities ; and in the latter places the corporate authorities 
 were to control this privilege. The right to testify in the courts was 
 granted to the colored people, but only in civil and criminal cases, where 
 any of them should be parties, as plaintiffs or defendants. On and after the 
 second Monday in January of each year, every colored person was required 
 to have a written certificate from a city or county officer, showing that he had 
 a home and employment. If a laborer should quit the service of his employer 
 before the expiration of his contract, without good cause, he was to forfeit 
 his wages for the time he had served. He was subject to be arrested by any 
 civil officer, or other person, and brought back to his employer. The offi 
 cer or other person making the arrest was to be entitled to a fee of five dol 
 lars, and ten cents per mile from the place of arrest to the place of delivery. 
 This was to be paid by the employer, and held as a set-off against the wages 
 of the deserter. The laborer was allowed the right of complaint before a 
 justice of the peace, or member of the board of police. These officers were 
 authorized to try and determine the case. Any justice of the peace, on 
 affidavit made by the employer of a colored laborer alleging that such laborer 
 had " illegally deserted," was required to issue a warrant for the arrest of the 
 offender. The warrant, in such case, was to be recognized as valid in any 
 county in the state. This so-called civil rights act made it a penal offense, 
 punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, to entice away a hired 
 freedman from his employer. 
 
 By another act, passed on November 29th, the colored people were forbid 
 den to keep or carry fire-arms, or any ammunition, or knife. This act also 
 applied to them in full force all the penal and criminal laws " defining 
 offenses and prescribing the mode of punishment for crimes and misde 
 meanors committed by slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes," except so far as 
 the mode and manner of trial and punishment had been changed or altered 
 by law. This last mentioned provision was the climax of legislative folly. 
 
REORGANIZATION IN GEORGIA. 395 
 
 It defeated wholly the legitimate effect of the ordinance abolishing slavery. 
 In effect it was a re-enactment of the old slave code. 
 
 It is manifest that this legislation was conceived exclusively in the in 
 terest of the planters, with only such reference (deference there was none) 
 to the rights and welfare of the colored people of the state as was thought 
 necessary to satisfy the demands of Northern opinion and the new national 
 guarantees of freedom. Assuredly the legislature that enacted these laws 
 must have been ignorant of the change of sentiment in the North. It is 
 surprising that the intelligent men of Mississippi could have persuaded 
 themselves, after the terrible experiences through which they had passed, 
 that the triumphant North, now thoroughly imbued with the anti-slavery 
 sentiment, would for a moment tolerate this new slave code. Such legisla 
 tion was far removed from the temporary guardianship of the freedmen 
 which Mr. Lincoln thought would be necessary to prevent idleness, va 
 grancy, and disorder. What he suggested was calculated to promote the 
 welfare and the improvement of the freedmen, as well as the peace and 
 prosperity of their former masters. Mr. Johnson was aiming, doubtless, to 
 follow in the footsteps of his predecessor in this regard, as far as the change 
 of Northern feeling would permit him. It was owing to this sort of legisla 
 tion in the Southern States that Mr. Johnson's policy of conciliation was 
 defeated. It gave plausible reasons for the despotic military rule devised by 
 Thaddeus Stevens and his partisans. It was cited as proof to the Northern 
 people that there was no sincere purpose on the part of the South to acqui 
 esce in the freedom of the former slaves. It caused the doubting and hes 
 itating Republicans to overcome their constitutional views, and to decide 
 for immediate negro suffrage as a political necessity. 
 
 The protracted struggles between the armies of the Union and the Con 
 federacy in northern Georgia, from Chattanooga to Atlanta, followed by 
 General Sherman's " march to the sea," left a scene of wide-spread desola 
 tion. The correspondents of the day gave graphic descriptions of the desti 
 tution and suffering of all classes of the people of Georgia. These descrip 
 tions present a picture shocking to contemplate ; and yet, in view of the 
 wholesale destruction of property, the consumption and waste of great 
 armies, and the disruption of social order by which regular labor was ren 
 dered impossible, there can be no doubt that these pictures were true to the 
 life. One instance of the prevailing destitution is here given : " Thomas H. 
 Moore, of respectable and even cultured address, introduced himself as the 
 agent for the county, appointed by the state, for the distribution of the sup 
 plies voted by the rebel legislature to the people of northern Georgia, after 
 Sherman's passage. He said all these supplies had been long ago issued. 
 He had himself, since, walked to Atlanta (having no horse), to procure 
 more. A few hundred pounds of provisions had been furnished, which he 
 
396 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 was now distributing, but these amounted to a mere pittance, and he was 
 obliged to reserve them for those who were already on the verge of starvation. 
 Women daily nay, hourly, came in from a distance often and fifteen miles, 
 to get a few mouthfuls to save the lives of their helpless children. 
 
 " After him came slave-holders, the wealthiest in the county one with 
 sixty slaves, who complained that what had once made them the richest, now 
 made them the poorest. They had nothing to feed these people, without 
 
 whose aid the crops could not be secured. Mr. had told his negroes 
 
 that if they would remain with him, now that they were free, he would com 
 pensate them, and share with them his land, and they were anxious to do so ; 
 but and he called me aside to tell me this privately the distributing offi 
 cers refused to furnish food to the slave-holders, who, unless they could get 
 aid, would, together with the negroes, starve. They told me that no man in 
 the county had more than two bushels of corn left. . . . The com 
 mandant has mentioned a case that occurred yesterday. A poor woman 
 came all the way into town on foot, from a distance of twenty miles, leaving 
 at home a family of children who had had nothing to eat for twenty-four 
 hours." 
 
 Another press correspondent said: "From a recent report made by 
 order of the military authorities, it is ascertained that there are 35,000 men, 
 women, and children in the counties of Georgia immediately surrounding 
 Atlanta, who are dependent upon the United States Government for sup 
 port and preservation from death by hunger. In the counties north of 
 Georgia there must be at least as many more, for at every post and headquar 
 ters of the United States forces hundreds of applicants apply daily for relief. 
 To such an extent does this state of affairs prevail, that it seriously incom 
 modes the troops, and although every effort has been made to relieve the suf 
 ferings of the people, yet vast destitution prevails among them. An order 
 has recently been issued by General Thomas, directing that several thou 
 sand bushels of corn be distributed among these poor people, which will 
 prove of great benefit. Still, the evil increases day by day, by the arrival 
 of hundreds of poor refugees from points north of here, especially from 
 Indiana." 
 
 An ex-Confederate soldier, after stating the vast amount of food issued to 
 the starving people, said: "But before I close I cannot help but remark 
 that it must be a matter of gratitude, as well as surprise, for our people 
 to see a government which was lately fighting us with fire, and sword, 
 and shell, now generously feeding our poor and distressed. In the im 
 mense crowds which throng the distributing-house, I notice the mothers, 
 and fathers, and widows, and orphans of our soldiers who fought nobly 
 and how sadly, too often to the death, for our loved South. Again the 
 Confederate soldier, with one leg or one arm, the crippled, maimed, and 
 broken, and'theworn and destitute men who fought bravely their enemies 
 then, their benefactors now, have their sacks filled and are fed." 
 
REORGANIZATION IN GEORGIA. 397 
 
 This was the sad condition of Georgia on May 3, 1865, when Gov. 
 Joseph E. Brown issued a proclamation calling an extra session of the leg 
 islature, to convene on the 22d of the month. By direction of President 
 Johnson, Major-General Gilmore issued an order annulling this proclama 
 tion, and forbidding the members to assemble. The language used was 
 needlessly harsh and offensive to a fallen foe, who, at that time could have 
 had no purpose of renewing hostilities, and whose object, no doubt, was 
 the preservation of order, and the preparation of the public mind for the 
 inevitable results of the unsuccessful cause. It is due to Governor Brown 
 to say that he promptly acquiesced in the necessity of an unconditional 
 surrender. Although thrown out of office, he issued an address to the 
 people, urging them to accept the fate thrust upon them by the fortunes of 
 war, and to give their support, not only to the government of the United 
 States, but also to the administration of President Johnson. He advised 
 them to take the amnesty oath, to return to the Union in good faith, to exert 
 themselves for the relief of the distressed, the repair of the ravages of war, 
 and the restoration of peace and order under the old flag, to which all must 
 again look for protection, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. 
 
 On the 1 7th of June, the President appointed James Johnson provisional 
 governor of Georgia, with like powers and duties to those prescribed for 
 the provisional governor of North Carolina. These have been fully set 
 forth on preceding pages. Governor Johnson at once called on the people 
 to elect delegates to a state convention on the first Wednesday in October. 
 The convention was to assemble on the fourth Wednesday of that month. 
 The electors and delegates were to have the same qualifications prescribed 
 for those of North Carolina. Governor Johnson set forth the real state of 
 affairs in terms showing his strong attachment to the Union. 
 
 Men of talent came forward as candidates for the convention. The peo 
 ple showed themselves ready and anxious for peace and restoration to the 
 Union. They had felt the ravages and turmoil of the war. Their indus 
 tries and trade had been disorganized. The railroads were dilapidated or 
 destroyed. Eighteen millions had been added to the public debt of the 
 state. That addition, however, was easily disposed of, as there was an im 
 perative necessity pressing on the convention for its repudiation. The 
 convention met on the 25th of October, and the next day proceeded to 
 transact the important business for w r hich it had been called. First in order 
 was the adoption of an ordinance for the repeal of the secession and other 
 ordinances which had been passed in 1861 to separate the state from the 
 Union. This was done five days afterwards. The people of Georgia, by their 
 delegates to this convention, declared null and void the ordinance adopted 
 in convention on Jan. 19, 1861, to dissolve the Union between the State of 
 Georgia and other states, together with an ordinance adopted on the I5th of 
 March, 1861, to adopt and ratify the constitution of the Confederate States of 
 
39^ THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 America, and all ordinances and resolutions adopted between the i6th of Jan 
 uary and the 24th of March of that year, which were subversive of or antagon 
 istic to the civil and military authority of the government of the United States 
 of America under the Constitution, and they were then and there repealed. 
 
 The next act of the convention was to declare slavery abolished. This 
 was done by ordinance, declaring that " The Government of the United 
 States having, as a war measure, proclaimed all slaves held or owned in the 
 state, emancipated from slavery, and having carried that proclamation into 
 full practical effect ; therefore, there shall henceforth be, within the state of 
 Georgia, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, save as a punishment of 
 crime, after legal conviction thereof." It was provided that this acquiescence 
 in the action of the government of the United States was not intended to act 
 as a relinquishment, or waiver, or estoppel of such claim for compensation 
 for loss sustained by reason of the emancipation of his slaves, as any citizen 
 of Georgia might thereafter make upon the justice and magnanimity of that 
 government. This saving provision was inserted in the ordinance. It was 
 a natural, but vain effort to save something out of the general wreck. After 
 a good deal of hesitation, and some strong urging by the President and Sec 
 retary Seward, the convention, on the yth of November, declared the state 
 debt incurred in aid of the rebellion null and void. The vote stood : yeas, 
 133; nays, 117. The convention then adjourned. The legislature, which 
 met on the 4th of December following, ratified the Thirteenth Amendment 
 to the Constitution of the United States. This legislature made some pro 
 vision for the indigent Confederate and state soldiers, and for the widows and 
 children of those who had died in the service. Negroes were made compe 
 tent witnesses in all cases in which any of the race were parties. Intermar 
 riage between the races was prohibited. It was made a misdemeanor for a 
 clerk of court to issue a license for such a marriage, or for a minister of 
 religion or civil officer to perform the marriage ceremony between a white 
 and a colored person. A vagrant act was passed, the provisions of which, 
 unlike the re-enacted slave-code of Mississippi, applied equally to white and 
 colored persons. An act regulating the relations of master and servant was 
 also passed, which made no discriminations as to color. 
 
 These proceedings of the Georgia convention and legislature contrast 
 favorably with those of other states on the southern border. The more liberal 
 action of Georgia was doubtless due to the greater commercial and manufac 
 turing enterprise and ambition of her people. In those parts of the South 
 where agriculture was the only important interest, and slaves the only 
 laborers, there was ever the least liberality and the severest discipline over, 
 the servile class. The provisional governor of Georgia had the wisdom to 
 bring to his aid,' as far as it was in his power, the best talent in the state, 
 without regard to the former party connections of individuals. Yet Georgia 
 fared little better than her sister states in the work of reconstruction. 
 
REORGANIZATION IN TEXAS. 399 
 
 The great distance of Texas from the seat of the general government, and 
 the sparseness of the population diffused over her vast territory, will account 
 for the disorder which prevailed in that state for some months after the close 
 of the war. The governor showed a laudable purpose of restoring order, 
 and of bringing about a restoration of the state to her place in the Union. To 
 these ends, he summoned the members of the legislature to meet on the i6th 
 of July, 1865. At the same time he ordered an election of delegates to a 
 state convention, to be held on the I9th of June, in the hope of getting rid of 
 military rule. But in this he failed. 
 
 On the 1 7th of June, President Johnson appointed Gen. Andrew J. 
 Hamilton provisional governor. General Hamilton was a Texan by long 
 residence. He had filled many important stations. His appointment super 
 seded the spontaneous efforts at reconstruction which had been instituted by 
 his predecessor, Governor Murrah. The new governor had been opposed 
 to secession. He had been obliged to flee the state. He returned to Texas 
 in the latter part of July, with other refugees. He issued a proclamation on 
 the 25th of that month, announcing the powers that had been conferred on 
 him, and that a state convention would be called to remodel the constitution. 
 He did not take immediate steps to make the call. The election was not 
 held until the 8th of January, 1866. By a preceding proclamation, the quali 
 fications of delegates and electors had been stated. They were the same as 
 thpse prescribed for North Carolina. In the meantime, between the assump 
 tion of authority by the provisional governor and the institution of the new 
 popular government, justice was administered by judges, magistrates, and 
 officers temporarily commissioned for that purpose. In his first proclama 
 tion, Governor Hamilton invited and exhorted the people to engage in the 
 work of reconstructing local government for themselves. He assured them 
 that the United States Government had no purpose to humiliate the people 
 of the South. At the same time he said to them : " The negroes are not only 
 free, but I beg to assure my fellow-citizens that the government will protect 
 them in their freedom." 
 
 The following extract from the proclamation illustrates at once the good 
 spirit which animated the governor, and the unconquered spirit of masterdom 
 with which he had to contend: "For the time being, the freedmen are 
 recommended to engage with their former masters for reasonable compensa 
 tion, to labor at least till the close of the season for gathering the present 
 crop. For fhem, generally, to do otherwise would be greatly to the injury 
 of themselves and the community at large. But let it be understood that 
 combination among those interested in securing their labor to prevent them 
 from hiring to persons who will pay the best price for such labor, and to 
 ostracize in society those who oppose such combinations, will meet with no 
 favor at the hands of the people, or the government of the United Stales. 
 And candor compels me to say to the people of Texas, that if, in the action 
 
400 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of the proposed convention, the negro is characterized or treated as less than 
 a free man, our Senators and Representatives will seek in vain admission to 
 the halls of Congress. It is indeed strange that men should take a solemn 
 oath to faithfully abide by and support all laws and proclamations which 
 have been made during the existing rebellion, with reference to the emanci 
 pation of slaves, and in the next breath favor gradual emancipation. It is 
 the part of wisdom and the part of duty to accept what is inevitable without 
 resistance." 
 
 Three days after Governor Hamilton issued his proclamation, Major-Gen- 
 eral Granger, commanding the District of Texas, issued an order from his 
 provost-marshal's office at Galveston, earnestly enjoining all freedmen to 
 remain with their former masters, under such labor contracts as would be 
 made, until more permanent arrangements could be made by the Freedmen's 
 Bureau. The order gave notice that cruel treatment, or improper use of the 
 authority given to employers, would not be permitted. At the same time 
 both parties to contracts would be held equally bound to fulfill their condi 
 tions. There was a great disposition among the freedmen to abandon labor ; 
 therefore the order said that "No persons, formerly slaves, will be per 
 mitted to travel on the public thoroughfares without passes or permits from 
 their employers, or to congregate in buildings or camps, at or adjacent to any 
 military post or town. They will not be subsisted in idleness, or in any 
 way except as employes of the government, or in cases of extreme destitu 
 tion or sickness ; and in such cases the officer authorized to order the issues 
 shall be the judge as to the justice of the claim for such subsistence." This 
 was done in order to encourage a disposition to work among the enfran 
 chised class. Beside this object, the interest of the commonwealth impera 
 tively demanded it, in order that the growing crop might be secured. No 
 person, white or black, who was able to labor, was to be subsisted by 
 the government in idleness. The provost-marshals and their assistants 
 throughout the district were charged to use every means in their power to 
 carry out these instructions in their letter and spirit. Yet, in spite of these 
 rigorous military measures, the freedmen could not be kept in the fields. It 
 is estimated that in Texas alone, where there was a fine crop, there was a 
 loss of forty thousand bales of cotton, simply for the want of laborers to pick 
 it out. This waste occurred at a time when cotton was worth sixty cents a 
 pound. 
 
 The convention called by Governor Hamilton met on the loth of Febru 
 ary, 1866. It adopted an ordinance repealing the secession ordinance, and 
 declaring it null and void. The state debt incurred in aid of the rebellion, 
 and all responsibility for the Confederate States debts, were repudiated. 
 
 The eighth article of the constitution of Texas, adopted in 1845, pro 
 hibited emancipation without the consent of the owners. It required com 
 pensation to be made to them. It denied to the legislature the right to pass 
 
REORGANIZATION IN TEXAS. 401 
 
 laws prohibiting the importation of slaves from the other states of the Ameri 
 can Union. The convention of February, 1866, threw out this provision and 
 substituted an ordinance declaring : that African slavery, as it had heretofore 
 existed, having been terminated within the state by the government of the 
 United States by force of arms, and its re-establishment being prohibited by 
 the amendment to the Constitution of the United States ; therefore, neither 
 slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof 
 the party should have been duly convicted, should exist in the state. It also de 
 clared that Africans and their descendants should be protected in their rights 
 of person and property by appropriate legislation ; they should have the right 
 to contract and be contracted with ; to sue and be sued ; to acquire, hold, 
 and transmit property ; and all criminal prosecutions against them should be 
 conducted in the same manner as prosecutions for like offenses against the 
 white race, and they should be subject to like penalties. Neither Africans 
 nor their descendants should be prohibited, on account of their color or race, 
 from testifying orally as witnesses, in any case, civil or criminal, involving the 
 right of, or injury to, or crime against any of them in person or property. 
 They were to have the same rules of evidence that were applicable to the 
 white race. The credibility of their testimony was to be determined by the 
 court or jury hearing the same ; and the legislature was given power to au 
 thorize them to testify as witnesses in all other cases, under such regulations 
 as might be prescribed, as to facts thereafter occurring. An act was 
 passed by the same legislature regulating the relations of master and 
 apprentice. It made no discrimination on account of race or color. 
 Minors, with or without the consent of parents, were to be bound out if 
 found wandering about without a regular home or employment. A lien 
 on crops was also given to creditors who advanced the means of produc 
 ing them. All contracts for labor exceeding one month in duration were 
 required to be in writing, and witnessed by a justice of the peace or notary 
 public. A stay law was passed extending the time for issuing execution for 
 one, two, three, and four years, on the first, second, third, and fourth quar 
 ters of the debt. 
 
 More than one-third of the members of the convention were in favor of a 
 system based on a broader foundation than that of the white race exclusively, 
 but they were voted down, by a vote of 47 to 26. Several members were in 
 favor of giving qualified suffrage to negroes who could read and write. 
 
 State officers were elected under the new constitution on June 4th, follow 
 ing, and the constitution was ratified on the same day. The vote was small, 
 only 48,519, of which there was a majority of 7'7 J 9 m f avor of ratifica 
 tion. The total vote for governor was 60,682, of which Mr. Throckmorton, 
 the " Conservative Union" candidate received 48,631, and the Republican, 
 Mr. Pease, received 12,051. In the legislature elected at the same time, the 
 Republicans had two of the thirty-three members in the senate, and in the 
 
402 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 house of representatives, five of the ninety members. The provisional gov 
 ernor and his officers were then instructed by the President to turn over the 
 control of affairs to the officials chosen by the people. The new administra 
 tion was immediately inaugurated, and the instruction was complied with. 
 
 During the session of the convention a resolution was reported in regard 
 to the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, by 
 a committee appointed to consider the proposal, for its ratification. The 
 report was to the effect that, " The people of Texas, in convention 
 assembled, have already by their ordinance acknowledged the supremacy of 
 the Constitution of the United States, in which Constitution the above named 
 article thirteen is embraced as part of the same ; the courts of law so hold 
 and administer. The legislature has no authority in this matter ; any action 
 on the same would be surplusage, if not intrusive. The committee, there 
 fore, ask to be excused from the further consideration of the same ; and they 
 therewith respectfully return the communication of the Honorable 'the Sec 
 retary of the United States." This was a plausible avoidance of a disagreeable 
 duty. The legislature of a state has certainly authority to act on the ratifi 
 cation of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The idea 
 was shrewdly thrown out that such action would be "surplusage, if not in 
 trusive," on the ground that the Thirteenth Amendment might be consid 
 ered ratified when the convention, the year previous, repealed the secession 
 ordinance, and repledged the faith of the state to the Union. This did not 
 satisfy Congress, hence military supervision remained. 
 
 The wretched condition of the people of Alabama at the close of the war 
 was described by Lewis E. Parsons, the provisional governor, in a lecture de 
 livered in New- York, in the year 1865. He said that while public attention 
 in the North was turned mainly to the operations around Richmond, and to 
 those which attended the movements of the vast armies of General Sherman, 
 it also happened that Gen. James H. Wilson, of Illinois, with a large force 
 of cavalry, some seventeen thousand, commenced a movement from the Ten 
 nessee River, and a point in the northwest of the State of Alabama, diag 
 onally across the state. His troops penetrated to the centre and then radiated 
 from Selma in every direction, through one of the most productive regions 
 of the South. 
 
 That little city of Selma had about ten thousand inhabitants. Its defenses 
 were carried by assault on one of the first Sunday evenings in April, the sun 
 being about an hour high. Before another sun rose, every house in the city 
 was sacked, except two. Every woman was robbed of her watch, her ear 
 rings, her finger-rings, her jewelry of all descriptions ; and the whole city 
 was given up, for the time, to the possession of the soldiers. It was a severe 
 discipline to the people. It was thought necessary by the commanding gen 
 eral, to subdue the spirit of rebellion. For one week the forces under Gen- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN ALABAMA. 403 
 
 eral Wilson occupied the little town. Night after night and day after day, 
 one public building after another, the arsenal and then the foundry, each of 
 which covered eight or nine acres of ground and was conducted upon a scale 
 commensurate with the demand for military supplies that the war created, 
 the railroad depots and machine-shops connected with them, and everything 
 of that description which had been in any degree subservient to the cause of 
 the rebellion were laid in ashes. Of the brick stores in the city, more than 
 sixty in number, forty-nine were consumed. 
 
 " Indeed," said Governor Parsons, " after three weeks had elapsed, it was 
 with difficulty you could travel the road from Plantersville to that city, so of 
 fensive was the atmosphere, in consequence of decaying horses and mules that 
 lay along the road-side. Every description of ruin, except the interred dead of 
 the human family, met the eye. I witnessed it myself. The fact is, that no 
 description can equal the reality. When the Federal forces left the little town, 
 which is built on a bluff on the Alabama River, they crossed at night on a 
 pontoon bridge, and their way was lighted by burning warehouses standing 
 on the shore." 
 
 Nothing can be said in extenuation of this brutal vandalism, which was 
 ten-fold in degree worse than the burning of the public buildings and half a 
 dozen private houses in Washington by Ross and Cockburn, in 1814 ; a deed 
 which tarnished the honor of the British army and navy. 
 
 On June 21, 1865, President Johnson appointed the gentleman who 
 gave this account, Lewis E. Parsons, provisional governor of Alabama. 
 On the zoth of July following, the governor, by proclamation, ordered an 
 election for a state convention, to revise the constitution. In his proclama 
 tion he told some unwelcome truths to the people. He informed them that 
 of the 122,000 soldiers whom Alabama had sent to the field to fight for seces 
 sion, 35,000 would never return; and that probably as many more would 
 return permanently injured by wounds or disease. A large proportion of the 
 material wealth of the state had been exhausted. Fields had been laid waste. 
 Towns and cities, railroads, bridges, schools and colleges, and many private 
 dwellings were in ruins. Untold sufferings had been, and were still to be 
 endured by the women and children. " There is no longer a slave," he said, 
 "in Alabama. It is thus made manifest to the world that the right of seces 
 sion for the purpose of establishing a separate confederacy, based on the idea 
 of African slavery, has been fully and effectually tried, and is a failure." 
 He assured them, however, that amid all the ruin, suffering, and death that 
 had resulted from the attempt at secession, " every political right which the 
 state possessed under the Federal Constitution is hers to-day, with the single 
 exception relating to slavery." But this assurance was like hope that is 
 deferred. 
 
 Governor Parsons recognized the magistrates, and other county and 
 municipal officers who were in office, May 22d. He authorized them to ex- 
 
404 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ercise their functions during the continuance of the provisional government, 
 the sheriffs and probate judges were to act temporarily until new appoint 
 ments could be made. All these officers were required to take and subscribe 
 the amnesty oath prescribed by President Johnson. They were liable to re 
 moval if found to be disloyal. The election for delegates to the convention 
 was held August 3ist. The same restrictions and qualifications for voters 
 and members of the convention were prescribed as in the case of North Caro 
 lina. The civil and criminal laws, as they existed on Jan. n, 1861, except 
 that portion of them which related to slaves, were declared to be in full 
 force. There was a general co-operation of the people in the reconstruction 
 measures of the governor. The election was conducted quietly ; the vote 
 was respectably large. The convention assembled on September loth. Ex- 
 Gov. Benjamin Fitzpatrick was unanimously elected president, and William 
 H. Ogbourne, Secretary. A committee was appointed consisting of one 
 member from each judicial district, to report necessary amendments to the 
 state constitution. Another committee was appointed to report relative to 
 the repeal of the secession ordinance, and also to inquire into the practica 
 bility of legalizing certain acts of the legislature adopted during the war. On 
 the I9th, an election for governor, legislature, county and municipal 
 officers, and Representatives in Congress was ordered to take place on the 
 first Monday in November. The legislature met on the third Monday of the 
 same month. It disapproved of the action of the convention authorizing an 
 election for members of Congress ; hence it passed a resolution requesting 
 the governor to issue writs of election. This made no difference, as the 
 Representatives elected were not admitted. 
 
 The ordinance for the abolition of slavery, reported by the majority of the 
 committee, was as follows : 
 
 First. "That as the institution of slavery has been destroyed in the 
 State of Alabama, hereafter there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, whereof 
 the party shall be duly convicted." 
 
 Second. " That the constitution be amended by striking out all pro 
 visions in relation to slaves and slavery." 
 
 Third. " That it shall be the duty of the legislature, at its next ses 
 sion, to pass such laws as will protect the freedmen of this state in the en 
 joyment of all their rights of person and property." 
 
 This ordinance was passed, by a vote of eighty-nine to three. But before 
 it was adopted, a substitute was offered by the minority of the committee. 
 The substitute failed. Its object was to send matters to the supreme court. 
 Debate ensued. The old questions were re-stated ; for instance : The state 
 had committed no crime by secession. Only individuals could be punished. 
 Secession worked no forfeiture of rights of property in slaves or otherwise. 
 The proclamation nullified the state constitution. This involved the loss of 
 
REORGANIZATION IN ALABAMA. 405 
 
 a republican form of government, and of local sovereignty. No reclamations 
 for the value of lost slaves would be possible, if the ordinance should pass. 
 The other side replied, that the war had settled secession and slavery. 
 From the sword there was no appeal. The Supreme Court decisions were 
 not always respected. The United States Bank and the Dred Scott cases 
 were instanced. Slavery could not be restored, even if force were with 
 drawn. The South was exhausted. It would be St. Domingo over again. 
 The Assembly of France had abolished slavery in that island. No insurrec 
 tion followed. Afterward the Assembly repealed the law. The planters 
 attempted to subject the negro to slavery. Thereupon insurrection broke 
 out. Such would be the case in Alabama. After scenes of horror and 
 carnage, one race or the other would be exterminated, and Alabama would 
 become a desert. 
 
 The objection was raised that there was no power in the United States 
 Government, by proclamation of the President or otherwise, to destroy 
 slavery. This was a very unreasonable claim for a higher and more sacred 
 title in slaves than appertained to any other species of property. Under 
 such sentiment and influence, the convention, on the 22d of September, 
 adopted the ordinance. It ratified certain laws of the state passed since 
 the eleventh day of January, 1861. It excepted, however, all such laws as 
 authorized the issue of bonds, treasury notes, and change bills by the state ; 
 and all laws which authorized the payment in Confederate money or bonds, 
 of debts due to the state, for moneys loaned to individuals or corporations, 
 and the payment of dues and taxes to the state in Confederate bonds and state 
 treasury notes, and all laws in relation to taxation. It ignored the time between 
 the eleventh day of January, 1861, and the passage of that ordinance, in com 
 puting the bar of the statute of limitations. The convention refused to except 
 from ratification the laws passed by the legislature during the Confederacy, 
 which authorized executors, guardians, and trustees to sell property and re 
 ceive in payment Confederate and other currency issued during the war ; 
 also, the laws which authorized investment by persons acting in a fiduciary 
 capacity, in Confederate or state bonds. There was good reason for this 
 decision, since the parties affected had acted in good faith. They obeyed the 
 de facto law under which they lived. To hold them responsible for the fail 
 ure of the insurgency and the collapse of its finances, would have been unjust. 
 But the convention very properly refused to ratify a transaction by which a 
 debt to the state amounting to $225,00x3, contracted before the war and not 
 payable until after its close, was paid in 1864 in depreciated Confederate 
 notes. The injustice of that transaction appears from the financial quota 
 tions of the value of Confederate notes, as compared with gold. In 1861, 
 the premium on the latter was from five to thirty per centum. By the end of 
 
 1862, three dollars in notes were received for one in gold; in December, 
 
 1863, twenty-one for one; in December, 1864, fifty-one for one; and on 
 
406 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 April n, 1865, seventy for one. From the latter date, quotations advanced 
 to one, two, three, five, eight, ten, and twelve hundred for one, on May i, 
 1865, the last quotation. 
 
 An ordinance declaring the secession ordinance null and void was also 
 adopted by a unanimous vote. The minority of the committee in vain pro 
 posed to declare instead that the secession ordinance "was unauthorized and 
 void." This proposition was voted down. The delegates hastened toward 
 reconstruction. They passed an ordinance authorizing the provisional gov 
 ernor to act until a successor should be elected. Another ordinance was 
 passed, which ordained that all debts created by the State of Alabama in aid 
 of the late war should be void, and that the general assembly should have 
 no authority to assume, or make any provision for the payment of any portion 
 of the Confederate debt. The convention passed ordinances removing cer 
 tain disabilities from the colored race. It legalized the voluntary unions that 
 had existed between the sexes. It required for future marriages, a license 
 according to the laws for white people. Private contracts made during the 
 war, and decrees of courts relating thereto, were ratified. Parol proof was 
 allowed, as to the real value of the current money at the time, and in the 
 settlement of accounts of executors and administrators. 
 
 The convention adjourned September 30, without submitting their revi 
 sion of the constitution and laws to the people for ratification. This was done 
 to avoid the delay that its submission would have caused. The registered vote 
 amounted to 65,825. The election for governor resulted in the choice of 
 Robert M. Patton. He received 21,422 votes, against 15,234 for M. J. 
 Bulger, and 8,194 for William R. Smith, an ex-member of Congress. Mr. 
 Smith represented the more decided Union sentiment. The total vote cast 
 was only 44,850. It was only a fraction above half the vote cast in the 
 state at the Presidential election in 1860, which amounted to 89,572. The 
 vote received by Mr. Patton was only a plurality of the vote cast, and was 
 less than one-fourth of the whole popular vote in 1860. A legislature was 
 also elected. It met November 2Oth. The provisional governor sent in a 
 message in relation to the condition of the people. Why a special recogni 
 tion of the governor-elect by the authorities at Washington was deemed 
 necessary, while nothing of the kind was required in respect to the legisla 
 ture, does not appear. However that may be, Governor Parsons continued 
 to act as governor until he was formally superseded by order of the Presi 
 dent, in a dispatch dated December i8th. 
 
 The legislature ratified the amendment to the United States Constitution 
 which forever prohibits the existence of slavery. An additional resolution 
 was adopted, by a majority of seventy -five to fifteen, which declared that Con 
 gress should not legislate upon the political status of freedmen. An act in 
 relation to the freedmen provided that they should have the same rights in the 
 courts and to the same extent that white persons had. They were declared 
 
REORGANIZATION IN ALABAMA. 407 
 
 competent to testify, but only in open court, and only in cases in which freed- 
 men, free negroes, and mulattoes were parties, either plaintiff or defendant, 
 and in civil and criminal cases, for injuries to the persons and property of 
 freedmen. In all cases, civil and criminal, in which, under that act, a freed- 
 man might be a witness against a white person, or a white person against a 
 freedman, the parties were made competent witnesses, and neither interest in 
 the question in suit, nor marriage should disqualify any witness from testify 
 ing in open court. An act was passed, authorizing the courts to bind out 
 colored children under eighteen years of age, if orphans, or in cases 
 where the parents failed to provide for them. An act regulating con 
 tracts was passed. It required " freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes, 
 when contracting to labor for longer time than one month," to enter into a 
 written agreement, witnessed by two white persons. Failure to perform the 
 contract on the part of the freedman was treated as a misdemeanor punish 
 able, on conviction, by a forfeiture of wages and sentence for vagrancy. 
 
 The governor-elect, Mr. Patton, on assuming the duties of his office, 
 delivered an address, in which he stated that the State of Alabama had lost 
 $500,000,000 by the war. This estimate, however, included the value of the 
 slaves. If the slaves had been killed or carried away, the loss would have 
 been apparent ; for in that case there would have been a real destruction. As 
 it was, in regard to this matter, emancipation was merely a transfer of title. 
 The governor commended the policy of the President. He claimed that 
 the state had conformed to it. In regard to emancipation, he desired it 
 to be understood that, politically and socially, her local affairs should be 
 controlled by the superior intelligence of the white man. These were not 
 the compliant sentiments, or legislation, to gain the confidence of the ma 
 jority in Congress. After a recess of some weeks, the legislature met on 
 Jan. 15, 1866. Resolutions were adopted, repelling the charges which 
 had been circulated that the people were insincere in their professions of 
 allegiance. The legislature pledged their cordial support to President John 
 son's policy. They passed acts of a local and general character, among 
 them a "stay law," to stop executions under suits brought since May i, 
 1865, as well as to stop the foreclosure of mortgages and deeds of trust with 
 power of sale. All such legislation had been decided, time and again, by the 
 United States courts to be unconstitutional ; but the states, North as well as 
 South, had resorted to them in periods of pecuniary distress. A new penal 
 code was adopted, making no distinction on account of color. The whip 
 ping-post and branding-iron were abolished. Imprisonment with hard 
 labor was substituted. 
 
 The legislature declined to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti 
 tution. They laid the matter over. The governor, in his message, had op 
 posed the ratification ; but at the next session he declared that although his 
 opinions were not changed, it would be politic to adopt the amendment. Its 
 
408 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 rejection would provoke the majority of Congress. Measures still more radi 
 cal would follow. His fears were prophetic. The governor's advice was 
 unheeded. The legislature refused by a large majority to ratify the amend 
 ment. The governor opposed the policy of re-enslaving the negroes under 
 laws regulating labor contracts and the means of collection. He vetoed one 
 bill of this character, but another was enacted. In his message of Novem 
 ber, 1866, he said as to such contracts, that there had been instances of bad 
 faith. They were suggestive of the necessity of a legal remedy. Where 
 employers of freedmen had, by captious unreasonableness, sought, and even 
 created pretexts for finding fault with their employes, and discharging them 
 without pay, alleging a violation of contract, he pointed out that the only 
 remedy left the freedman was a suit for his wages. This remedy was so tardy 
 as to be scarcely worth pursuing. For such injustice as this, a remedy should 
 be provided. It should be furnished by a law which would authorize a sum 
 mary mode of enforcing payment for labor of the character under consid 
 eration. It was such acts of injustice that gave existence and tenure to the 
 Freedmen's Bureau, and caused continued denial of home rule to Alabama 
 and other states. 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church of America is a union of dioceses, simi 
 lar to the union of the states. Hence, when secession took place, and the 
 Southern States went to war upon the Union, the effect was to separate the 
 Southern dioceses from those of the North, with which they were affiliated 
 on something like the plan of the Congregational societies. In conse 
 quence of the separation the Prayer-Book was revised in the South. Prayers 
 for "the President of the Confederate States " were substituted for prayers for 
 the President of the United States. But after the Confederacy collapsed, 
 there was a new revision. Although the latter revision was a necessity, there 
 was doubtless a degree of reluctance in making the change. Some of the 
 bishops and clergy were imbued with strong Southern sentiments. They 
 were not disposed to anticipate the formal work of revision. It was in 
 this mood that Bishop Wilmer, of Alabama, instructed the clergy of his 
 diocese to omit the usual prayer for the President, and all others in authority . 
 In this state of things Gen. Charles A. Woods issued an order, " pur 
 suant to the directions of Major-General Thomas, commanding the mili 
 tary district of Tennessee," that the bishop and the clergy of his diocese 
 should be suspended from their functions and forbidden to preach or perform 
 divine service ! Then came a discussion. 
 
 The bishop assigned as a reason for his course, that his church estab 
 lished a form with reference to the subject of prayer for all in civil 
 authority. " No one," he said, " could be expected to desire a long con 
 tinuance of military rule, therefore the prayer suggested was inappropriate 
 to a condition of things, when no civil authority existed. Hence," as he 
 said, " we may yield a true allegiance to, and sincerely pray for grace, wis- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 409 
 
 dom, and understanding, in behalf of a government founded on lorce, while 
 at the same time we could not, in good conscience, ask for its continuance 
 and prosperity." 
 
 General Woods replied that there were a President and civil officers in ex 
 istence at the time of the recommendation to the clergy, and that since then a 
 civil government had been re-established in Alabama, but that the prayer 
 had not been restored. It was further shown that the prayer was not a 
 prayer for the continuance of military rule, but simply for the temporal and 
 spiritual weal of the persons in whose behalf it was offered. What can 
 be thought of this reasoning, in view of the doctrine of Roger Williams, 
 Lord Baltimore, and the Federal Constitution? The General continued: 
 " The advice of the bishop to omit this prayer, and its omission by the 
 clergy, is not a violation of the canons of the church, but it shows a factious 
 and disloyal spirit, and is a marked insult to every loyal citizen within the 
 department. Such men are unsafe public teachers, and not to be trusted in 
 places of power and influence over public opinion." 
 
 This meddlesome order illustrates the danger of intrusting despotic 
 power to any man dressed in authority. It was a law of the Episcopal 
 Church to offer up prayers for the President of the United States, and all 
 others in authority ; but where is the warrant in the Constitution of the 
 United States to its officers, civil or military, to require the Episcopal, or 
 any clergy to observe their own church canons? No other Protestant 
 denomination has such a canon, whatever may be the custom. How then 
 could the Protestant Episcopal clergy be required to do that which is not 
 required, nor done perhaps, by Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians? 
 Moreover, to compel men, at the point of the bayonet, to repeat prayers for 
 persons and authorities whom they detest, is a mockery of religion, only 
 next to the test oath itself. President Johnson very properly and promptly 
 expunged this audacious and foolish order. Over its abrogation the best of 
 men rejoiced. 
 
 At the commencement of the war South Carolina had a larger colored 
 population than any state in the Union. The ratio of the colored to white 
 inhabitants was almost as two to one. Predominance of the African race 
 constituted her weakest spot in a military point of view. True, her people 
 were brave and high-spirited, having been trained for generations to the use 
 of arms, and always having stood ready to defend their firesides and main 
 tain dominion over their bondmen. Against a foreign enemy, however, who 
 would assail her on her weak side by appeals to her slaves with offers of 
 liberty, South Carolina would have been able to offer but a feeble resistance. 
 
 The real strength of the Palmetto State in the South, and in the Union, 
 lay in the talent and aggressive spirit of her educated class. In every 
 period of her history, they were wont to take a leading part in public 
 26 
 
410 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 affairs. They asserted the claims of slavery to the protection of the general 
 government. It was this daring spirit of reliance, not on her own 
 sinews of war, but on those of the whole South, which she confidently ex 
 pected to rally to her support, that emboldened her, in 1832, to declare the 
 Tariff act of 1828 " null and void." It was the same reliance which 
 prompted her to take the lead in the work of secession in 1860. The 
 writer recalls an amusing incident before the war, in relation to the self- 
 assertion of South Carolina. It happened in 1855, at tne hospitable board 
 of Col. John W. Forney, in Washington. The writer was on his first 
 visit to the Federal city. He received an invitation to meet several nota 
 ble men at the Colonel's house. Among them were John C. Brecken- 
 ridge, Judge Douglas, Senator Jesse D. Bright, Henry M. Phillips, of 
 Philadelphia, Lawrence M. Keitt, of South Carolina, John Slidell, and 
 other guests. Much badinage was indulged in by Colonel Keitt toward 
 Kentucky. It was aimed at Major Breckenridge, who was in his hap 
 piest mood, and received it with abundant drollery. Finally, he was 
 aroused by a remark about Kentucky braggadocio. The Kentuckian 
 rallied, and such raillery never before rolled from a humorous tongue 
 and hilarious heart. He related his recent experience in coming from 
 New Orleans to Washington by the way of South Carolina. u Would 
 you believe it," said he, " there was but one man who boarded the cars on 
 the route through that unpopulous piney -wooded land of poor soil. He was 
 dressed in full regimentals, and entered the smoking-car with the mien of a 
 Cambyses or Murat. Being wearied with gazing out of the car windows 
 on the monotonous landscape, here and there varied with a few seedy negroes, 
 and flecked with a starved sheep, or a spavined horse or miserable cow, I 
 joined this splendid soldier in the smoking-car. I offered him a fresh cigar 
 to engage him in conversation, and began to question him. He had on a 
 cocked hat, with three ostrich plumes in it dyed a golden hue. His 
 epaulettes were as goldenly superb as his sash and sword. His martial mien 
 of defiance would have humiliated Job's proudest war-horse snuffing the battle 
 from afar. It was in keeping with his grandiose style and superb toilette. 
 4 May I ask,' said I, meekly, ' what is going on in this state?' Tossing his 
 head in proud disdain, he replied : ' Going on, sir? We won't stand it no 
 mo', sir ! The governor has sent for his staff to meet him and consult 
 about it in Columbia, sir ! I am one of his staff, sir ! We won't stand it 
 any longer, sir ! No, sir ! It is intolerable, sir ! No, sir !' 'Stand what?' 
 I asked, in surprise, not unmixed with dread, for I had been away South 
 caring for my sick wife, ' Stand what? What is going on?' He disdain 
 fully answered : ' Stand the encroachments on our Southern institu 
 tions, sir ! The abolitionists must be crushed, sir ! We will do it, sir ! 
 South Carolina is ready, sir ! ' I told him quietly," said the gallant 
 Kentuckian, "that there was a custom in the Indian Office at Wash- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 411 
 
 ington, to tote at the public cost, a band of big Indian chiefs over the North 
 and its marvelous cities ; so that they would not go to war, when they saw 
 what a big country they would have to whip ! " The hilarities of the table 
 responded to the jocund chaffing, and all agreed that the South Carolina 
 governor's staff might be traveled at the expense of the United States with 
 some advantage to their section. None more heartily enjoyed the story 
 than Colonel Keitt himself. What an experience Mr. Breckenridge had, 
 from Vice-President of the United States to major-general in the Confed 
 eracy! The writer met him after the war, as mentioned in the fourth 
 chapter. Quantum mutatus ab illol How changed, alas ! from that happy 
 evening when his amiable badinage about sectional and state pride set the 
 table in a roar at South Carolina's chivalry. 
 
 Alas ! how much the proud and gallant little state has suffered for her 
 frowardness. Oliver Wendell Holmes gave pathos to the saddest lyric of the 
 war, when he sang of our petulant sister Carolina, as the child of the sun who 
 had torn her own star from the glow of ouf firmament. How tenderly he 
 touched, with the true vaticination of a poet's vision, upon the outcome of 
 that strife when its fury should be ended, and the fortunes of Carolina at last 
 retrieved ; and when, heart aching and foot sore, she would remember 
 the pathway that led to the door of the Union of river, of lake, of ocean, 
 and sky. It was cruel, the threat attributed to General Sherman at Charles 
 ton, the narrative is no doubt exaggerated, when he menaced this 
 stormy-browed sister with the worst punishment of war, the whip, not of 
 ^ords, but of scorpions, for her contumacy. Had she not had enough in 
 her sacrifices and humiliations ? What a sufferer she was from the sectional 
 ravages ! Charleston and Columbia, her chief cities, destroyed, her property 
 in flames, her ruling class ruined. They lost all for which they waged the 
 war, slavery. South Carolina had a larger proportion of slaves than any 
 other state. She was consequently impoverished in a greater degree than 
 her sister states. 
 
 When the surrender of Lee and Johnston became known in South Caro 
 lina, the Confederate governor, Magrath, issued an order to the civil officers 
 of the state, who had left Columbia at the approach of Sherman's army, to 
 resume their functions ; but General Gilmore, who had been appointed com 
 mander of the department, issued a proclamation forbidding all persons to 
 pay attention to it. In this proclamation, which applied equally to Georgia 
 and Florida, General Gilmore informed the people that the negroes were 
 free, and that their rights would be vindicated by the United States Govern 
 ment. He told them that it was the duty of citizens, white and black, to 
 make arrangements among themselves for compensated labor on equitable 
 terms. Idleness and vagrancy would not be tolerated, nor would the gov 
 ernment extend aid to any persons, white or black, who were unwilling to 
 work. This order was widely circulated over the three states, so that all might 
 
412 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 have notice of what to depend on. This military rule remained the only 
 government of South Carolina until June 30, 1865, when President John 
 son commissioned Benjamin F. Perry as provisional governor. 
 
 Governor Perry proceeded to reorganize civil government according to 
 the plan of the President. The powers and duties of Governor Perry were 
 entirely similar to those laid down for Governor Holden, which are fully stated 
 in a preceding chapter. The qualifications of electors, and of the members 
 of the convention to be chosen, were the same. On July 3ist, Governor 
 Perry issued a proclamation, in which he temporarily reinstated all civil 
 officers, except such as were under arrest. He called on the loyal citizens to 
 come forward and take the amnesty oath, in order to qualify themselves as 
 voters. Judging from past sentiments this might be regarded as a per 
 functory duty on the part of the governor. It was a finger-post' to the 
 u pathway " however. 
 
 General Gilmore also issued a proclamation or general order, in response 
 to the call of Governor Perry, ordering all persons under his command to aid 
 the governor in carrying out the objects of his proclamation, and to abstain 
 from hindering in any way the loyal people in the organization of a state 
 government. An election for delegates to a state convention was held on the 
 4th of September. The election resulted in the choice of men who, for 
 the most part, had been Unionists before the war. The convention assem 
 bled September I3th. By the second section of the ninth article of the 
 constitution adopted by that convention, it was declared that, the slaves of 
 South Carolina having been emancipated by the action of the United States 
 authorities, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punish 
 ment for crime after the party had been duly convicted, should ever be re 
 established in the state. An ordinance repealing the secession ordinance 
 was offered by ex-Governor Pickens on the first day of the session. It was 
 adopted on the third day of the session, by a vote of 105 yeas to three nays. 
 An ordinance was adopted declaring that all laws, orders, and rules for ascer 
 taining the rights of persons, which were in force before the act or ordinance 
 of secession was passed, and all such laws, ordinances, and resolutions, except 
 the stay law, adopted or enacted during the continuance of the Confederacy, 
 which had not been repealed or avoided, remained in full force, excepting the 
 slave code. Also, that all official acts of the executive and other departments 
 of the government, rules of court, contracts, sales, and conveyances, should 
 remain valid, as if no act of secession had been passed. It was provided, 
 however, that where contracts and obligations made during the period named 
 remained to be executed, it would be competent for the obligee to offer testi 
 mony as to the true value and real character of the consideration. The 
 legislature was prohibited from imposing civil disabilities or forfeiture upon 
 citizens for participation in the rebellion. The last section of this ordinance 
 declared that all persons who held civil offices at the time of the surrender of 
 
REORGANIZATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 413 
 
 the Confederate forces were to be regarded as still holding them, on condi 
 tion of taking and subscribing the amnesty oath. This clause of the ordi 
 nance shows the predominant influence of the old ruling class. It was 
 rendered negative by the condition required, as few of the high officials could 
 run the gauntlet of the fourteen excepted classes of President Johnson's 
 Amnesty proclamation. 
 
 It is evident that the President's plan could not have been carried out in 
 South Carolina, as regarded the higher officials, without his co-operation 
 in granting pardons : this was a policy which would have worked far bet 
 ter in North than in South Carolina. It was not resorted to, except as to 
 magistrates and subordinate officers. The governor thought that emanci 
 pation would cause the negroes to abandon labor to a considerable extent, 
 and it did for some time. He advised the sale of superfluous lands to immi 
 grants and capitalists. He thought it desirable that members should be 
 elected to Congress immediately, so that they might be present in Washing 
 ton and have their names enrolled by the clerk. He believed that this course 
 would insure their reception. 
 
 The election for members of the legislature, governor, and lieutenant- 
 governor took place on the iSth of October. James L. Orr, who had for 
 many years held a seat in Congress, in which body he took a leading part, 
 was chosen governor by a small majority over Wade Hampton, who had dis 
 tinguished himself as a general in the Confederate service. The total vote 
 was only 18,885, which, as representing a population of 250,000 whites and 
 400,000 blacks, must be regarded as very light. It was less than three per 
 centum of the people. The legislature met in extra session on the 25th, only 
 seven days after the election. The provisional governor addressed a long 
 message to that body. It was characterized by the conservative spirit which 
 marked his career from the beginning. He claimed to have been appointed 
 without solicitation on his part or that of his friends. After stating his 
 reasons for accepting the appointment, and his desire to carry out the gener 
 ous views of the President, he said: " Though I received my appointment 
 several months after other provisional governors had been commissioned, I 
 have the pleasure of informing you that South Carolina is now as far ad 
 vanced in her reconstruction as any other Southern state. Instead of wast 
 ing time in trying to fill all the civil offices of the state by my personal or 
 political friends and partisans, I determined to restore those who were in 
 office at the suppression of the civil government, and who had been elected 
 by the people or appointed by the legislature, and were familiar with their 
 official duties. I knew too well the character of South Carolina to doubt 
 for a moment that her sons would prove loyal and true, after renewing their 
 oaths of allegiance to the United States. In this way I re-established civil 
 government at once in South Carolina, and greatly expedited her recon- 
 
414 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 An obstacle to the legitimate action of this first session of the legisla 
 ture presented itself in the fact that the governor-elect under the constitution 
 had not been sworn in. The approval of acts by the provisional gov 
 ernor would not be valid, as he was not an executive known to the consti 
 tution. The matter was referred to a committee which reported in favor of 
 proceeding with legislation, with the understanding that the enactments were 
 to await the signature of the constitutional governor when he should be 
 sworn in. But the legislature, regarding this course as improper, took a 
 recess from the loth to the 27th of November. In the meantime the ob 
 struction was removed by the recognition of the governor-elect on the part 
 of the President, and on the 2yth of November he was sworn in. President 
 Johnson and Secretary Seward sent repeated dispatches to Governor Perry, 
 urging the importance of the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment of the 
 United States Constitution. The governor replied that the objection on the 
 part of members of the legislature was, that the second clause might be con 
 strued into an authorization of congressional legislation with regard to the 
 subject. Mr. Seward answered that the objection was " querulous and un 
 reasonable," and that the clause in question was " really restraining in its. 
 effects, instead of enlarging the powers of Congress." This persuasive style 
 of argument, from the head of the Cabinet, had its intended effect of inducing 
 favorable action on the amendment. 
 
 The President called the attention of Governor Perry to the necessity of 
 repudiating the debt contracted by the state in aid of the rebellion. To this 
 that officer replied that the convention had adjourned, and that the legislature 
 had no authority to repudiate it ; that the debt thus contracted was inconsid 
 erable in amount ; that it was for the most part due to widows and orphans 
 whose estates had been invested in it for safety ; and that it was so blended 
 with the legitimate debt as scarcely to be distinguishable. Mr. Seward, in 
 reply to the governor, said that while the objections which he had urged 
 were serious, nevertheless the President awaited with interest the action of 
 the legislature upon the subject. The tone of the dispatches from the Presi 
 dent and the Secretary of State to the provisional governor on this subject 
 was less imperative than that employed in regard to other states. The 
 legislature on October I9th passed an act preliminary to the legislation that 
 would become necessary in consequence of the emancipation of the slaves. 
 A commission was appointed to revise the laws in regard to negroes, and 
 to adapt them to the new order of things. The commission, consisting of 
 two lawyers, made their report to the legislature ; but that body failed to act 
 upon it, and it fell to the ground, with the whole fabric of Mr. Johnson's 
 policy. The preliminary act referred to declared that all classes of negroes 
 save those having seven-eighths or more of Caucasian blood, should be deemed 
 persons of color ; that the statutes and regulations concerning slaves were 
 then inapplicable to persons of color ; and that, although such persons -were 
 
REORGANIZATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 415 
 
 not entitled to social and political equality with white persons, they should 
 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 protec 
 tion under the law in their persons and property. It extended to persons of 
 color, subject to certain modifications, all civil rights and remedies respecting 
 persons and property, and all duties and liabilities under laws, civil and crim 
 inal, which applied to white persons. 
 
 An act to amend the criminal law was passed on December i9th. It 
 provided that the crimes specified in the first section should be felonies, 
 punishable with death. The law was made particularly applicable to per 
 sons of color with respect to some of these crimes. These were willful 
 homicide by a person of color unless in self-defense ; any assault by a person 
 of color upon a white woman, with manifest intent to ravish her, and 
 sexual intercourse by a person of color with a white woman by personating 
 her husband. There were other offenses defined in this category, but 
 they seem to have been general in their application. Among them, to 
 steal a horse or mule, or bale of cotton, was set down as a capital felony. 
 Among the offenses also enumerated for persons of color, was the selling by 
 such person of any product of the soil without written authority from the 
 master who employed him. This act declared also that persons of color con 
 stituted no part of the militia of the state, and made it a misdemeanor for a 
 colored person to have in possession any fire-arms without a permit from a 
 judge or magistrate. It prohibited a colored person owning, in whole or in 
 part, a distillery, or to be engaged in distilling spirituous liquors. The 
 penalty was by fine, corporal punishment, or hard labor. It was also provided 
 that no person of color should migrate into, or reside in the state, unless 
 within twenty days after his arrival he should enter into bond, with two free 
 holders as securities, to be approved by a judge or magistrate, in a penalty of 
 one thousand dollars, for his good behavior, and for his support if he should 
 become unable to support himself. Any person might arrest a person of 
 color for a misdemeanor committed in his presence, or for a misdemeanor 
 committed against a white person. Any person might make the complaint 
 to a magistrate, whose duty it became to have the offender arrested. Special 
 courts were to be established, with exclusive jurisdiction, subject to appeal, 
 in cases in which one or both the parties were persons of color ; and persons 
 of color were allowed to be witnesses in all such cases. 
 
 The intelligent reader need not be reminded how inopportune, as well as 
 unjust, were these enactments for the government of the freedmen. The 
 hatred of slavery had then risen to fever heat in all the Northern states, and 
 there was a rapidly growing sentiment which this sort of legislation fructi 
 fied in favor of giving unqualified and universal suffrage to the emancipated 
 blacks. It was little short of madness, therefore, for Southern men to think 
 of substituting a system of serfdom, in place of slavery. The immediate 
 
416 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 effect of this new colored code was to call from the commander of the district, 
 Maj.-Gen. Daniel E. Sickles, a general order which completely nullified, or 
 quashed, the whole fabric of the legislative labor. 
 
 This general order consisted of twenty-three sections. It declared, among 
 other things, that all laws should be applicable alike to all inhabitants ; that 
 no person should be held incompetent to sue, make complaint, or testify, 
 because of color or caste. The order declared that the employment of hus 
 bandry, or the useful arts, and all lawful trades or callings, might be followed 
 by all persons, irrespective of color or caste ; and that no freedman should be 
 obliged to pay any tax or any fee for a license, or be amenable to any muni 
 cipal or parish ordinance, not imposed upon all other persons. The general 
 order then proceeded seriatim to annul the enactments of the legislature 
 which discriminated against colored persons. The restraints imposed upon 
 colored men who desired to pursue mechanical and other occupations, which 
 were not menial nor agricultural, and the prohibition to travel from place to 
 place were abolished. Any attempt to enforce these obnoxious legislative 
 acts was made a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. And so 
 with all other legislative discriminations against colored people. No penalties 
 or punishments were to be inflicted on freedmen different from those to which 
 white men were liable ; and corporal punishment was prohibited, except in 
 the case of minors, and then only by parents, guardians, or persons to whom 
 the minors were lawfully bound. Injuries to the person or property of a 
 freedman were to be punished in the manner provided by the laws of South 
 Carolina for like injuries to white persons and their property. 
 
 It must be admitted that this order of Major-General Sickles was 
 conceived in a spirit of wisdom and justice ; and that in this regard it 
 contrasts favorably with the legislative enactments of South Carolina which 
 it annulled and superseded. This is not the first instance in history in which 
 the will of one man invested with despotic authority has vindicated the 
 rights of the masses against the tyranny of an oligarchy. The Romans 
 created their Tribunes, and gave them the veto on the Senate with that ex 
 press object. The leaders of the dominant party in Congress eagerly took 
 advantage of this sort of legislation to protract reconstruction, in the further 
 ance of their policy to deny the Southern States a republican form of gov 
 ernment, until they should be transformed into partisan allies. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS OF STATES. CONTINUED. 
 
 FLORIDA DEPENDENT ON OTHER STATES THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNOR, 
 JOHN MILTON HIS SUCCESSOR, GOVERNOR WALKER FLORIDA ADOPTS 
 THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT LEGISLATION AS TO NEGROES, FIRE 
 ARMS, MARRIAGE, CONTRACTS, AND VAGRANCY VIRGINIA ATTEMPTS TO 
 RECONSTRUCT GENERAL BUTLER'S ACTION GENERAL WEITZEL AND 
 PRESIDENT LINCOLN AT RICHMOND PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S ORDER PIER- 
 PONT'S GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED REPEAL OF WEST VIRGINIA SECESSION 
 
 * CONGRESS INDIFFERENT INDORSEMENT OF JOHNSON'S POLICY LOUIS 
 IANA GENERAL BUTLER AND THE COLORED PEOPLE HIS VERSATILE 
 AND VALUABLE QUALITIES -ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE COURTS REGISTRY, 
 VOTERS, AND GOVERNMENT GENERAL BANKS AND HIS EFFORTS GOV 
 ERNOR HAHN AND HIS PELICANS GOVERNOR WARMOUTH AND HIS RADI 
 CALSONE-TENTH VOTING POLICY PRESIDENT JOHNSON INTERVENES 
 BLOODY RIOTS OF 1864 WARMOUTH GOVERNOR NEW CONSTITUTION IN 
 1868 WARMOUTH'S LETTER ITS STATEMENTS DENIED OTHER RIOTS UN 
 TIL 1868 LOUISIANA RECLAIMED CONFISCATION AND RASCALITY WINTER 
 DAVIS' BILL ARKANSAS HER EARLY MOVEMENTS RADICALS IN CHARGE 
 LEGISLATIVE CRUDITIES CONVENTION OF 1866 LABOR QUESTIONS SOL 
 DIERS AND CIVILIANS BOTH TYRANNICAL THE POLAND COMMITTEE 
 GARLAND SAVES THE STATE SKETCH OF GOVERNOR, SENATOR, AND 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL GARLAND. 
 
 FLORIDA was an out-lying state, of small population and wealth. 
 She had escaped the ravages of war. No strategic advantage was 
 to be gained by contesting the possession of any of her extensive 
 territory, except Pensacola. It was well understood that her fate 
 would follow that of the adjoining states, and that their submission to the 
 arms of the Republic would compel her compliance. 
 
 The governor was John Milton. Although not conspicuous for his en 
 ergy, he was as representative a man as any of the five who are pictured in 
 the preceding chapter. His life is worth a study in its relation to the great 
 events of which it formed a part. He served during the whole war, as 
 
418 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 governor. He was thoroughly devoted to the Southern cause. Even in its 
 sinking condition, he displayed heroism beyond all praise, amid distraction 
 and despondency. He was born on the twenty-first day of April, 1807, in 
 Jefferson County, Georgia. He was the son of Col. Homer V. Milton, of 
 the United States Army, and grandson of the John Milton for whom, in our 
 early history, Georgia cast her vote for the Presidency of the United States ; 
 so that he had brave, rebellious, and patriotic blood in his veins. He was 
 educated at the academy in Louisville, the county seat of Jefferson County. 
 He studied law under Rodger L. Gamble. He practiced in his native 
 county. After a year or two he moved to Columbus, Georgia ; and while 
 there he became engaged in politics. He ran for Congress on the nullifica 
 tion question. He was defeated. He afterwards resided in Mobile and in 
 New Orleans. In both places he had a large practice. In 1846, he moved 
 to Jackson County, in the State of Florida. He settled on his farm. He 
 only appeared in court occasionally. He was devoted to agricultural pursuits. 
 His hospitality was proverbial. His social qualities not only transmuted 
 acquaintances into friends, but made all strangers welcome. His conversa 
 tion was of rare quality and full of wisdom and wit. His knowledge of 
 national and state measures, and prominent men, was immense. He was a 
 surprise to his friends, for, although he was not a hard student, he seemed to 
 grasp matters by intuition. Nature did much for him. Although he pre 
 ferred domestic life, the people would not allow him his coveted ease. At 
 every election, from 1846 to 1860, his voice was heard. He marshaled 
 the Democratic forces. He was elected to the legislature in 1849. He was 
 one of the Democratic electors in 1848, and visited and spoke in every por 
 tion of the state. He became thus fully known to the people of Florida. 
 They appreciated his abilities as a statesman and orator. 
 
 The author met him first at the National Democratic Convention, at 
 Charleston, in 1860. He deplored the necessity that caused a division in the 
 Democratic party. He feared that it would produce a rupture between the 
 states. He was a warm supporter of General Breckenridge. In 1860, he 
 was nominated for governor. He made a thorough canvass of the state, 
 and was elected by a large majority. He was inaugurated as governor in 
 1 86 1, for four years. After the withdrawal of the state from the United 
 States, like a large portion of the Southern people he felt that the election 
 of Abraham Lincoln, as a sectional candidate, was a sufficient cause for the 
 withdrawal of Florida. He favored a confederacy, not only for the pro 
 tection of states rights, but to preserve the rights of property in slaves. 
 He warmly indorsed the action of his state. It was in accord with his 
 ideas of 1832. When war was declared, he foresaw that the South had 
 much to contend with. Her success would be doubtful ; but his voice and ma 
 terial aid were freely given. He cheerfully and resolutely cast his fortune 
 with his people. Although in the latter part of 1864 he saw that the for- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN FLORIDA. 
 
 tunes of war were with the United States, and began to doubt the wisdom of 
 secession, he never varied from the cherished ideas of his early manhood. In 
 1864 and 1865, there were heavy and repeated calls for men and provisions 
 made upon the Confederate States. The old and young of Florida, through 
 the influence of their governor, had enlisted in the war, regardless of age 
 and exemption. Her coast was extensive, and easy of approach. It re 
 quired more men than she had, to guard it. Invasion was threatened, and 
 in some points it was actually made. Tallahassee, the capital, was an object 
 ive point; and in March, 1865, the troops of the United States landed at 
 St. Marks. They sought to hold that part of the state, but were repulsed 
 at the Natural Bridge, with loss, and obliged to re-embark. In the eastern 
 part of the state, similar attempts were made. These attacks, with the 
 knowledge that the Confederacy was daily growing weaker, caused much 
 distress to Governor Milton. He was approachable by all. He listened 
 to the complaints of his people. As a parent with his offspring, he sym 
 pathized in their sufferings. These anxieties, linked with mental work and 
 constant care, produced softening of the brain. On the ist of April, 1865, 
 he died. In him the land of flowers lost a devoted friend and a good 
 governor. The requiem over his grave was as sincere as it was sad. The 
 president of the state senate, Abraham K. Allison, succeeded him. On 
 April 8th, the day before the surrender of the Confederate forces, Mr. 
 Allison issued a proclamation for an election of governor, to take place on 
 June 7, 1865. The election was never held. The proclamation was coun 
 termanded by Major-General Gilmore, who held military possession until 
 the inauguration of Mr. Johnson's civU provisional governor. 
 
 On the 1 3th of July, 1865, the President appointed William Marvin 
 provisional governor. An election of delegates to a convention was ordered 
 to be held October loth. The electors were to be of the same classes with 
 those designated for North Carolina. On August 2d the governor addressed 
 a meeting at Jacksonville. In his speech he explained the policy of the 
 President. He called attention to the necessity of radical changes in the 
 constitution and laws. Referring to the exceptions made by the general 
 amnesty, he said that he would recommend to the President's consideration 
 all who gave evidence of penitence. Abandoned property that had been 
 seized would be restored, when, after a hearing, it should be decided to par 
 don the owner. He appealed to the people to lay aside revengeful feelings, 
 and to enter heartily upon the work of reconstruction. He had no authority 
 to resuscitate the civil authorities, but he could aid the people in doing so. 
 The proclamation, issued the next day, reiterated these sentiments. It stated 
 specifically the things necessary to be done. In regard to the negro, he said 
 that the freedom guaranteed to him was that of a citizen of the United States. 
 
 On the loth of October, in obedience to the proclamation, an election of 
 delegates took place. The delegates chosen met at Tallahassee on the 25th 
 
420 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of October. The governor, in his message to the convention, urged the 
 necessity of guaranteeing the civil rights of the negro. He undertook to 
 define what he understood to be implied in the idea of freedom, under an 
 organized government. He recommended that the convention declare the 
 secession act null and void from the beginning ; but that body only agreed to 
 declare it void. The ordinance for repudiating the debt contracted by the 
 state in aid of the rebellion was adopted. The convention ordered an elec 
 tion for governor, legislature, other state officers, and congressmen. It was 
 to take place on November 29th, and the legislature was to convene on the 
 third Monday in December. The election resulted in the choice of David 
 S. Walker for governor, and Ferdinand McLeod for Representative in Con 
 gress. .The vote polled was less than 4,000, or little more than one-fourth 
 of that cast in 1860 for the Presidential candidates. 
 
 The legislature met at the time appointed, December i8th. It was or 
 ganized. The provisional governor renewed his suggestions in regard to 
 the negroes. He added, that they should be required to fulfill their contracts 
 of labor. Three days later he was superseded. This was done by order 
 of President Johnson. The governor-elect, Walker, was immediately inau 
 gurated ; but for some reason he failed to assume the duties of administration 
 until Jan. 17, 1866. In his inaugural address, Governor Walker indicated a 
 policy similar to that of his predecessor. He was opposed to granting suf 
 frage to the negro. The direct tax imposed by Congress upon all the states, 
 during the war, remained to be collected at its close, in the states which 
 were then in arms. The quota of Florida was $77,522. The legislature 
 memorialized Congress to allow the state to assume this tax as a debt, and 
 thus to waive its collection. In the end, however, this tax was abandoned 
 altogether by the government, as to the South, after some of it had been col 
 lected. 
 
 The legislature ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States 
 Constitution. But this was not done until the 28th of December, ten days 
 after Mr. Seward had announced that the amendment had become a part of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 An act passed on Jan. 1 1 , 1866, while it accorded to the colored people the 
 right to sue and be sued, and abolished the laws relating to slaves and free 
 negroes, provided that the laws forbidding the migration of free negroes 
 into the state, and the sale of fire-arms to them, should continue in force. 
 Another act of the same date required all colored inhabitants living together 
 as husband and wife, and who had not been joined as such agreeably to the 
 laws, and who should desire to continue in that relation, to appear within 
 nine months after the passage of the act before some person legally authorized 
 to perform the ceremony, and be joined in matrimony. The issue of the 
 prior cohabitation of such parties was declared to be legitimate. All laws 
 relating to marriage between white persons were extended to people of color. 
 
REORGANIZATION IN VIRGINIA. 421 
 
 An act of January 1 2 related to contracts of persons of color. It provided 
 that they should be in writing, in duplicate, and that they should be explained 
 to the parties in the presence of two witnesses. One copy was to be re 
 tained by the employer, and the other to be filed with some judicial officer. 
 Contracts for service or labor for less than thirty days might be rr>ade by 
 parol. Refusal or neglect by the employed to perform the stipulations of 
 the contract by willful disobedience of orders, wanton impudence or disre 
 spect to the employer, or agent, failure or refusal to perform the work as 
 signed, or idleness or abandonment of the premises, subjected the offender 
 on complaint of the employer or his agent, under oath, to the penalties of 
 the vagrant act. The offender, in such case, immediately, or at the expira 
 tion of his contract, was liable to summary ejection from the house occupied 
 by him, on the application of the employer to the judge of the criminal court. 
 The question of failure of the employer to comply with the contract, was 
 triable by jury on complaint of the laborer to the criminal judge. Either 
 party was entitled to an appeal. 
 
 Thus was Florida launched again upon a sea of troubles. Was she to 
 remain tranquil ? The sequel will show. 
 
 The passage of the secession ordinance by Virginia in 1861 was the sig 
 nal for the secession of the western from the eastern counties. The new 
 State of West Virginia came into being in an abnormal manner. She was 
 admitted into the Union as a free and independent state. 
 
 The original Pierpont government of Virginia was recognized by President 
 Lincoln. Its organization was completed by President Johnson. Other states, 
 some successfully and some unsuccessfully, followed the example of Vir 
 ginia. The subsequent chapters will show the trials through which these 
 states passed before they became engrafted upon the Federal stock by ac 
 cepting the amendments of the Constitution, and other conditions. It is 
 enough now to say, that the only condition annexed to the recognition of a 
 seceding state was, that there should be a proportion of loyal or pardoned 
 people in it, of one-tenth or more to the population. These were to give the 
 initiative to the movement. Forty counties in Virginia became the only new 
 state created during the war, except Nevada. Their delegates were thought 
 to have power to break up a sovereign state into fragments equally sovereign. 
 The Senators and Representatives of this new creation sat in Congress, and 
 voted on problems concerning the status of the Old Dominion. Was she 
 legitimate, and if not, was she in existence at all ? Such was one of the 
 inconsistencies which spring up when the law of force directs the move 
 ments of men toward social order. 
 
 The futile attempt to organize a loyal government in a few of the eastern 
 counties and parts of counties which had come under the control of the 
 Union forces in 1863 and 1864, deserves notice. It was an experiment at 
 
422 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 reconstruction, although its immediate results were insignificant. Not more 
 than four or five entire counties, with Norfolk and Portsmouth, and parts 
 of other counties, participated in this enterprise. Although a constitution 
 was formed, and state officers and congressmen were elected, the project 
 never received the recognition of Congress. It is true that the Senate, years 
 after the event, paid one of the Senators-elect, Mr. Segar, a year's salary 
 for his attempt to serve the cause of reunion. But this sum was paid more 
 on the plea ad misericordiam ; for this gentleman had grown old and poor 
 in waiting for his recompense. General Butler, in June, 1864, put the 
 question to the vote in Norfolk City, whether the people preferred the im 
 perfect and powerless civil government under ''Governor" Pierpont, with 
 the payment of taxes to support it, to the inexpensive but despotic rule ot 
 the military. It was decided, by a large majority, in favor of the latter. 
 General Butler thereupon issued an order forbidding all attempts to exercise 
 civil authority within the city of Norfolk. Mr. Pierpont appealed to the 
 United States Circuit Court. Backed by the opinion of Mr. Attorney-General 
 Bates, the court decided in favor of the civil authority. There was a promise 
 that President Lincoln would interpose and restrain the action of the mili 
 tary. Nevertheless, in the midst of the whirl of more important events, 
 nothing was done. The military authorities prevailed. 
 
 Richmond was evacuated on the night of April 2, 1865. On the morn 
 ing of the 3d, General Weitzel marched in without opposition. He was 
 greeted with a hearty welcome from the mass of the people. A dispatch 
 was sent to the Secretary of War. It said that General Weitzel found much 
 suffering and poverty among the population. The rich as well as the poor 
 were destitute of food. Supplies were issued to all who took the oath. The 
 inhabitants were about twenty thousand, half of them of African descent. 
 Mr. Lincoln, who was at City Point during these last throes of the Con 
 federacy, entered Richmond on the 4th. While there, ex- Judge Camp 
 bell, of the United States Supreme Court, saw him. He suggested that the 
 President might negotiate with the state for a restoration to the Union. In 
 the Hampton Roads conference, Mr. Lincoln had taken the ground that he 
 could recognize neither the so-called " Confederate States" authorities, nor 
 those of the states which were insurgent. But, in his anxiety for peace and 
 restoration, he was now willing to avail himself of any feasible means to those 
 ends. He therefore authorized General Weitzel to allow the members of the 
 legislature to assemble and consult with reference to restoration ; but for no 
 other purpose. 
 
 On the 1 2th of the month, the Richmond Whig, which had appeared as 
 a Union newspaper immediately after the abandonment of Richmond by Mr. 
 Davis and his government, published an address to the people of Virginia. 
 This address was signed by members of the legislature, and other promi 
 nent citizens. In view of the fall of the Confederacy, and the surrender 
 
REORGANIZATION IN VIRGINIA. 423 
 
 of its forces, it earnestly requested the governor, lieutenant-governor, and 
 members of the legislature to repair to Richmond by the 25th of April. 
 But the meeting of this legislative body never took place. Mr. Lincoln him 
 self forbade it. His assassination, soon after, so exasperated the country, 
 as to make public sentiment, for the time, intolerant of conciliatory plans of 
 restoration. The matter seemed to be left in the hands of the secession 
 leaders themselves. Major-General Halleck superseded General Weitzel in 
 the command at Richmond. He forbade the meeting of the members of this 
 Confederate legislature. It is clear, however, from Mr. Lincoln's guarded 
 note to General Weitzel, that he was far from intending to recognize that 
 so-called legislature of Virginia. On the contrary, his purpose was to allow 
 its members, as the leaders of public opinion, to propose measures that 
 might result in the restoration of peace and union. He had no sympathy 
 with the spirit of partisan or sectional hatred which would have excluded 
 nine-tenths of the intelligence, wealth, and character of the South from 
 participation in its government for a generation. His mind and heart 
 were cast in a larger mould. On the 9th of May, 1865, President John 
 son issued an " executive order to re-establish the authority of the United 
 States, and execute the laws within the geographical limits known as the 
 State of Virginia." It declared null and void all acts and proceedings 
 of the Confederate and state governments that were inconsistent with the 
 Constitution and laws of the United States. It further declared that all 
 persons who claimed to exercise authority under them were liable to the 
 penalty of treason. The same order directed the members of the Cabinet 
 and the district judge to proceed to put in force the laws of the United States 
 pertaining to their respective departments. The last section recognized the 
 authority of Governor Pierpont, who was elected by the Union men of the 
 West Virginia counties ; but who, when they assumed an independent posi 
 tion as a state, removed the seat of their government to Alexandria. 
 
 The constitution framed at Alexandria, in February, 1864, by delegates 
 from ten counties and parts of counties, restricted suffrage to persons who 
 had not borne arms against the United States, nor given aid and assistance 
 to its enemies, since Jan. i, 1864. This was as far back as the delegates 
 could go in the way of disfranchisement and leave themselves any con 
 stituents. It now became a necessity to open the door still wider, other 
 wise there would remain nine-tenths of the counties, not only without 
 voters, but without men enough qualified to hold the county offices. The 
 happy thought of sending i ' carpet-baggers " to these counties for this pur 
 pose seems not to have occurred to Governor Pierpont ; and he accordingly 
 felt constrained to recommend an extension of the elective franchise. He 
 called a special session of the legislature to meet June 20. In his message 
 to that body he stated his difficulties pointedly. He recommended the 
 President's amnesty oath, or one of similar import, in place of the one pre- 
 
424 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 scribed in the constitution. Acting on this suggestion, the legislature sub 
 mitted the question to the popular vote. The constitution was amended 
 accordingly with little opposition. 
 
 This loyal reorganization of the state government of Virginia was based 
 on the action of the western counties, in the year 1862 ; and among the 
 first acts of the legislature was an effort to destroy the ladder on which they 
 had ascended, as they believed, into the Union. In other words, they at 
 tempted to repeal, and did repeal, so far as their action was valid, the con 
 sent given by the legislature of May 13, 1862, to the division of the state. 
 A bill to this effect was introduced in the lower house of the legislature 
 early in the session. The rules were suspended, and it was passed with 
 out opposition. The bill was sent to the Senate, where it was passed with 
 equal celerity. It is probable that Governor Pierpont and his friends were 
 as much in favor of this act as the newly enfranchised members of the as 
 sembly ; since it would have given strength to the Union sentiment in the 
 state. By the same act, the consent heretofore given to the transfer of the 
 counties of Berkeley and Jefferson to West Virginia was repealed. But this 
 procedure on the part of eastern Virginia, under her inchoate and unrecog 
 nized government, was disregarded by Congress. If eastern Virginians 
 claimed and acted on the disputed right to secede, might not western 
 Virginia act on the indisputable right to rise against secession ? 
 
 The legislature cordially indorsed the policy of President Johnson. It 
 declared the purpose of the people of the state. That purpose was to stand 
 by the results of the war ; including the abolition of slavery. It denounced 
 the efforts of those who attempted to misrepresent their views to their injury. 
 The closing resolution, protesting against amendments to the National Con 
 stitution, shows how completely the little nucleus of original Republicanism 
 had been drowned out by the influx of voters and representatives, under the 
 amended state constitution. The legislature passed an act, regulating con 
 tracts between white and colored persons. The colored man was not to be 
 bound by an agreement to labor for a white man for a longer period than two 
 months, unless the contract was in writing, properly authenticated and wit 
 nessed. The masters of apprentices were bound to teach them to read and 
 write. A vigorous vagrant act 'was passed, which brought down a military 
 veto in these words : *' It is ordered that no magistrate, civil officer, or other 
 person shall in any way or manner apply, or attempt to apply the provisions 
 of said statute to any colored person in this department." The order 
 should have been made applicable to all cases, without regard to color. 
 The statute seems to have been general in its application. The order 
 should have been as general. There was no reason why the poor whites 
 should be left to the tender mercies of the Virginia justices of the peace. 
 President Johnson allowed this order to go into operation ; and the legislative 
 enactment, therefore, fell to the ground. An act was passed, giving colored 
 
REORGANIZATION IN LOUISIANA. 
 
 4 2 5 
 
 people the right to testify in all cases in which any of the race were parties. 
 It was thus, through the fires of fresh contentions, that the proud state of 
 Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Henry passed from chaos to cosmos ; 
 the cosmos, albeit, not entirely rounded with beauty, nor lustrous, as yet, 
 with its olden benignity and glory. 
 
 New Orleans fell under the control of the United States forces in April, 
 1862. For some time the city and its vicinity were governed by the military, 
 under the command of Maj.-Gen. Benjamin F. Butler. His rule at the time 
 was denounced by the Southern people as brutal and cruel. But a change 
 of General Butler's political course, in recent years, and many revelations of 
 his better nature have brought about a more charitable feeling towards this 
 remarkable civilian, jurist, advocate, soldier, and statesman. The colored 
 people regarded him as a deliverer and friend. Some of their encomiums 
 upon him for his service in New Orleans seem unconscious irony ; but they 
 were far from this, they were sincere expressions of gratitude to which he 
 was well entitled. The writer once asked General Garfield what was the 
 best specimen of African humor he had heard in his experience, North and 
 South. He related this : The colored folk of New Orleans, at a banquet, 
 proposed the health of General Butler, their friend, in this unique fashion : 
 " Here's to General Butler. He has a white face, but he has a black heart." 
 Whatever the color, there can be no question of its generous and philan 
 thropic instincts. Whatever may be the political and party inconsistencies of 
 this civic and martial hero of a hundred fights, he is always consistently 
 faithful to what he regards as right. His ultimate good temper and lack of 
 malice adorn a character worth the study of the mental and moral philo 
 sopher. The memories of many years in Congress with this man of sur 
 prising intellect and extraordinary acquirements in eveiy branch of knowl 
 edge, during which every phase of his many-sided character, and every 
 angle of his singular course has been turned toward the observation of a 
 critical public, induce the writer to say, that after every fierce wrangle or 
 debate on the exciting topic of those years, or during the hours given to 
 social intercourse in and around the House, there has been encountered in 
 this man's conduct nothing but gentleness and justice toward the poor and 
 heavy-laden ; and always unswerving fidelity to friends. Not a few instances 
 ' of his humanity and generosity to persons who were conspicuous for their 
 hostility to the Union, are now told by his old enemies. Much remains to be 
 told of General Butler which would reflect the highest credit upon his heart 
 and head. 
 
 In August, 1862, Gen. George F. Shepley, of Maine, was appointed 
 
 military governor of Louisiana. He instituted new civil courts for the city 
 
 and county, or parish, on the model of those which had formerly existed, 
 
 and with the same jurisdiction, modified only as far as was necessary under 
 
 27 
 
426 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the circumstances. These courts entered upon the discharge of their duties 
 about the ist of November, 1862. In December, a supreme court was 
 extemporized by the President. Its jurisdiction extended over such part of 
 the state as was within the Union lines, which was a variable area. Ap 
 peals lay from the city courts and from the provost courts to this supreme 
 court. 
 
 In February, 1863, an enterprise was set on foot for the reorganization of 
 the state government on a loyal basis. The question was brought before 
 the Union associations. They came to the agreement that as a first step, a 
 registrar should be appointed for each parish, who was to be directed to open 
 books, and to inscribe therein the names and residences of all citizens of the 
 United States, who having resided six months in the state and one month in 
 the parish, should swear to the fact and take the oath of allegiance, and also 
 swear that they took the oath of allegiance voluntarily, for the purpose of 
 forming a state government loyal to the United States. An election was to be 
 ordered by the military governor as soon as a sufficient area of the territory 
 of the state to justify it should be brought within the Union lines. The ratio 
 of representation in the convention was to be one delegate for 2,500 of the 
 white population according to the last census. The first and second congres 
 sional districts of Louisiana were excepted by President Lincoln from the 
 operation of his Emancipation Proclamation. There slavery still existed. 
 Thomas J. Durant was appointed attorney-general and commissioner of 
 registration. This gentleman was at the same time president of the " Free 
 State General Committee." A registration of the city votes was made. But 
 that in the parishes was scarcely begun, when the state was overrun by the 
 Confederate forces. This caused a suspension of the work. 
 
 Another movement to reorganize the state government was made on the 
 part of the planters, in June, 1863, under the Constitution as it existed at 
 the beginning of the war. A delegation was sent to Washington to lay this 
 proposition before the President, who was petitioned to order a general elec 
 tion on November ist. The purpose was to save slavery ; but the President, 
 without alluding to slavery, declined to order the election, on the ground 
 that another movement was pending for the restoration of the state govern 
 ment. It may be added, however, that a more substantial reason for the 
 refusal lay in the fact that the slaves having been declared free by the 
 proclamation of the President, with the indorsement of Congress, the faith 
 and honor of the Nation were pledged to make good that promise of freedom. 
 The delays caused by the inroads of the Confederate forces in the parishes 
 around the city induced the President to consent to a reorganization of the 
 state on a basis of less population than he had prescribed in his Amnesty 
 proclamation. 
 
 The free colored people presented a petition to the military governor, 
 Shepley, asking to be recognized as citizens and voters. Their petition was 
 
REORGANIZATION IN LOUISIANA. 427 
 
 not granted. But at this stage of the proceedings, and in disregard of the 
 spontaneous movements of the people for reconstruction, Major-General 
 Banks issued a proclamation. It was dated Jan. n, 1864. It ordered an 
 election for governor and other officers, and delegates to a state convention. 
 For the time being they were to constitute the civil government of the state, 
 " under the constitution and laws of Louisiana," except so much of the con 
 stitution as sanctioned and regulated slavery. The election was to be held on 
 the 22d of February. "This proceeding," he declared, "is not intended to 
 ignore the right of property existing prior to the rebellion, nor to preclude 
 the claim for compensation of loyal citizens for losses sustained or other 
 authorized acts of government." The oath of allegiance prescribed by the 
 President's proclamation, with the condition affixed to the elective franchise 
 by the constitution of Louisiana, was to constitute the qualification of voters. 
 
 It must be admitted that this proclamation was inconsistent with itself, in 
 more respects than one, as was pointed out by the Free State Committee, as 
 well as with the subsequent course of General Banks, in regard to the negroes. 
 It proposed to organize a government under the old constitution, and yet dis 
 pensed with a legislature, which was necessary to the levying of taxes and 
 the making of appropriations. It professed to recognize the existence of 
 slavery, and the right of loyal slave-owners to compensation for the loss of 
 their enlisted bondmen ; and on the 23d of February another proclamation 
 was issued, in which the negroes were treated as freedmen. The Free State 
 Committee resented this arbitrary interference with their efforts to re-establish 
 civil government. They issued a spirited protest against it. It must, how 
 ever, be admitted that the code of General Banks for the government of the 
 negroes was, under the circumstances, and for the time, a wise one. It is 
 said to have operated beneficially, and it probably gave expression to the 
 views of President Lincoln. 
 
 General Banks, on the I3th of February, 1864, issued a general order in 
 * regard to the qualification of voters in the election of delegates to the state 
 convention. He prescribed the qualifications of voters in terms which would 
 embrace every citizen of the state who was willing to take and subscribe 
 President Lincoln's amnesty oath. This was simply an oath to support the 
 Constitution of the United States and the proclamations and laws of Con 
 gress in regard to negroes and slaves. The election was held on February 
 22d. There were three candidates for governor, namely, Michael Hahn, B. 
 F. Flanders, and J. Q. A. Fellows. Only 10,270 votes were cast, in a 
 white population of about 350,000. More than half the votes were cast in 
 New Orleans. The soldiers participated. Mr. Hahn received a majority of 
 the votes, and was inaugurated on the 4th of March, amid the firing of can 
 non and ringing of bells. General Banks addressed the people on the 
 auspicious occasion. President Lincoln recognized Mr. Hahn as governor. 
 The writer recalls Governor Hahn. He was short, and lame. He had 
 
428 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 dark, curly hair, and a brown complexion. He was of a vivacious tem 
 per. He served in Congress during the first part of the war. Whether 
 or not he was fitted for the exacting duties of governor of this state, to which 
 the passionate Creole and the chivalric Southron gave tone and temper, 
 he was a most amiable and persuasive gentleman, and accomplished in 
 the amenities of congressional life. He did not debate a great deal ; but 
 he had a fervid love for his state. He seemed to pet the pelicans mother 
 and offspring which plume themselves upon the escutcheon of Louisiana. 
 Once, in speaking, he referred with a " proudly eminent" gesture, to this 
 symbol of sovereignty and emblem of maternal sacrifice. The young peli 
 cans, in gaudy hues, upon the glass panel in the ceiling of the chamber of the 
 House, continued impassively to draw their life-blood from the breast of their 
 devoted mother, unmoved from their attitude of nourishment by the fervor of 
 the allusion ; but the House was moved. The illustration smacked of blood. 
 This ornithological mode of phlebotomy seemed so apposite, as an analogue 
 of the war of the minor states against the motherly Federal system, that the 
 splendid flight of elocution evoked uproarious laughter at, not with, the 
 eloquent member. 
 
 An election of delegates to the state convention for the revision of the con 
 stitution was ordered on the nth, to take place on the 2yth of March. It was 
 ordered, not by the recently inaugurated governor, but by General Banks, 
 who prescribed the qualifications of electors, and the number of delegates to 
 be chosen. Each parish within the military lines, except Orleans, was to 
 vote for delegates by general ticket. The voters were to be all white male 
 citizens of the state who had been resident in it twelve months, and in 
 the parish six months, and who had taken and subscribed the President's 
 amnesty oath. On the i6th Governor Hahn issued a proclamation to the 
 sheriffs, directing them to open the polls and hold elections. The election 
 was held on the 28th of March. Ninety-seven delegates were chosen. Sixty- 
 three were from New Orleans. The number of votes was never stated. 
 This leads to the inference that it was not larger, if so large, as that cast on 
 the 22d of February, for governor. The convention assembled on the 6th of 
 April. It was organized on the *jth by the election of E. H. Durell, as 
 President. After a session of seventy-eight days, the convention adjourned, 
 having completed its labors. The constitution framed by this convention 
 abolished slavery, restricted suffrage to the white men, but authorized the 
 legislature to extend suffrage. It provided for general education. It sub 
 mitted this constitution to the people for ratification. The election for this 
 purpose was held on the 5th of September. For ratification there were 6,836 
 votes, against 1,566; total, 8,402. In a white population of 350,000, this 
 vote was scarcely enough to give assurance of a stable government, or evi 
 dence of returning Republican rule to the state. 
 
 At the election which ratified the constitution, a legislature and a dele- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN LOUISIANA. 429 
 
 gation of five members to Congress were chosen. The legislature was almost 
 unanimously in favor of the free state constitution. Seven electors for 
 President were chosen by this body ; but the state not having been re-admit 
 ted into the Union, the electoral vote was not counted. In fact, only about one- 
 fourth of the territory of the state was within the control of the new govern 
 ment ; the remaining three-fourths being still under the control of the Con 
 federates. So feeble was the civil authority of the new government, even 
 within the parishes that had participated in the elections, that the adminis 
 tration of justice had to be supplemented by martial law. The legislature 
 having elected Governor Hahn United States Senator, he resigned early in 
 1865 and was succeeded by the lieutenant-governor, J. Madison Wells. 
 
 The friends of the Union were by this time divided into two parties, 
 styling themselves respectively, " The National Conservative Union" party, 
 and the "Radical Republicans." " The National Democratic" party, in a 
 popular convention, on October 2d, denounced the constitution of 1864 as 
 a fraud which had not the sanction of the people. It demanded a state con 
 vention for the formation of a new constitution. At an election for the 
 legislature this party carried almost every district ; but, strange to say, they 
 renominated by their convention, J. Madison Wells, as governor, who 
 accepted their nomination. This was done, however, because he had been 
 recognized by President Johnson. 
 
 During the month of November, 1865, Henry C. Warmouth, a radical 
 Republican, was elected as a " Delegate" to Congress from the " Territory 
 of Louisiana." He received 19,000 votes. A part of them were colored 
 probably the greater part. General Warmouth was a Northern man, a brave 
 soldier of fine presence and winning manners. He was never backward 
 in the contests and tragedies which Louisiana experienced in the second 
 decade from 1865 to 1875. The radical Republicans, no less than the na 
 tional Democrats, demanded the overthrow of the government formed in 
 1864. They denied the right of the President to restore the state to the 
 Union by proclamation. They claimed that Congress had that power. They 
 declared that nine-tenths of the white voters were disloyal, and that it was 
 inexpedient to apply for admission into the Union under such circumstances ; 
 that their hope was in Congress ; and that the premature admission of Sena 
 tors and Representatives from Louisiana would be disastrous and place them 
 under Confederate rule. 
 
 The governor of Louisiana called an extra session of the legislature to 
 meet Nov. 23, 1864. His message was confined to objects of local in 
 terest. He favored the election of United States Senators ; thus ignoring the 
 election of Hahn and R. K. Cutler by the preceding legislature, in the early 
 part of the year. He was evidently disposed to gratify the re-enfranchised 
 Confederates. Whether he flattered himself that he would be chosen Sen 
 ator, is not apparent; but if such was his expectation he was doomed to 
 
430 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 disappointment, as Randall Hunt and Henry Bozer were chosen. An ob 
 jection to the election at that time was answered by the statement that Hahn 
 and Cutler had applied in vain for admission. But it was singular logic 
 which led the majority to the conclusion that the Senate would be more 
 ready to admit members chosen by the men who had just laid down their 
 arms as enemies of the Union, than by those who professed to be its ardent 
 friends. The amendment to the United States Constitution for the abolition 
 of slavery was ratified, with a proviso declaring that it conferred no right to 
 legislate on the civil relations of the negroes. 
 
 The legislature which met Jan. 22, 1866, passed an act for the election 
 of mayor and other city officers at an earlier date than that established 
 by law. The governor vetoed this act ; but immediately both houses passed 
 it over the veto by majorities of more than ten to one. The election was 
 accordingly held March 12, 1866. The voters were required to take and 
 subscribe President Johnson's amnesty oath, of May 29 ; but no man could 
 vote if excluded by any one of the fourteen exceptions. The mayor, and 
 nearly every city official elected, belonged to the so-called " National Demo 
 cratic" school of politics that is to say, to the party which seceded, and 
 fought against the Union. The mayor-elect, John F. Monroe, was tempo 
 rarily suspended by General Canby, on the charge that he "had uttered 
 rebellious language after the city had been captured by the Federal troops, 
 and that he refused the oath of allegiance." But his disabilities were re 
 moved by the order of suspension. On May i5th, Mr. Monroe assumed the 
 duties of his office. 
 
 Early in March, the legislature was on the eve of passing a bill for call 
 ing a convention to remodel the constitution ; but when it had been ordered 
 to be engrossed in the house of representatives, by a vote of nearly three to 
 one, a dispatch from Washington from the commissioners of the state who 
 had been sent to confer with the President, arrested the proceeding. The 
 bill was laid on the table. The President desired that there should be no 
 further agitation on the subject of a convention. 
 
 The attempt by the Republicans in 1866, to recall the convention of 1864, 
 was the cause of one of the most wanton massacres on the 3oth of July, that 
 has ever disgraced our annals. The constitution framed by that body in 
 1864 failed to give satisfaction to any party. It was finally repudiated by a 
 majority of those who made it. It was said to be too tame and conservative. 
 It restored to power the intelligent Confederate element. The ex-Confeder 
 ates denounced it. They declared, truly, that the great mass of the people 
 had no hand in framing it. It failed to please the radicals. It greatly dis 
 pleased the negroes. It withheld suffrage from men of color. It enfran 
 chised the insurgents. It failed to give satisfaction to the majority in 
 Congress, because, while it restored the Confederates to power, it excluded 
 the negroes from political rights. 
 
MASSACRE AT NEW ORLEANS. 431 
 
 The white radical Republicans were the least numerous part of the popu 
 lation, but they were backed by the majority in Congress, and by the whole 
 colored population of the state. Their leaders were in part Northern 
 men. They had belonged to or had followed the Union armies, or were old 
 residents of New Orleans. They were re-enforced by disaffected Confed 
 erates, who thought to atone for their recusancy by enthusiastic support of 
 the Union cause. They did this by showing a readiness to take office under 
 the auspices of the " old flag." 
 
 It was the outside encouragement, congressional and Northern, there 
 fore, which emboldened the conventionists of 1864 to make the attempt to 
 reassemble, and remodel the constitution and government of the state in the 
 manner proposed. Trembling for their lives, in the midst of a hostile popu 
 lation, among w r hich they could not have remained but for the presence of 
 the United States army, they never would have dared, or dreamed of the 
 bold -enterprise, if they had relied on their own strength. And yet, with 
 the colored population added, they seemed to be a majority of the people. 
 They had in their party the timid and vacillating governor, J. Madison 
 Wells, of unsavory fame in the electoral count of 1877 J uc te e R- K. How- 
 ell, of the supreme court; Michael Hahn, the Senator-elect to Congress, 
 and many other notable persons. There was no reasonable ground for 
 their assumed right to reassemble and exercise the authority, once dele 
 gated, but now lapsed, of amending the constitution. But the governor and a 
 judge of the supreme court gave their sanction. This was followed by an 
 unwarrantable proceeding on the part of the mayor, to attempt the suppression 
 of the convention, a most unwise and dangerous movement. His order \vas 
 to arrest the conventionists. This was revolutionary. The execution of the 
 order, with or without his connivance, was simply a massacre. And the mas 
 sacre was committed by his police. They marched in three divisions to the 
 hall where the convention was sitting, firing on the unarmed negroes on the 
 streets. The police, aided by a mob, surrounded the building, fired into the 
 windows, broke down the doors, and shot down the unresisting delegates in 
 their seats. The city firemen and other organizations joined in the brutal 
 work, which was only stopped by General Baird, the Federal commander, 
 who at once proclaimed martial law. The attempt of Mayor Monroe to 
 exculpate himself from the crime of premeditated and wholesale murder 
 would have been entitled to some consideration if he had made any effort 
 to stop the massacre ; or if his agents, the police, had been brought to condign 
 punishment. But instead of this, not one of them was removed from office, 
 nor even rebuked for excessive zeal in the execution of the order. General 
 Baird, in his letter to Mayor Monroe of July 26, presented the true state of 
 the case in his statement before the convention met, namely, that if the con 
 vention had the right to assemble, it should be protected. If it had not that 
 right, then its labors amounted to only a harmless pleasantry, and that the 
 mayor had no right to interfere. 
 
432 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The grand jury of Orleans Parish had indicted the members of the con 
 vention. President Johnson had telegraphed to the lieutenant-governor that 
 the military was expected to sustain and not obstruct the proceedings of the 
 courts. This telegram may have emboldened Monroe to take the course 
 he did. 
 
 Some battles were fought in the Civil War which were less bloody than 
 this riot. This reference to it would be incomplete without a list of the 
 casualties. The report of Assistant-Surgeon Hartsuff, of the United States 
 Army, after a survey of the field, states that thirty-eight were killed, and 
 146 wounded ; of the latter, eight were members of the convention, nine 
 were white loyal citizens, 119 were colored men, and ten were policemen. 
 There was an abatement of the riotous spirit in Louisiana following this 
 terrible affair. Nothing of note in that way occurred until the state was 
 subjected to the Reconstruction acts. 
 
 In 1868, the new constitution, framed in conformity with the requirements 
 of the Reconstruction acts, was ratified by a decided majority. At the same 
 time, Henry C. Warmouth was elected governor. The election passed off 
 quietly. Much of the violence and crime which followed might have been 
 avoided if those who were invested with authority had possessed intelligence 
 and character. But as specimens of the unwisdom and the unscrupulous 
 partisanship which were clothed with authority, the following facts will 
 serve as illustrations : The presiding officer of the senate, Oscar I. Dunn, 
 a man of color, announced at the meeting of that body, that none would 
 be regarded as qualified senators who could not take the test oath, the 
 u iron-clad," which was prescribed by the act of Congress of 1862. The 
 occupant of the chair in the house, also a colored man, made a similar an 
 nouncement. Nothing of this kind was required by the constitution under 
 which they were about to organize a state government. On the contrary, 
 that constitution prescribed an oath for members different in language and 
 less exclusive in import. This ruling excluded nearly all the Democratic 
 members, and their names were not called by the clerk. The rulings of 
 these presiding officers were arrogant and impudent usurpations. The 
 usurpers, instead of being impeached, were sustained by the two houses, 
 and the Democratic members were excluded from their seats, until it was 
 announced that General Grant would not sustain this procedure. He 
 thought the members should be admitted on taking the oath prescribed in 
 the constitution. The legislature passed an act providing for the appoint 
 ment of five police commissioners for the city. Governor Warmouth gave 
 three of these important places to colored men. In harmony with these acts, 
 Thomas W. Conway, preacher, politician, and philanthropist, introduced 
 into the legislature a bill for the organization of common schools which 
 should be open to all children between six and twenty-one years of age, 
 "without distinction of race, color, or previous condition"; and, that the 
 
SECRET MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS. 433 
 
 measure should lack no feature calculated to exasperate the white race, at 
 tendance on the schools was made compulsory. This measure was not 
 adopted ; but it showed the spirit of the Northern men who seemed to be in 
 spired by a purpose of degrading the white people, and of arraying race 
 against race. It was thought to be a sure method of preventing the colored 
 people from falling under the control of the native whites. 
 
 The renewal of acts of violence which followed the inauguration of the 
 state government on this basis, and with this spirit dominant in the ruling 
 party, was a natural consequence. In July, information reached the governor 
 from Franklin and other northern counties, of assassinations and outrages 
 in great number. They came with petitions for protection. He submitted 
 the various communications which reached him to the legislature. That body 
 with stupid malignity appealed not to the President of the United States 
 but to General Grant for military aid. But the governor was not wanting in 
 intelligence. He vetoed the joint resolution. He assigned the constitutional 
 provision as his reason therefor. A new resolution was introduced and passed 
 by the two houses. It was at once forwarded to the President by the governor. 
 It was accompanied by a letter in which the President was told that 150 men 
 had been murdered in one month and a half ; that the Confederates were deter 
 mined to kill or drive away Union white men and leading colored men ; and 
 that menaces were made to terrify the voters. It referred to a sect, known 
 as the K. W. C. This sect had questions and oaths. It was asserted that 
 its object was to intimidate the colored folk, to precipitate a race conflict, and 
 to assassinate leading officers of the legislature. The United States troops 
 were said to be the only reliable protection against this secret sect. This 
 sect had its military organizations. It drilled openly in the streets, and in 
 halls at night. This indicated an impending bloody revolution. It implied 
 ruin to the state. The legislature deprecated the use of the militia, as the 
 excitement was excessive. It asked for two regiments of cavalry, one of 
 infantry, and a battery of artillery. Some of the newspapers denounced 
 these statements as untrue. They said that they were willful radical fabrica 
 tions. They called for the names of the murdered parties, with the cir 
 cumstances concerning their untimely taking off. 
 
 There is a wide margin of difference between these conflicting state 
 ments. Doubtless the truth lies in the middle of them. Riotous demonstra 
 tions occurred in the streets of New Orleans, and among the victims was a 
 colored orator who attempted to make a Democratic speech. The United 
 States troops were sent, in response to the call of the legislature and gov 
 ernor. Their presence was doubtless salutary, though not entirely effica 
 cious ; for riots continued to occur, attended with the shedding of blood. 
 On Sept. 22, 1868, a riot occurred in New Orleans, under the following cir 
 cumstances. That being the year of the Presidential election, politics ran 
 high. On the occasion referred to, the colored political clubs, in marching 
 
434 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 through the streets, halted in front of a restaurant. Some one inside shouted 
 for Seymour and Blair. This caused an attack upon the house by the col 
 ored men, which resulted in the killing of several persons. On the 28th of 
 the same month a serious riot occurred at Opelousas. The editor of the 
 Republican newspaper at that place was whipped, and required to retract 
 statements made in an article which had appeared in his paper. A report 
 got abroad that he had been murdered. Thereupon bands of negroes in 
 the neighborhood armed themselves and marched upon the town. The citi 
 zens werf! out to meet them. A fight occurred. It resulted in the killing of 
 several persons. Two days before, a bloody conflict between the whites and 
 blacks occurred in the parish of St. Bernard. It resulted in the slaughter 
 of a white family, the burning of their residence, and the killing or wound 
 ing of several negroes. Notwithstanding these disorders, the Presidential 
 election went off quietly, resulting in a large majority for the Democrats. 
 The state, in spite of disquietude, conspiracies, and outbreakings of violence 
 from factions, was not worse than might have been expected from the local 
 isolation, as well as the pervading taint, which compromise, early and gra 
 ciously made, might have averted. 
 
 Perhaps in no other part of the South was the confiscation act so rigidly 
 enforced as in Louisiana. Millions worth of the property of the absentees 
 was seized and sold. Yet it was stated by Judge Durell, of the United States 
 District Court, that the proceeds of the confiscation sales would not exceed 
 $100,000. A defaulting quartermaster turned over $75 as the total net pro 
 ceeds of the sales of all the splendid Parisian furniture, gold and silver plate, 
 and the immense quantity of other valuable things taken from the houses of 
 the registered absentees. 
 
 Never did a state suffer like Louisiana. It suffered because of the lack of 
 conciliation with firmness. It was the victim of that policy which, as 
 Macaulay teaches, follows the want of grace early tendered. Conspiracies and 
 insurrections, in which small minorities were engaged, and the outbreakings 
 of popular violence, unconnected with any extensive project or any durable 
 principle, should have been repressed with vigor and decision. " To 
 shrink from them is to make them formidable. But no wise ruler will con 
 found the pervading taint with the slight local isolation." These princi 
 ples the author endeavored to apply to the bill of Henry Winter Davis, 
 in a speech on the 4th of May, 1864. Mr. Davis proposed the one- 
 tenth policy of suffrage in the returning states. It was based on the 
 President's amnesty and negro policies ; but five months had then passed, 
 and yet there were seen no signs of thousands of Southern citizens rushing to 
 embrace this amnesty. Unlike the acts of grace granted by kings to their recu 
 sant subjects, of which history is full, there was no general taking of the 
 oath, no genuine movement toward restoration, but a fiercer spirit of resistance, 
 produced by the unwise and exasperating policy of the Executive. The for- 
 
REORGANIZATION IN ARKANSAS. 435 
 
 giveness offered by the President was deemed a mockery, and its terms an 
 insult. What a delusion to hold out such a Dead Sea apple luscious to 
 the eye, but ashes to the lip ! It was vain to expect the Southern people, in 
 their temper after the war, saddened by loss and irate with revenge, to do 
 what one million and a half of Northern voters would scorn to do. There 
 was no hope of a returning South by such a plan. It was an amnesty which 
 was a juggle, for it pleased no one who was to be reached. It was based on 
 a proclamation which was a delusion, for no one was freed by it whom our 
 armies had not enfranchised. It was the old unsoundness, newly daubed 
 with untempered mortar. 
 
 There was one chief defect in the President's plan. The structure was 
 built upon his proclamation of Emancipation. The same defect was observed 
 in the bill of Mr. Davis. That too was based on the policy of forced eman 
 cipation. He proposed : " to guarantee to certain states, whose governments 
 have been usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government." This 
 was the title of his bill. It was denied then, as afterwards in Louisiana, 
 first, that the state governments were overthrown ; and second, that his plan 
 substituted a republican form. His plan was to appoint provisional brigadier- 
 governors, who were to be charged with the civil administration until a state 
 government should be recognized. It required an oath to the Constitution 
 to be taken, which was very well; but by whom? By one-tenth of the 
 people. That number would be sufficient to construct the new state, whose 
 republican form of government was already dictated to them by the bill ; 
 they u shall " abolish slavery. Other steps were to be taken, and then the 
 new republican state was to be recognized. In some of its features this bill 
 was an improvement upon the rickety establishment proposed by the Presi 
 dent ; but it was obnoxious to the same objection. It was a usurpation of the 
 sovereignty of the people by the Federal functionaries, and it regarded the 
 old states as forever destroyed. The plans proposed were objectionable, 
 because of the mode of construction and the kind of fabric to be rebuilt. 
 As neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the Emancipation act could 
 ever be reconciled with the normal control of the states over their domestic 
 institutions, so all oaths to sustain the same were oaths to subvert the old 
 governments, Federal and state. These were the objections then paramount 
 in Congress and in the states. After the discussion, Mr. Davis abandoned 
 his " one-tenth," and wisely substituted the majority idea. 
 
 The Union forces obtained control over a large part of the State of 
 Arkansas in 1863. This result came from the defeat of the Confederates in 
 the battle of Pea Ridge, by General Curtis, in March of the preceding year. 
 The people of the northern counties had but little sympathy with those of 
 the southern half of the state. They possessed comparatively few slaves. 
 There was soon developed among them a repugnance to the secession 
 
43^ THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 movement. There was a desire to be restored to the protection of the 
 Union. But nothing was done towards reconstruction until the beginning of 
 the following year. A spontaneous movement in this direction was made 
 by the people. President Lincoln wrote a letter to Major-General Steele, 
 who was in command at Little Rock, stating that he had received petitions 
 from citizens of the state, asking that an election might be held for governor 
 and other state officers. In this letter the President stated the changes that 
 should be made in the constitution and laws. They were similar to those 
 prescribed for Louisiana. Slavery must be abolished, the freedmen must be 
 protected in their rights, and idleness and vagrancy should be prohibited. 
 This letter was dated Jan. 20, 1864. The details of the President's plan 
 as to the mode of making and counting election returns were subsequently 
 modified, when he ascertained what had already been done by the people. 
 A popular movement began earlier. It was pretended to be based on the 
 Amnesty proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863. A state convention had assembled 
 on the 8th of January, 1864, and inaugurated a provisional government. The 
 convention claimed to represent forty-two of the fifty-four counties. In fif 
 teen counties its delegates had been chosen with some degree of regularity, at 
 the usual election precincts. Other delegates were chosen in public meet 
 ings. A constitution adopted by this convention was ratified on January 19. 
 The vote cast was 12,443, of which all except 266 were for ratification. The 
 preamble to the constitution declared that the entire action of the convention 
 of the state, which had assembled in the city of Little Rock on the fourth day 
 of March, 1861, " was, and is, null and void, and is not now, and never has 
 been, binding and obligatory upon the people." Many legislative acts passed 
 during the ascendancy of the secessionists were also declared void. The 
 official acts of justices and others, and the solemnization of marriages were 
 not affected. All debts contracted by the legislature in aid of the Confed 
 eracy were repudiated. 
 
 In the fifth article, first section, after the abolishment of slavery, it was 
 provided that no male person arrived at the age of twenty-one years, nor 
 female arrived at the age of eighteen years, should be held to serve any person 
 as a servant, under any indenture or contract thereafter made, unless such 
 persons should enter into such indenture or contract while in a state of perfect 
 freedom, and on condition of a bonajide consideration received, or to be re 
 ceived, for their services ; and further, that no indenture of any negro or 
 mulatto, thereafter made and executed out of the state, or if made in the 
 state, where the term of service would exceed one year, should be of the least 
 validity, except those given in case of apprenticeship, which was not to be 
 for a longer term than until the apprentice should arrive at the age of twenty- 
 one years, if a male, or the -age of eighteen years, if a female. 
 
 An election was held on March 14, 1864, at which a governor, Isaac 
 Murphy, and other state officers, as well as three congressmen, were chosen. 
 
THE TEST OATH IN ARKANSAS. 437 
 
 The constitution was ratified ; and the legislature, which assembled April 
 25th, elected William M. Fishback and Elisha Baxter as United States 
 Senators. In this manner the state government was established under Pres 
 ident Lincoln's policy. 
 
 On the I4th of April, 1865, the legislature ratified the amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States, abolishing slavery. An act was passed 
 disfranchising all citizens who had aided the rebellion after April 18, 1864, 
 when the loyal state government was recognized. This act was protested 
 against, as unconstitutional, in that it prescribed qualifications for voters 
 that were not in the state constitution. It was not repealed, but it was 
 declared to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of the state. The 
 counties in which the Confederates had had control were now brought under 
 the jurisdiction of the new free state organization. Soon, its authority was 
 undisputed throughout the state. On the 3oth of October, 1865, President 
 Johnson, in a dispatch to Governor Murphy, pledged his sanction and sup 
 port to the new state organization. 
 
 In Arkansas, as in other Southern states, there was great destitution at the 
 close of the war. 'In May, 1865, the government issued 75,097 rations to the 
 destitute white refugees, who were mostly Union men on their way home ; 
 and 46,845 rations to freedmen. This state of things continued throughout 
 the year. Arkansas suffered more than most of her sister states from domes 
 tic war among her citizens. Governor Murphy, in a letter to the Rev. I. H. 
 Leard, dated Dec. 9, 1865, said that, unless speedily relieved, many persons 
 would, during the winter, die from the effects of hunger and cold. These 
 needy people resided, generally, in the western part of the state. They 
 wei'e chiefly the widows and orphans of Union soldiers, or the helpless connec 
 tions and dependents of the aged and infirm, who had been reduced by rob 
 bery, or exhausted in means and strength, while flying from their enemies. 
 
 The declaration of the supreme court of the state, in December, 1865, 
 that the test oath was unconstitutional, greatly increased the popular vote ; 
 but it threw the pronounced Republicans into a small minority. All free 
 white male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age, who had 
 been citizens or residents of the state six months, were allowed to vote. At 
 an election for state auditor, in August, 1866, 34,407 votes were cast, of 
 which Miller, Unionist, received 15,241; Fagan, Unionist, 12,690; and 
 Berry, Republican, received 6,476. Only five Republicans were elected to 
 the legislature. 
 
 A public meeting or convention of the loyal people of Arkansas was held 
 at Fort Smith in December, 1866. They adopted a petition to Congress for 
 the abrogation of the existing government. They asserted that the seces 
 sionists controlled affairs. Congress was asked to " extend to all loyal men 
 the right of suffrage, without distinction of color, except Indians not taxed." 
 This convention was small and by no means enthusiastic. It was divided 
 
438 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 in sentiment. It was composed in part of men of the class who are prone 
 to be " strong on the strong side," and who had distinguished themselves 
 in bygone days by their zeal in the Confederate cause. 
 
 On the 2ist of January, 1867, Governor Murphy sent to the senate his 
 veto of a bill " to provide for the support of wounded and disabled soldiers, 
 and for the support of indigent widows and children of deceased soldiers, 
 and for the relief of indigent families of this state, and to furnish artificial 
 limbs for maimed soldiers, and for other purposes named." This title might 
 leave the impression that all wounded and disabled soldiers, and all indigent 
 families were to be provided for ; but the first section of the act was more 
 specific. It appropriated " ten per centum of the revenue of the state 
 annually, to constitute a fund for the relief of destitute, wounded, or disabled 
 soldiers, not otherwise provided for by the United States Government, and 
 for the support of indigent widows and children of deceased soldiers, not 
 otherwise provided for by the United States." But the governor vetoed it. 
 He assumed that the legislature designed by this act to honor the bravery and 
 devotion, and reward the sufferings of those who fought against the govern 
 ment of the United States in the late rebellion, and also against the present 
 state government. The bill, nevertheless, was passed over the veto, by a 
 vote of twenty-one to one in the senate ; and by sixty-four to seven in the 
 house of representatives. 
 
 Early in February, 1867, the legislature passed "An Act to declare the 
 rights of persons of African descent." This act was by far the most liberal 
 and just of any passed by the Southern legislatures, prior to permanent recon 
 struction under the acts of Congress. One of its principal features apper 
 tained to contracts. Persons of color were authorized to give evidence ; to 
 inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, convey, and assign real and personal 
 property ; to make wills and testaments ; and to have full and equal benefit 
 of the rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, and 
 of all remedies and proceedings for the enforcement and protection of the 
 same, that white persons then had. It enacted that they should not be sub 
 ject to any other or different punishments than those prescribed for white 
 persons ; and that all laws should be applicable to all persons, without dis 
 tinction of race or color. It repealed all laws relating to colored people, 
 inconsistent with these provisions. The marriage relation, with all its legal 
 obligations and rights, was established for the freed people. All who had 
 lived together in that relation prior to emancipation were to be regarded 
 lawfully married, and their children were made legitimate. 
 
 The difficulty with those opposed to this act was the clause giving to ne 
 groes and mulattoes the same right to testify in the courts that white persons 
 possessed. In other words, it allowed them to testify in cases where white 
 persons alone were concerned. It subjected people of color to the same 
 pains and penalties, and to no others, for crimes and breaches of the law, 
 
REORGANIZATION IN ARKANSAS. 
 
 439 
 
 that white persons were subject to for like offense. It was among the last acts 
 on the subject passed by any Southern legislature, under the temporaiy re 
 construction which took place on the plans proposed by Presidents Lincoln 
 and Johnson. It was for that reason more liberal than those which preceded 
 it. The leaders of public sentiment in Arkansas had begun to understand the 
 real temper of the North. They appreciated the necessity of conforming to 
 it more nearly than was at first deemed essential. But when they became 
 convinced that the popular power, the power behind the throne, was greater 
 than the throne, they began to conquer, one by one, their prejudices. It was 
 asserted that the legislature, by these acts, was prompted solely by a desire to 
 legislate for the best interests of the white inhabitants of the state. No hopeful 
 sentiment about the negro inspired these proceedings. It was in the same 
 spirit that the editor of the leading journal of the state called upon the 
 planters to make "fair, but stringent contracts with the freedmen." "Are 
 they not," said the journalist, " our principal dependence? Must we not do 
 the best we can with them, until such time as an increase of white laborers 
 shall come into our state, and enable us to do without them? Then the higJ 
 estimate which they now place upon themselves will, by competition, be 
 brought down, and the question with them will not, as now, be ' who shall 
 I work for?' but, 'who will employ me?'' This sentiment manifests as 
 little acquaintance with the principles of political economy as it does of re 
 gard for the welfare of the laboring classes, white and black. For the hope 
 of drawing white laborers to the state in order to reduce wages by competi 
 tion with negro labor was utterly fallacious. Are not the countries where 
 the attractive forces of immigration are the most strenuous, those in which 
 wages are high ? 
 
 In February, 1867, the legislature passed "an act of pardon and am 
 nesty" to all persons who, at any time after the sixth day of May, 1861, and 
 before the fourth day of July, 1865, had committed any crime or misde 
 meanor against the State of Arkansas, rape only excepted, and who had not 
 been convicted thereof before the passage of the act. This act of amnesty 
 was intended for the benefit of outlaws on both sides, who had committed 
 murders and other crimes. It was very charitable. During the year 1867, 
 almost to its close, Arkansas had more or less of distraction. The military 
 were not hospitably entertained, as may be inferred from the reprimand by 
 Gen. E. O. C. Ord, then chief commander, of Major Pierce, for his seizure 
 of a newspaper which had criticised the soldiery. The registration of voters 
 and the apportionment of delegates went on until the convention was called. 
 Its delegates were nearly all radicals. Excesses threatened to engulf the state. 
 
 In December, 1867, the Democracy of Arkansas are aroused. That 
 party declares for a white man's government. The convention meets on the 
 7th of January, 1868. The state continues to degenerate, under bad admin 
 istration, until Congress takes notice. The Poland Committee are sent to the 
 
440 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 rescue. Then arises in Arkansas a man of mark ! The present Attorney- 
 General of the United States, Augustus H. Garland is the man. Whether 
 it is because the writer has been associated with this distinguished lawyer 
 upon questions concerning the test oaths, or whether because of congenial 
 temperament and long friendliness, it is con amore that this chapter concludes 
 with a brief narrative of the life and merits of Augustus H. Garland. He 
 fills a distinguished place in the history of the State of Arkansas, of which 
 he has been Senator. He is destined to fill a larger place in the history of 
 the country under the new Administration, of which he is the legal adviser. 
 He was born on the eleventh day of June, 1832, in Tennessee. He was 
 educated at Bardstown, Kentucky, a famous seat of learning at that time. 
 During his educational nonage he had such influences as are associated with 
 the names of Charles A. WicklirTe, James Guthrie, Felix Grundy, and 
 " Ben." Harden. His habit of steady application, added to the keenness 
 of his analysis, gave him rank along with the best lawyers of the Senate of 
 the United States. He is modest, unassuming, sociable, and full of anecdote 
 and humor. He has a square and solid frame, and although fifty-two years 
 of age, looks like a more youthful man. He is evidently a man who has 
 communed much with nature. He has a frank simplicity of character which 
 is charming. 
 
 The incident which brought him before the public dates from a decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1866. It involved the consti 
 tutionality of the test oath in Congress, which the author of this volume, 
 with the aid of Senator Garland, has recently had repealed in some of its 
 most obnoxious features. The iron-clad oath act was approved July 2, 1862. 
 It prescribed that before any person could enter upon the duties of any office 
 of the United States Government, he should take and subscribe that oath. 
 A supplemental act was passed in 1865. Its provisions were extended to 
 attorneys of United States courts. As stated in a former chapter of this 
 volume, Senator Garland had been an attorney and counselor of the court 
 before the war, in 1860. He was forbidden by the act of 1865 to practice 
 after the war was over, having been a Senator in the Confederate Con 
 gress. Engaged in the discussion in the case and others of a similar 
 nature at the same term of the court, were such eminent lawyers as Reverdy 
 Johnson, Matt. H. Carpenter, Attorney-General Speed, Henry Stanbery, 
 and Jeremiah S. Black. But for forensic and constitutional acumen, the 
 (then) young lawyer bore away the palm, in his own case about the test 
 oath. His argument was a masterly elucidation of the law, and the 
 precedents ; and although four of the judges dissented from the opinion of 
 the court, which sustained three out of four of the points made by Mr. 
 Garland, they gave him unstinted praise for his argument. But it was as 
 governor of the State of Arkansas that Mr. Garland won his best trophies. 
 Although he had been a Bell and Everett elector, and had made the fight for 
 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL GARLAND'S EFFORTS. 441 
 
 the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws, when the seces 
 sion ordinance of his state was adopted, he went manfully, though mourn 
 fully, with his Southern people. He was chosen to the provisional Congress 
 which met at Montgomery, Alabama, in May, 1861. He assisted in framing 
 the constitution of the Confederate States. This preliminary experience 
 gave emphasis to his wise and sage advice when, in 1874, he overthrew the 
 carpet-bag rule in Arkansas. It was his effort before the Poland Committee 
 of the House which secured the majority report. When he became gov 
 ernor of Arkansas, he found the treasury bankrupt, and the state discredited. 
 Its scrip sold for twenty cents on the dollar. It was not without a dire con 
 test with President and Congress, and the Republican party in his state, that 
 all differences were composed, and the state was lifted out of the black 
 slough of ruin. Without opposition, he was preferred for the United States 
 Senate. As was both natural and proper he became a member of the Judi 
 ciary Committee. In the line of his profession, with direct and forcible 
 language and thought, he has defended in various cases involving the new 
 Amendments and Civil Rights bill, the rights of his section under the Con 
 stitution. It has been claimed that he is a latitudinarian in his construction 
 of the Constitution, and that he believes in the preamble as the " blanket 
 clause " of the Constitution. Although he may not have forgotten some of 
 his old Whig or Federal rules and ideas, he has acted with the Democratic 
 party in the Senate, and is an active member of the Cabinet of the Demo 
 cratic Administration. He belongs to no ultra school in his construction of 
 the Constitution. He believes in what he calls the common sense interpreta 
 tion of that instrument. He has never failed to display on every opportunity 
 high executive ability, and in his speeches and opinions he has patiently, and 
 with keenest observation and perspicuity, pursued a clear and brilliant order 
 of argument, that has made his logic synonymous with rhetoric set on fire ; 
 which is the true definition of forensic eloquence. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. 
 
 ACT CREATING IT ITS PURPOSES AND SCOPE SUPPLEMENTARY ACT PRESI 
 DENT JOHNSON'S VETO OVERRULED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED 
 LAW LARGE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BUREAU THE COMMISSIONER 
 AND HIS SUBORDINATES CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST THE COMMIS 
 SIONER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY FERNANDO WOOD OF 
 NEW-YORK INVESTIGATION BY A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY 
 AND MINORITY REPORTS ERECTION OF THE HOWARD UNIVERSITY THE 
 BARRY FARM DISASTROUS ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A COLORED COLONY 
 ON IT FAILURE OF THE FREEDMEN'S BANK DISASTROUS CLOSE TO THE 
 
 WHOLE SCHEME. 
 
 * 
 
 A HISTORY of reconstruction, which failed to present the leading 
 features of the Freedmen's Bureau and the character of its opera 
 tions, would be incomplete. The measure for the creation of that 
 bureau originated during the first session of the Thirty-eighth Con 
 gress. It became a law on the 3d of March, 1865. It was entitled, "An 
 Act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees." It pro 
 vided for such bureau being established in the War Department, to continue 
 " during the present war of rebellion and for one year thereafter." The con 
 trol of all abandoned lands in the states recently in rebellion, and of all sub- 
 j'ects relating to freedmen and to refugees from the Confederate States, or 
 from any district of country embraced in the territory covered by the opera 
 tions of the army, was committed to this bureau under regulations to be pre 
 scribed by its head and to be approved by the President. The commissioner 
 was to be appointed by the President at a salary of $3,000 per annum. He 
 was required to give bond in the sum of $50,000. 
 
 The Secretary of War was authorized by this law to issue provisions, 
 clothing, and fuel for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of 
 destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen and their families. Assistant 
 commissioners were to be appointed for each of the ten insurrectionary states. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUREAU. 443 
 
 They were to aid in the execution of the act. Officers of the army might be 
 assigned to duty under the act. The assistant commissioners were required 
 to report quarterly to the commissioner. He was required to report annually 
 to the President before the commencement of each session of Congress. 
 
 The commissioner was authorized, under the direction of the President, 
 to set apart for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land 
 within the insurrectionary states as were abandoned, or to which the United 
 States Government had acquired title by confiscation, sale, or otherwise. Of 
 these lands a tract of not more than forty acres might be assigned to every 
 male citizen, whether refugee or freedman ; and the person to whom it was 
 .so assigned was to be protected in the use and enjoyment of the land for the 
 term of three years. He was to pay an annual rent not exceeding six per 
 centum of the value of the land, as appraised by the state authorities for the 
 purpose of taxation in the year 1860. In case there was no such appraisal, 
 then the rental was to be based upon the estimated value of the land in that 
 year. This was to be ascertained in such manner as the commissioner 
 might prescribe. At the end of such term, or at any time during the term, 
 the occupant of any parcel so assigned might purchase the land and receive 
 such title thereto as the United States Government could convey, upon pay 
 ing for the land its value as so ascertained. 
 
 In February, 1866, Congress passed an act to amend the foregoing act. It 
 provided that this legislation should continue in force, not for one year after 
 the close of the war, as in the original bill, but until otherwise provided by 
 law. It extended its operations to refugees and freedmen in all parts of the 
 Union. Provision was also made for dividing the districts into sub-districts, 
 and for placing all persons connected with the bureau under military author 
 ity. The Secretary of War was empowered to order the issue of provi 
 sions, clothing, fuel, and other supplies, including medical stores and trans 
 portation, and to afford such aid, medical or otherwise, as he might deem 
 needful for the immediate temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suf 
 fering refugees and freedmen, their wives and children. None were to be 
 deemed destitute and suffering, who, being able to find employment, could 
 by proper exertion, avoid such destitution. 
 
 The President was authorized to reserve from sale or settlement under the 
 homestead or pre-emption laws, and to set apart for the freedmen and loyal 
 refugees, male and female, unoccupied lands in Florida, Mississippi, Ala 
 bama, Louisiana, and Arkansas. They were not to exceed in all, three mil 
 lions of acres of good land. These lands were to be assigned in parcels not 
 exceeding forty acres each to the loyal refugees and freedmen, who were to 
 be protected in the enjoyment of the same. They were to pay an annual 
 rent, to be agreed upon between them and the commissioners of the Freed 
 men' s Bureau. At their option the renters might purchase the lands at a 
 price to be agreed on. The occupants of land, under General Sherman's 
 
444 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 field order, dated at Savannah, Jan. 16, 1865, were to be protected in the en 
 joyment of the same for three years, against the claim of the former owners. 
 Suitable buildings were to be erected by the bureau for asylums and schools. 
 It was made the duty of the President to extend military protection to the 
 freedmen in all cases in which any state or local law or regulation denied 
 them equal rights with white people. It was made a misdemeanor, punish 
 able by fine and imprisonment, for any person, under color of any state or 
 local law, to subject any freedman to the deprivation of any civil right se 
 cured to white persons. The officers of the bureau were authorized to take 
 jurisdiction of all such cases. 
 
 This supplementary act was met by the veto of President Johnson, dated 
 Feb. 19, 1866; but it was passed by both houses two days subsequently > 
 notwithstanding the objections of the President, by more than the requisite 
 two-thirds majority. 
 
 Preliminary to the statement of his constitutional objections to the bill, 
 the President suggested that there was no immediate necessity for the meas 
 ure, inasmuch as the original act had not expired ; as that act conferred ex 
 tensive powers ; and as further experience of its effects was needed as a 
 guide to additional legislation. The President expressed the strong desire 
 which he shared with Congress, to secure to the freedmen the full enjoy 
 ment of their freedom and property ; but he suggested that the bill contained 
 provisions which were, in his opinion, at war with the Constitution. It pro 
 posed to establish, by authority of Congress, military jurisdiction over all 
 parts of the United States containing refugees and freedmen, and to extend 
 the existing temporary jurisdiction of the Freedmen's Bureau, with greatly 
 enlarged powers, over those states in which the ordinary course of judicial 
 proceedings had been interrupted by the rebellion. In those eleven states 
 the bill subjected any white person who might be charged with depriving 
 a freedman of civil rights or immunities, to imprisonment or fine, or both, 
 without, however, defining the u civil rights or immunities" that were thus 
 to be secured to the freedmen by military law. This military jurisdiction 
 was also extended to all questions that might arise respecting contracts. 
 The agent who was thus to exercise the office of a military judge might be 
 a stranger entirely ignorant of the local laws and exposed to errors of judg 
 ment. This exercise of power over which there was no legal supervision, 
 by a vast number of agents w r ould necessarily be attended by acts of caprice T 
 injustice and passion. The trials originating under the law were to take 
 place without the intervention of a jury and without any fixed rules of law 
 or evidence ; and the punishment would be, not what the law declared, but 
 that which a court-martial might think proper. From these arbitrary tri 
 bunals there was no appeal provided, no writ of error to any of the consti 
 tutional courts of the country. 
 
 The President also objected to the bill because it had no limitation in 
 
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS. 445 
 
 point of time, but would form a part of the permanent legislation of the 
 country. He could not reconcile such a system of military jurisdiction 
 with the provision of the Constitution that " no person shall be held to 
 answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless upon a present 
 ment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land 
 and naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war 
 or public danger," and that " in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall 
 enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the 
 state or district wherein the crime shall have been committed." This bill 
 proposed, he said, to set aside all the safeguards which experience and wis 
 dom had established as securities for the protection of the innocent, the pun 
 ishment of the guilty, and the equal administration of justice. Such a 
 measure could only be justified while war continued. There was at that 
 time no part of the country in which the authority of the United States was 
 disputed, and it was impolitic, as well as unconstitutional, to disturb com 
 merce, credit, and industry by declaring to the world that the United States 
 was still in a condition of civil war. He argued, that although, during the 
 war many refugees and freedmen had received support from the government, 
 it had never been intended that they should thenceforth be fed, clothed, edu 
 cated, and sheltered at public expense. On the contrary, the idea on which 
 the slaves were assisted to freedom was, that on becoming free, they would 
 be a self-sustaining population. Any legislation that implied that they were 
 not expected to attain a self-sustaining condition, must necessarily have a 
 tendency injurious alike to their character and their prospects. 
 
 The President also pointed out, in further detail, that the power conferred 
 by this bill of appointing agents and clerks for every county and parish in 
 the late insurrectionary states would involve an immense addition to the 
 President's patronage. The annual expenditure was $11,750,000 under the 
 original bill. It would probably be doubled by the one under consideration. 
 The maintenance of military rule in the South would require the presence of 
 troops there. Thus, large appropriations would become necessary to enforce 
 military jurisdiction. In addition to these objections, the President pointed 
 out that the fifth section of the bill proposed to take away land from its former 
 owners without any legal proceedings being first had. This was contrary to 
 that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person shall be 
 deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. He urged 
 other objections to the bill, based on considerations of the permanent -wel 
 fare of the freedmen themselves and of the general good of society. It is 
 difficult, indeed, to imagine how a candid mind could resist the force of the 
 President's objections to the bill, founded on its infractions of the Constitu 
 tion and its invasions of the liberty of the people ; but nevertheless his 
 objections were overruled, and the bill became a law. Various other amend 
 ments to the law were passed from time to time, and large appropriations to 
 
446 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 defray the expenses of maintaining the bureau and its wards, the freedmen 
 and refugees, were made at every session for several years afterwards. Thus, 
 in the army appropriation bill for the year ending June 30, 1867, about seven 
 million dollars was appropriated for those purposes. This included these 
 items : For commissary stores, $3,106,250 ; for transportation, $1,320,000 ; 
 for clothing for distribution, $1,170,000; for repairs and rent of school 
 houses and asylums, $500,000 ; for medical department, $500,000 ; for sala 
 ries of assistant and sub-assistant commissioners, $147,500 ; for salaries of 
 clerks, $82,800. Like appropriations were also made on the army appro 
 priation bill for the succeeding fiscal year, some of the items being largely 
 increased, as, for instance, the item of fuel from $15,900 to $200,000. On 
 the other hand, the appropriation for commissary stores was reduced from 
 $3,106,250 to $1,500,000. This shows that the number of dependent freed 
 men had very largely diminished within the year. The item for transporta 
 tion was reduced from $1,320,000 to $800,000. Inasmuch, however, as 
 nearly every negro and refugee who desired to return to his original home 
 must have done so long before this item was available, it is not easy to see 
 how it could have been honestly expended. 
 
 Rumors reflecting upon the administration of the bureau had indeed 
 been afloat ever since its organization. The commissioner, Gen. Oliver 
 O. Howard, was a man more remarkable for piety than for practical talent. 
 He did not possess high administrative abilities. He had not had the ex 
 perience and training which would qualify him for the efficient discharge 
 of these peculiar duties. His assistant commissioners and the subordinate 
 bureau agents were, like himself, appointed almost without exception from 
 officers of the army ; and some of them acquired the reputation of making 
 use of their opportunities more for the sake of promoting their own for 
 tunes than for aiding and protecting the colored people. Many of them were 
 said to have acquired landed estates in the localities where they were sta 
 tioned, and to have cultivated them cheaply and profitably with the negro 
 labor which they could largely control. Others were reported as being in 
 the receipt of large allowances from planters for aid rendered in preventing 
 the negro hands from abandoning field work. Many others ran for political 
 positions. By the help of the colored vote they were elected to Congress, 
 to the state legislatures, and to various state and county offices. All this 
 was calculated to excite, and did excite, a very bitter feeling of distrust and 
 animosity against the agents of the bureau in all the Southern States, where 
 the scornful term of " carpet-bagger " was applied to them in common with 
 other political adventurers from the North. 
 
 The commissioner himself was far from escaping suspicion. He under 
 went severe criticism, particularly in connection with the establishment, in a 
 suburb of Washington, of a college for the higher education of colored youth, 
 called after himself, the Howard University. Attention was attracted to 
 
THE BUREAU INVESTIGATED. 
 
 447 
 
 certain large real estate transactions in and near the city of Washington. 
 Dissatisfaction at length found a mouth-piece and sponsor in the person of a 
 distinguished member of Congress from New -York Fernando Wood. On 
 the 6th of April, 1870, Mr. Wood rose in his place in the House and offered 
 a resolution charging, u on information and belief," that Gen. O. O. Howard, 
 Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, 
 had been guilty of malversation and dereliction of duty, and calling for an 
 investigation. 
 
 The allegations against General Howard we're formulated under twelve 
 distinct heads. The most important of them were : that he had, improperly, 
 and without authority of law, used more than $500,000 of the funds of the 
 bureau for the purchase of lands and the erection of buildings for the 
 Howard University ; that portions of such lands had been disposed of im 
 properly to persons of his own family and officers of his own staff; that 
 bonds of the First Congregational Church, of Washington, had been received 
 by him in payment for a portion of these lands so disposed of, which 
 bonds had not been redeemed or paid ; that the buildings had been erected 
 of unfit material, furnished by the American Building Block Company, in 
 which company himself, his brother, and other officers of the bureau were 
 interested as stockholders ; that the contracts for the construction of these 
 buildings required this material to be used, thus preventing competition ; 
 that the material was so unsuitable and worthless that parts of the building 
 had fallen down in consequence of its use, and that other parts had been re 
 paired and rebuilt, at an expense of several thousand dollars ; that lumber 
 belonging to the government had been dishonestly used and appropriated by 
 this patent brick company ; that the commissioner had paid from the funds 
 of the bureau over $40,000 in aid of the construction of the First Presby 
 terian (Congregational) Church in Washington, taking the church bonds in 
 return, which bonds he had either returned in his accounts as cash on hand, 
 or had sent South for the purposes of the bureau ; that he had, also, ad 
 vanced a large sum from the funds of the bureau to the Young Men's 
 Christian Association, of Washington, taking the bonds of that association 
 in payment, which bonds had been sent to Tennessee to help the freedmen's 
 schools in that state ; that he had been interested in the purchase of a farm 
 of over three hundred acres, near the insane asylum, for which the public 
 funds and other property had been used ; that buildings were constructed 
 thereon of lumber belonging to the government, which buildings were then 
 let or sold to freedmen at exorbitant prices ; and that himself and his brother, 
 Charles Howard, were personally interested in the transaction as a private 
 business speculation ; that he had exercised his office with extravagance 
 and negligence, and in the interest of his family and intimate friends ; and 
 finally, that he was one of a "ring," known as the "Freedmen's Bureau 
 Ring," which, through connections and influences with the freedmen's savings 
 
448 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 banks, and freedmen's schools of the South, favored the political machinery 
 of a party in the Southern States ; and that the official authority and power 
 of his bureau had been exercised for personal and political profit. 
 
 Mr. Wood's original proposition was, that the investigation of the charges 
 made by him should be carried on by the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs. 
 This was composed wholly of Republican members ; but it was thought 
 more appropriate to refer the matter to the Committee on Education and 
 Labor. It accordingly took that direction. This committee was composed 
 of eight Republicans and two Democrats, its chairman being Samuel M. 
 Newell, of Tennessee. The magnitude of the investigation to be entered 
 upon was manifest from the fact that the latest annual report of the bureau 
 showed the total expenditure frofn its organization down to that date (August, 
 1879), to have been, in cash, over eleven million dollars ; or, including sub 
 sistence and stores, over thirteen and a half millions. This was exclusive 
 of the value of abandoned lands and houses used by the bureau. It was 
 also exclusive of some three million acres of public lands. 
 
 The investigation occupied several months. It attracted the attention of 
 the press and country to an unusual degree. Both sides were represented 
 by counsel. It was claimed on the part of the prosecution that, through 
 the partisan rulings of the majority of the committee, much relevant and im 
 portant testimony was excluded. Nevertheless, a sufficient array of admitted 
 or incontrovertible facts was brought forward to enable the minority of the 
 committee to claim that many, if not all, of the charges brought forward by Mr. 
 Wood were fully substantiated by the testimony. The report of the majority 
 of the committee, on the other hand, was a complete exculpation of the com 
 missioner, and a eulogy of himself and his associates. The testimony, how 
 ever, has gone into the permanent records of the country. It will, in the days 
 to come, confirm the objection made by the author and others in Congress, to 
 such an agency as was created by the Freedmen's Bureau. It furnishes valu 
 able materials for the student, or historian, of the reconstruction period of 
 American history ; and to the philosopher, it will illustrate the unfitness of 
 the Federal Government, or its officers, to become the administrators of an 
 eleemosynary fund. It will show that under a written organic law, of 
 granted powers with strict construction, the last place for charitable trusts, 
 is our Federal system and its agencies. It is not within the scope of this work 
 to enter into the minute details developed in this investigation. A brief 
 glance at some of the more salient points will show the good sense, and good 
 law which inspired President Johnson's veto. The first charge that of 
 using half a million dollars of the funds of the bureau for purchasing the 
 lands and erecting the buildings of the Howard University was not dis 
 puted ; but the act itself was justified and commended by the majority of the 
 committee. And yet, it was certainly an expenditure of very questionable 
 propriety. It was made at a time when the most imperative needs of the 
 
BUREAU MANAGEMENT. 
 
 449 
 
 homeless and naked freedmen demanded shelter and plain, warm 
 clothing, and when their children could not obtain even the first rudiments 
 of education. The Freedmen's Bureau was created for the avowed purpose 
 of providing for the wants of the more destitute freedmen and refugees. 
 It was a gross and palpable misapplication of its fund to apply any por 
 tion of it, and particularly so large a portion, to the erection of pretentious 
 university buildings. No such provision had ever been made by the United 
 States Government for the education of other classes of citizens, except in the 
 case of army and navy officers. The misapplication of the freedmen's 
 fund to this use was as gross as would be that of any other charity fund, 
 when applied to the erection of palatial school buildings. 
 
 The purchase of several squares of land in the city of Washington by 
 General Howard, Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, and John R. Evans, of Wash 
 ington, trustees of the Educational fund, which was a branch of the Freed 
 men's Bureau, and the erection thereon of seventy-six tenement-houses for 
 occupation by colored families, was another rather unfortunate exercise of 
 judgment in the use of the fund The aggregate cost of this enterprise was 
 about $124,000 The reason assigned for it was, that there were 33,000 des 
 titute freedmen in the city who were about to be turned out of the old con 
 demned barracks and other temporary buildings which they had been occu 
 pying ; but the accommodations thus provided would only furnish shelter to 
 some 1,300 persons. The remainder of the 33,000 persons were literally left 
 " out in the cold." Besides, the bureau had at its disposal 3,000,000 acres 
 of the public lands. On these it should have settled the freedmen. Ample 
 funds to transport them were at their disposal. Would not that have 
 been a wiser course than trying to establish these poor colored people at 
 Washington? It was, therefore, quite natural that the minority of the com 
 mittee, at least, should regard the real estate speculation with some suspicion. 
 The majority of the committee, however, failed to see anything in it that was 
 not proper and prudent. 
 
 Another real estate transaction of much larger proportions, is of still more 
 questionable propriety. It received attention. This was the purchase of 
 what was known as the Barry Farm. This farm was a tract of about three 
 hundred and seventy-five acres adjacent to the government insane asylum. It 
 was within a mile from the city limits. The motive assigned for the acquire 
 ment and settlement of this property was a philanthropic one. The plan 
 was, that the farm might be cut up into small homesteads for colored families, 
 which they could acquire in ownership on the installment principle. It 
 was accordingly mapped out into small holdings. These were sold on a gradu 
 ated scale of prices, ranging from $125 to $300 per acre. These prices were 
 made so as to cover, as it was said, the original cost, which was $52,000. The 
 chief quartermaster of the bureau furnished to the acquirer of each of these lots, 
 lumber to the value of $70, for the construction of a dwelling-house. They 
 
450 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 were, like the houses in Sir Thomas More's Utopia, to be built in all their 
 appointments according to a uniform plan. Thus the little colony was 
 started. For a year or two the plan promised to be a moderate success ; but 
 the negroes soon became discouraged. The land consisted for the most part 
 of gravelly , precipitous hill-sides, of no possible value for farming or gardening 
 purposes. Employment at fair wages was hard to be got in the city or neigh 
 borhood. The payment of the installments became irregular, and when it 
 ceased, the payments already made were forfeited.. The dwellings began to 
 fall into dilapidation and abandonment ; and up to the present day, the pro 
 gress of decay, poverty, and ruin in this ill-fated negro colony has been regular 
 and uninterrupted. It was this enterprise on the part of General Howard 
 and his associates that was the subject of the most unfavorable comments by 
 the public at large. It was very severely condemned by the minority of the 
 committee ; but the majority of the committee saw in it nothing deserving of 
 censure or disapproval. 
 
 The operations of the bureau and its officials in the Southern States were 
 not examined, in this investigation. If they had been, the developments 
 might have been even more disgraceful than those which were actually 
 brought to light. The impression made on the public mind by the exposure 
 of these facts was unfavorable to the bureau, its management, and its officers. 
 Soon afterwards General Howard was assigned to army duties. The Freed- 
 men's Bureau ceased to exist. The failure of the Freedmen's Bank, in which 
 the same loose business methods were practiced, and in the management of 
 which many of the officials of the bureau were more or less connected, gave 
 the coup-de-grdce to this politico-philanthropic scheme. It had its origin 
 chiefly in sectional bitterness and pseudo humanity. Its main motive was 
 a desire to perpetuate the existence of the Republican party ; and its close 
 was appropriately attended by an ignominious failure of its political de 
 signs, and by the spoliation of the poor, industrious colored people of the 
 South and of the District of Columbia, whose hoardings, to the amount of 
 several million dollars, had been entrusted to the Freedmen's Savings Bank* 
 and its branches in the Southern States. 
 
CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 KU-KLUX OUTRAGES. 
 
 RESISTANCE TO RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES INTIMIDATION AND TERRORISM IN 
 THE SOUTH PREVALENCE OF LAWLESSNESS SECRET SOCIETIES THE 
 KU-KLUX KLAN VIRGINIA AN EXCEPTION GENERAL FORREST'S TESTIMONY 
 
 STRENGTH OF THE KU-KLUX ORGANIZATION ITS MODE OF OPERATIONS 
 HISTORY OF OUTRAGES IN NORTH CAROLINA THE KIRK-BERGEN REBELLION 
 
 DISREGARD OF WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IMPEACHMENT OF GOVERNOR 
 HOLDEN PARTISAN AND INCOMPETENT JUDGES INCENDIARY ADDRESS OF 
 REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE CAUSES OF THE LAWLESS 
 NESS. 
 
 ONE of the capital offenses of the Republican party during the 
 first few years after the war, consisted in the attempt to rule the 
 South and their elections by the military power. They forgot 
 the teaching of Mirabeau, that bayonets are too often the only 
 remedy applied to the convulsions of the oppressed, and that they never estab 
 lish anything except the peace of terror and the silence of despotism. Those 
 who have no faith in the discriminating judgment of the people naturally 
 regard them as the furious herd to be held in check. They forget that they 
 are always quiet and moderate when free, and violent and unruly only under 
 those governments which systematically debase them, in order to have a pre 
 text to despise them. This teaching of Mirabeau, among other civil lessons, 
 had no place in the ethics of Congress. There was nothing of wisdom 
 spoken to justify the obnoxious and forceful laws which kindled anew the 
 coals of contention. Even members of Congress, after the war was over, 
 cried out for an army again, to march against the vanquished Southern 
 people. Philippics were hurled, based upon thousand-tongued rumor, against 
 secret organizations in the South. The Ku-Klux secrecy was the pretext for 
 these cries. No one undertook or undertakes to justify the Ku-Klux system 
 of repression. There are reasons higher than ordinary reasons why efforts 
 should have been made to removfe the causes or the occasion of such secret 
 associations rather than to remove their effect. The conduct of the oppressed 
 Southern people aroused the spirit of retaliation in the minds of those who 
 
452 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 after the war sought to establish martial law, and illegally to suspend habeas 
 corpus, and who forgot that when laws are violative of the Constitution they 
 lead to rapine and murder. More heinous is crime when done under the 
 guise of law. They forgot what Mackintosh had said, that the massacres of 
 war, the murders committed by the sword of justice and the solemnities 
 which invest them are disguised ; but the wild justice of the people is a 
 naked and undisguised horror. Its wildest motion awakens all our indigna 
 tion, while murder and rapine, if arrayed in the gorgeous disguise of acts of 
 state, stalk abroad with impunity. Force is the antithesis of freedom. The 
 bills introduced in Congress in 1871 and thereafter were bills of force. 
 They were in restraint of liberty. According to Buckle, all such bills are 
 inimical to civilization. They are in flagrant derogation of the idea, that 
 society can prosper without being watched by the state at every turn. The 
 municipal spirit of our laws was set aside by the force bill and other meas 
 ures in connection with the legislation of 1870, '71 and '72. Such laws were 
 the very draff and offal of force and change, when force and change were 
 accounted the predecessors of events, and when barbarism was the conse 
 quent condition. The famous force bill, in April, 1871 , -was a partisan move 
 ment. It might as well have been at once a bill to appoint a dictator. It 
 was copied after the policy of the Marats and Robespierres, when they thun 
 dered their red evangel in the club and in the assembly. It was based on 
 the clamor about assassinations in the South. It was intended to arouse the 
 turbulence which was begotten, in order to be charged upon the opposite 
 party. After many investigations by the House this vindictive legislation 
 was proceeding without substantial proof. Such legislation had failed for 
 six years to do anything else than to squander revenue and create debts, to 
 feed vampires and organize janissaries, to organize negro militia and military 
 governments. The sanie spirit made amendments to the Constitution and 
 had them adopted under duress. It exercised clemency only to add rene 
 gades to its recruits. The fomenters of these troubles were not satisfied with 
 the bills on the statute-book, which were strong enough to outrage princi 
 ple and threaten the citizen. They were not satisfied with the pains and 
 penalties of such bills, but they kept public opinion continually aroused by 
 attempted Federal legislation to make a discontented South, out of which 
 might arise their future accession to power and continuance in its enjoy 
 ment. 
 
 It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind, and an excep 
 tion to all the teachings of history, if the social and political revolution 
 which the results of the war had imposed on the states then recently in 
 surgent had gone into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. 
 It was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was from a state 
 in which the superiority and domination of the white race over the col 
 ored race existed unquestioned for centuries. It was to a condition of things 
 
RISE OF THE KU-KLUX KLAN. 
 
 453 
 
 in which the most prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of 
 the right to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised, and 
 the judicial and other offices were largely rilled by dishonest and unfriendly 
 strangers from the North. What was worse still, many of these places 
 were filled by ignorant and brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden 
 and violent. It was hard to submit to it quietly. No people, least of all 
 such a proud and intolerant people as that of the South, could see their 
 local governments transferred from their own hands into the hands of their 
 former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance. This resistance 
 took the form, in most of the Southern States, not of armed opposition to the 
 Federal or the state governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. 
 It was directed against the colored people and against their white allies and 
 leaders. It made an objective point of the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
 ministers of the gospel, and school teachers, all adventurers from the 
 North, or men who had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. 
 All of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies. They were 
 designated by the opprobrious title of "carpet-baggers." The history of 
 these outrages fills many volumes of reports made by joint, and separate 
 committees of the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, 
 from reports of military commanders in the South, and from other official 
 documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting the lawlessness that pre 
 vailed in the Southern States during the second decade between 1865 and 
 1875, is made. These documents are so full of the details of crime and vio 
 lence, and are so voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from 
 them, or to convey a correct idea of their revelations. 
 
 Very soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the Recon 
 struction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret societies were organ 
 ized in various states of the South. Their object, either secret or avowed, 
 was to prevent the exercise of political rights by the negroes. These soci 
 eties took various names, such as u The Brotherhood," " The Pale Faces," 
 " The Invisible Empire," " The Knights of the White Camellia"; but all 
 these were finally merged into, or compounded with, the formidable and 
 dreaded society denominated the "Ku-Klux Klan." Their acts of lawless 
 ness and cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as "Ku- 
 Klux outrages." 
 
 The State of Virginia was a remarkable exception to the other states in 
 its exemption from crimes of this character ; while the two neighboring 
 states of North Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material 
 for investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of the South. 
 This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is said to have originated in 
 1866. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to 
 scare the superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the frivolities of 
 
454 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told to frighten the negroes 
 from roaming about and pilfering. The testimony before the committee on 
 that subject, of which the writer was a member, showed that they daily vis 
 ited houses and talked their foolish talk; that they were "mummicking 
 about," whatever that means. They carried a flesh bag in the shape of a 
 heart, and went about " hollering for fried nigger meat." One of the Klan, 
 for instance, represented that he had been killed six years before at Manassas, 
 "and since then some one has built a turnpike over his grave and he has to 
 scratch like h 1 to get up through the gravel." One Ku-Klux carried an 
 India rubber stomach, to startle a negro by swallowing pailfuls of water. 
 There is no doubt that political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux 
 were under way. They were a disfranchised body and did not intend to 
 submit to such laws. Is not here the secret of their beginning? They justi 
 fied their orgies, their names, and their conduct on political grounds. The 
 worse the government, the worse the outrages. The South was sparsely 
 populated. Public opinion, consequent on subjugation and the breach of 
 Federal faith, was much inflamed. Their rulers gave them an example in 
 lawlessness, and produced the temptation to do in the dark what could not be 
 found out. 
 
 Such, at least, is the account given by the Confederate general, Forrest. 
 In his testimony before the joint select committee of Congress, in iSyi-'yz, 
 he stated that he had joined one of these secret societies. His purpose was 
 to suppress it, in the interest of peace. This "order" bore the title of 
 " Pale Faces" ; but it was only designated in its construction and by-laws 
 by the sign of the three stars. It was organized for self-protection. It was 
 intended as an offset against the " Loyal League," into which colored men 
 were inducted by their white local leaders. General Forrest explained the 
 reasons and objects of these secret organizations among the whites of the 
 South to be the insecurity felt by the Southern people ; the fact that North 
 ern men were coming there and forming these Loyal Leagues ; and the fact 
 that night meetings were being held by negroes who were becoming very in 
 solent, and by whom many outrages, particularly against virtuous women, 
 were being perpetrated, without legal punishment. There was a great deal 
 of insecurity in the country, he said, and the organization that he spoke of 
 was gotten up to protect the weak. It had no political motive. 
 
 This may not have been the original design of these secret, oath-bound 
 organizations. Certain it is, that they soon came to be made use of, in the 
 most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner, for the furtherance of political 
 ends, and for the crushing out of Republicanism in the Southern States ; to 
 which party the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The 
 crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin, almost ex 
 clusively, in political causes, in the effort on the part of the whites to 
 set at naught the rights of suffrage guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude 
 
KU-KLUX METHODS. 455 
 
 from Federal, state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance for 
 -election to such offices was mainly, if not altogether, on negro votes. 
 
 General Forrest estimated the strength of the Ku-Klux organization in 
 Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the belief that it was still stronger in 
 other states. The members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of 
 death for breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation as gath 
 ered from the mass of evidence was to patrol the country at night. They 
 went well armed and mounted. They wore long white gowns. They 
 masked their faces. Their appearance terrified the timid and superstitious 
 negroes who happened to see them as they rode past, and who then re 
 garded them as ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and 
 broke into the cabins of the negroes ; frightened and maltreated the in 
 mates ; warned them of future vengeance ; and probably carried off some 
 obnoxious negro, or " carpet-bagger," whose fate it was to be riddled with 
 murderous bullets, hung to the limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and 
 tortured, for some offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was 
 -active in politics or in negro schools or churches. 
 
 The Ku-Klux operations in the State of North Carolina were described to 
 a congressional committee by one who had been a member, but who had 
 shrunk from participation in the crimes to which he had pledged his counte 
 nance and support when he joined the order. This was a member of the 
 North Carolina bar. His name is Mr. James Boyd. He was United States 
 District Attorney for the western district of the state having joined the 
 Republican party and become one of its conspicuous local leaders. Mr. 
 Boyd described the ceremonies of initiation. The oath-bound members were 
 to obey all lawful orders of the organization, the qualification " lawful" 
 being applied, not to Federal or state authority, but to the authority of the 
 order. The meetings were held in the woods or other secret places. The 
 manner of making nocturnal raids was prescribed by the regulations. No 
 raid was to be made, no person punished, no execution done, unless it had 
 been first unanimously agreed upon at a regular meeting of " a camp" of 
 the Klan. It must have been duly approved by the officers and chief of the 
 Klan. They had secret signals and watchwords. When punishment was 
 to be inflicted on a victim, the raiders came, not from his vicinity, but from 
 a distant locality, so as to avoid recognition. The penalty for disclosing the 
 secrets of the order was death ; and the obligations extended to giving false 
 testimony before the courts, if necessary, and if on a jury, to acquitting mem 
 bers on trial. ^ 
 
 According to the majority report of the Senate select committee, of March 
 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by whatever name known, were insti 
 tuted in North Carolina in 1867 or 1868. This lawless combination, there 
 fore, was coeval with the Reconstruction acts and their enforcement. The 
 inference is that those acts, by their revolutionary character, formed the 
 
456 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 chief provocation to Ku-Klux atrocities. The people of North Carolina 
 had submitted, with what degree of resignation they could command, to the 
 abolition of slavery, to the overthrow of their state government, and to the 
 temporary rule of military power ; but the grant of universal suffrage to 
 their former slaves, accompanied by the disfranchisement of the most intel 
 ligent, wealthy, and influential citizens, was more than they could patiently 
 bear. Nothing could have been more hopeless than the idea of successful 
 resistance ; and the resistance offered was at once foolish and criminal. Still 
 it was natural under the circumstances ; and should have been anticipated and 
 avoided by. the ruling element in Congress. There were indeed circumstances 
 in the condition of the South which pointed strongly to the necessity of 
 giving universal suffrage to the negroes. As a rule, no one class of people 
 can be safely entrusted with the exclusive powers of legislation and govern 
 ment over other classes ; and the temper of the Southern white people to 
 wards their former slaves, just emancipated by the conquering arms of the 
 Union, was not such as to make that people an exception to that rule. But 
 where is found any reason for the subjugation of the whites to the blacks ? 
 Will not its attempt forever remain a stain upon the wisdom and fairness of 
 the then dominant power in Congress ? If, while conferring universal suffrage 
 upon the blacks, the leading whites had been left in free and undisturbed 
 possession of political rights, and had been invited and encouraged to take 
 an active part in the reconstruction, without being required to recant former 
 political views and party associations, the success of reconstruction meas 
 ures would have been promoted ; the rights of the negroes better secured ; 
 good feeling substituted for a sense of bitterness and injustice ; and an 
 orderly and honest administration of state affairs would have existed instead 
 of the carnival of fraud, robbery, and violence that actually followed the en 
 forcement of the Reconstruction acts. 
 
 The report of the Senate committee of the loth of March, 1871, before 
 referred to, recites a startling number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace 
 whipping, mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North 
 Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The report gives 
 some of the horrifying details. One case is that of a man named Outlaw. 
 His only crime was that he was the head of a Loyal League in Alamance 
 County. For this offense he was condemned, sentenced, and executed by 
 the Ku-Klux organization, on Feb. 9, 1870. He was taken from his house 
 about midnight by a band of from eighty to a hundred men, and hung upon 
 an elm tree, not far from the court-house door. No active measures were 
 taken to arrest and punish the murderers. In this same county, a simpleton, 
 who was supposed to have seen some of his neighbors who had taken part in 
 the murder of Outlaw, was drowned in the mill-pond. Two other negroes 
 were shot, but not killed, and fifty were whipped. In Craven County, two 
 men were shot, but not killed. In Caswell County, a member of the state 
 
RECONSTRUCTION STATESMEN . 
 
DISORDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA. 457 
 
 senate, named J. W. Stevens, was murdered, and two men (one white and 
 one colored) were whipped. In Catawba County, twenty-two men were* 
 whipped, and one shot, but not killed. In other counties there was a like- 
 record of whipping and assassination. An internal revenue agent related 
 that, one day, while traveling in Orange County (in which six or more 
 were hung and five or six whipped) , he came upon the bodies of two 
 ored men hanging on a tree. Some women and children, near by, were cry 
 ing, and begged him to read the paper that was attached to these bodies. 
 With some apprehensions lest he might be suspected of sympathy with these 
 people, he climbed the tree and read the paper. The words written on it 
 were : " Barn-burners and Women-insulters. K. K. K." 
 
 This reference to barn-burners is explained by testimony given on the 
 other side of the question. It referred to the fact, as alleged, that the negroes, 
 acting under the evil instigation of some of their white leaders, had also re 
 sorted, on their part, to acts of violence and intimidation, in the form, par 
 ticularly, of setting fire to the barns of their white neighbors. One witness 
 testified to seeing five barns thus on fire at the same time in Wake County, 
 and also to the fact that negroes were stationed in ambush to shoot down 
 men who should attempt to extinguish these fires. Insults and outrages by 
 black men against white men were also put forward as a justification of 
 Ku-Klux proceedings ; but such charges were more easily made than proved. 
 Negroes who had voted with the Democrats were in turn whipped and mal 
 treated by men of their own race. These mutual acts of violence and crime 
 indicate the terribly excited and lawless condition of society in these states 
 during this unhappy transition period. 
 
 Governor Holden was then governor of North Carolina. He was at 
 the same time president of the Loyal League of the state. His administra 
 tion was marked by extreme partisanship, and by undue leanings toward the 
 colored people and against the whites. For these unnatural partialities he 
 has since atoned, by a reformation of his political opinions and a change of his 
 partisan ties. Numerous instances were given of negroes being whipped by 
 negro mobs for voting the Democratic ticket. In one case, where the per 
 petrators were indicted, tried, and sentenced to imprisonment for one and 
 two months, they were pardoned in a few days by Governor Holden ; and it 
 was said that the governor, in his report to the legislature, reported pardons, 
 almost exclusively of negroes convicted of outrages, in one hundred and 
 twenty-five cases. In fact, one of the chief causes of complaint on the part 
 of the whites in the State of North Carolina was that the negro perpetrators 
 of crime, evWi if they were arrested, always escaped punishment, either by 
 the connivance of the courts, or by the clemency of the governor. 
 
 The disorders in the state became so flagrant that Governor Holden 
 issued proclamations in March and July, 1870. In them he declared the 
 counties of Alamance and Caswell in a state of insurrection. He author- 
 
 29 
 
458 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ized two citizens of Tennessee George W. Kirk and George B. Bergen 
 to raise a regiment of militia for the suppression of the insurrectionary 
 proceedings. Both these men are said to have been of notoriously bad 
 character ; and, as they were not citizens of North Carolina, but were 
 temporarily residing in Washington City, their appointment as colonel and 
 lieutenant-colonel of the state militia was at once unconstitutional and im 
 politic. They raised a force of about six hundred men. With them they 
 operated in the two counties named. They arrested a large number of 
 prominent citizens. These arrests caused great excitement throughout the 
 state. An address was issued by the Democratic leaders, charging that this 
 armed movement had been set on foot by Governor Holden in order, by in 
 timidation of voters, to control the pending election. 
 
 The persons so deprived of their liberty were subjected to the grossest in 
 dignities, brutalities, and deprivations, in cells of common jails. Writs of 
 habeas corpus in their behalf were issued by Chief Justice Pearson, of the 
 state supreme court ; but Colonel Kirk refused to obey them. Thereupon 
 the chief justice addressed a communication on the subject to the governor. 
 
 Governor Holden, however, took the responsibility of violating that clause 
 of the Federal Constitution which declares that, "The privilege of the writ 
 of habeas corpus shall not be suspended." Colonel Kirk, on his part, treated 
 the action of the judiciary with brutal contempt. He declared to the deputy- 
 marshal that he had nothing to do with those papers ; that they were 
 "played out," and that he obeyed the orders of the governor. Finally 
 Judge Pearson, shrinking from what he regarded as a futile and dangerous 
 attempt to enforce obedience to the writ, contented himself with directing 
 the writ and a copy of his opinion to be exhibited to the governor, remark 
 ing that if the governor obeyed the writ, well, if not, he (the judge) had 
 discharged his duty ; that the power of the judiciary was exhausted ; and 
 that the responsibility rested on the executive. In this course, he said that 
 he was following the example of Chief Justice Taney in Merriman's case, 
 in 1861. There, under somewhat similar circumstances, General George 
 Cadwalader, then in command of Fort McHenry, refused to obey a writ of 
 habeas corpus issued by the chief justice for the production of a prisoner, 
 then confined in the fort, on a charge of treason. In that case Judge Taney 
 ruled that Congress alone and not the President could suspend the 
 privilege of the writ, but he also declared that he had exercised all the 
 power conferred upon him by the Constitution and the laws ; that that power 
 had been resisted by a force too strong for him to overcome ; and that the 
 responsibility rested with the President of the United States, who was to be 
 furnished with a copy of the opinion of the Court. 
 
 In this North Carolina case, however, in which the governor refused to 
 obey the mandate of the supreme court of his own state, he did not carry 
 his recusancy and contempt of the judiciary so far as to refuse obedience to 
 
GOVERNOR HOLDEN'S COURSE. 459 
 
 the mandate of the United States District Judge. This Judge, George W. 
 Brooks, issued a writ in behalf of the same prisoners. Governor Holden 
 made an earnest appeal to President Grant to sustain him in the matter ; but 
 the President referred the case to the Attorney-General, Mr. Ackerman. 
 The Attorney-General decided that the district judge could not refuse to 
 issue the writ. He advised the state authorities to yield to the United States 
 judiciary. In order to retain control of such of the prisoners as had not ap 
 plied to Judge Brooks, Governor Holden directed Kirk to obey the writs is 
 sued by Judge Pearson ; so that the parties could be held for trial by the civil 
 courts. Nothing came of this, however. All the prisoners escaped, though 
 some of them may have been guilty of the outrages charged against them. 
 There can be no doubt that the attempt of the governor to substitute mili 
 tary rule, or his own rule, for law, defeated the ends of justice. The guilty 
 as well as the innocent victims of his arbitrary measures became heroes and 
 martyrs to the cause of liberty. They were shielded by the sympathies of 
 the great mass of the white race. 
 
 As a consequence of these despotic and unconstitutional proceedings, 
 Governor Holden was impeached by the house of representatives of his 
 state. He was tried by the senate sitting as a court of impeachment. He 
 was convicted by that body. One or more of his Republican friends voted 
 against him on some of the counts. He was sentenced to the forfeiture of 
 his position as governor and to perpetual disfranchisement. Thus ended 
 what was known in the state as the Kirk-Bergen rebellion. 
 
 As an illustration of the motives and sentiments which inspired Governor 
 Holden in his conduct in the matter, let us refer to the testimony of the 
 Rev. J. Brenton Smith, before the select committee of the Senate, in Febru 
 ary, 1871. Mr. Smith was an Episcopal clergyman. He had been sent to 
 North Carolina, from New- York, by an association connected with the 
 Church. He was engaged in the propagation of religion and education 
 among the colored people. Under the auspices of this association, he had 
 founded a normal school at Raleigh, and had become its principal. He was 
 a man of superior intelligence. He took a lively interest in passing events. 
 He was a Republican in politics ; but when he had become acquainted with 
 the condition of affairs in the state, his sympathies were given to the liberal 
 side of that party as against the radicals. He said that he had talked with 
 Governor Holden about the great injury done to the state by his proclamation 
 of insurrection, inasmuch as it kept persons from coming into the state to buy 
 land. The governor, he said, was very much excited about the recall of 
 the United States troops from the state, having received no assurance that 
 other troops would be sent to supply their place. Mr. Smith remarked to 
 him: "Governor, what distresses me is that you should put these colored 
 men up for Congress and for responsible offices. I notice in my work among 
 these people that there is great moral injury done to them throughout the 
 
460 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 state. The effect is very bad. It unsettles them. They do not seem to be 
 disposed to go to regular labor, because they are looking to political prefer 
 ment." The governor remarked in response, that as Congress had seen fit 
 to pass a law by which colored men were admitted to seats in the state legis 
 lature, he wanted Congress to have some of the same medicine. He, there 
 fore, was in favor of sending colored men to Congress. He also said that if 
 the United States Government did not send troops into the state, he should 
 arm the colored people. He boasted that he could control, by his word, 
 eighty thousand men. He went on to say that, in his opinion, General 
 Grant would hold the government of the United States. No matter how the 
 election in 1872 turned out, General Grant would rule. He (Governor Hoi- 
 den) desired him to be emperor, and desired to see his son succeed him as 
 emperor. It may be added that Governor Holden was not singular in the 
 wish thus expressed. The same sentiment was not uncommon in North 
 Carolina among Governor Holden's adherents. He was not the only one 
 who gave expression to it. Time had been when such words would have 
 been considered treasonable; but at this period (iSyo-'yi) they were re 
 garded as the shibboleth of the highest type of loyalty, in the South at 
 least. 
 
 It would be wearisome and sickening to attempt to give any detailed ac 
 count of these Ku-Klux brutalities. It might be supposed that the disturbed 
 districts were those in which the largest negro population was found. Such, 
 however, was not the case. On the contrary, the counties in which the most 
 of such outrages occurred were those where the white population largely ex 
 ceeded the colored population. In Alamance County, for instance, where, 
 in 1870 the white population numbered 8,234 and the colored population 
 3,640, there were fifty -four such outrages reported ; whereas, in the county of 
 Craven, where the colored population was one-third larger than the white 
 population, there were only two outrages ; and in the county of Caswell where 
 the proportions were about equal, there were but three outrages. Of the 
 ninety counties in North Carolina, sixteen contained more colored citizens 
 than white, and of these sixteen, there were only three (Caswell, Craven, 
 and Jones,) in which Ku-Klux outrages were reported. It is vain to pre 
 tend, therefore, that there existed a necessity in these counties for the formation 
 of lawless secret associations, bound together by oaths, in order to protect 
 society against a feeble minority of ignorant negroes. 
 
 It is impossible to pass over the outrage committed upon Mr. James M. 
 Justice. He was an attorney-at-law, and a man of respectability. He re 
 sided at Rutherfordton, in Rutherford County. He was a Republican and a 
 member of the state legislature. As an attorney, he aided in the prosecu 
 tion of members of the Ku-Klux Klan. He had given offense to the order. 
 In one of their secret conclaves they decreed that he must be put to death. 
 His execution was ordered. The raid took place on the night of Sunday, 
 
SPECIAL OUTRAGES. 461 
 
 June n, 1871. Eighty or more men, in the usual disguise, marched into 
 the village. They had left their horses on the outskirts. They surrounded 
 his house. It was raining very hard. They broke open the door of his 
 dwelling with an axe, and several of them entered. Hearing the noise, Mr. 
 Justice rose out of bed and attempted to go to his gun, but was intercepted. 
 They lighted matches and found their victim before them with only his night 
 shirt on. They ordered him to come out of the house. He begged to be 
 let alone. They informed him that his time had come. They dragged him 
 out of his house. When he resisted, he was struck with a big pistol and 
 fell down insensible. After he came to consciousness, he was forced to walk 
 several hundred yards into the woods. There the fiends held a council over 
 him. Although he had screamed loudly for help when taken out of his 
 house, and although the neighborhood was populous, none of the neighbors 
 dared to come to his relief. In the woods he pleaded hard for his life, but 
 the general voice was for killing him. Finally, through the influence of the 
 leader, who seemed to possess more intelligence and humanity than his fol 
 lowers, they contented themselves by extorting promises from Mr. Justice. 
 His life was spared, and he was permitted to return home without further 
 suffering at their hands. His only offence had been his politics and his 
 prosecution of the Ku-Klux for their crimes. In his testimony, Mr. Jus 
 tice recited many instances of outrages that had been perpetrated in Ruther 
 ford, Cleveland, Lincoln, and Gaston counties. He could not enumerate 
 them, but could only say that there were more than one hundred of such 
 outrages. Many men had come to him and exhibited the marks of lashes 
 on their backs and the wounds received from guns and pistol shots. Mr. 
 Justice could not remember all the whippings he had heard of; but they 
 were very numerous. Among them was that of an old white man, John 
 Nodine, a soldier of the War of 1812, and a citizen of the state, who had 
 been whipped for voting the Republican ticket. 
 
 But perhaps the most hideous case of whipping recited by Mr. Justice 
 was that of Aaron Biggerstaff. He was an old, white-haired gentleman. 
 A large gang of raiders armed with guns and pistols broke into his house by 
 night. They pulled the old man out of his bed. They dragged him into 
 the road in front of his house. There they beat him with hickories and 
 kicked him with their feet for a long time, and then brought him back into 
 the house. This barbarous punishment was inflicted upon him merely on 
 account of his politics, and because of his harboring another man named 
 McGahey, who had retaliated for an outrage committed on his family, and 
 had shot one of the gang connected with it. Twenty of the members of the 
 band who had thus maltreated Biggerstaff were arrested and brought be 
 fore Judge Logan, of the state circuit court ; but Biggerstaff, his son and 
 daughter, while on their way to Charlotte to prosecute the prisoners, were 
 attacked and treated with great cruelty ; and the old man would have been 
 
462 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 hanged by the gang had it not been that the son, who recognized several of 
 them, had managed to escape. Being afraid of the consequences if they 
 proceeded further in their outrages, they ordered Biggerstaff and his daugh 
 ter to return home and not to say anything about what had happened to them. 
 Thirty men were subsequently tried before the United States Circuit Court 
 for participation in the first raid upon Biggerstaff. Sixteen of them were 
 found guilty, and eight not guilty. As to the other six cases, a nolle prosequi 
 was entered. For participation in the second raid upon Biggerstaff and his 
 family, while they were on the road to Charlotte, five men were arraigned. 
 Three pleaded guilty, while a nolle prosequi was entered for the other two. 
 
 As before remarked, the outrages were not all confined to the one side 
 in politics. There were also great outrages upon the other side. The 
 military terrorism exercised by the militia under Kirk created a very bitter 
 feeling of irritation and alarm. Another great cause of trouble was the par 
 tisan conduct of some of the state judges. Judge Logan, who was elected in 
 1868, was one of these judges, against whom the bitterest feeling existed. 
 He was an unscrupulous partisan and an incompetent judge. A petition for 
 his removal was signed by all the leading lawyers of the North Carolina bar 
 practicing in Charlotte. The resolutions contained in the petition declared 
 that Judge Logan was not qualified either by learning or capacity to dis 
 charge the duties of his office ; that, by reason of his incompetency, the 
 course of justice had been impeded ; that in many cases justice had been vir 
 tually denied ; and that public confidence in the efficiency of the government 
 and of the laws had been impaired. 
 
 Witnesses of great respectability, when questioned in regard to the causes 
 of the trouble in the South, expressed the opinion that the principal cause 
 was bad government. They said that, up to the time when these recon 
 structed governments and constitutions were imposed upon the people, no 
 such crimes had been committed ; that from the close of the war up to 1867, 
 affairs had been perfectly quiet in the South ; and that the disturbances 
 were to be attributed to bad government, corrupt and incompetent officials, 
 and evil advice to the ignorant negro population. 
 
 An incendiary address, signed by the Republican members of the legisla 
 ture of North Carolina in 1868, was referred to by some of the witnesses as 
 having been productive of much mischief. One of the paragraphs of this 
 address was in the following words : 
 
 " Did it never occur to you, ye gentlemen of property, education, and 
 character to you, ye men, and especially ye women, who never received 
 anything from these colored people but services, kindness, and protection, 
 did it never occur to you that these same people, who are so very bad, 
 will not be willing to sleep in the cold when your houses are denied them 
 merely because they will not vote as you do ; that they may not be will 
 ing to starve while they are willing to work for bread? Did it never 
 occur to you that revenge, which is so sweet to you, may be as sweet to 
 
CAUSES OF DISCONTENT. 463 
 
 them ? Hear us, if nothing else you will hear : did it never occur to you 
 that if you kill their children with hunger, they will kill your children with 
 fear? Did it never occur that if you good people maliciously determine that 
 they shall have no shelter, they may determine that you shall have no 
 shelter?" 
 
 It was stated as the opinion of one of the most intelligent witnesses (Mr. 
 Durham) that barn-burnings, rapes, and other crimes on the part of the 
 negroes were the legitimate fruits and consequences of this paper signed by 
 the Republican members of the legislature. Mr. Durham also explained 
 that the influence exercised over the colored people by the Northern adven 
 turers or " carpet-baggers " who settled or squatted there at the close of the 
 war, was owing to the fact that the Northern people were regarded as the 
 liberators of the colored race ; while the idea was studiously inculcated 
 among them that the white people of the South were their enemies. Mr. 
 Durham regarded the Reconstruction acts as unwarranted and oppressive, 
 because they disfranchised a large number of the best men of the Southern 
 country, and because the most ignorant and superstitious negro was given 
 the privilege of holding the highest offices of trust and profit, while such 
 men as Governor Graham, Governor Bragg, and others in whom the whole 
 people of North Carolina had confidence, were disfranchised. The intelli 
 gent people of the South, he said, could not look upon such treatment in any 
 other light than as being hostile to their best interests. 
 
 The crimes and disturbances of which the State of North Carolina was 
 the theatre during the few years of the reconstruction period, are set out in 
 painful detail in the various reports of congressional committees ; but a 
 sufficient review of them has been given here to present a fair and correct 
 idea of the condition of society there and elsewhere at that time. The fol 
 lowing chapter will have to do with the like subject in the other Southern 
 states. Wherever these excesses appeared, they were not unlike the ghost 
 of departed liberty. They took a grisly, horrific aspect, to deter the super 
 stitious and defy the selfish. They were not more revolutionary than the 
 causes which produced, and which do not justify them. 
 
 Measures of repression and usurpation are in their very nature revolu 
 tionary. The strain to keep freemen down is sure to react. As to these 
 secret societies in the South, history should not fail to consider the circum 
 stances under which they arose. 
 
 This unlawfulness did not appear immediately after the war. The South 
 had accepted the arbitration of arms. It began to grow contented. Its peo 
 ple embraced all the conditions proposed in 1867, for their state governments. 
 They abolished slavery, annulled the secession ordinance and the rebel debt, 
 accepted negro suffrage, and sent representatives to Congress. Their ten 
 ders were received grudgingly and suspiciously. Then the discontent began. 
 It dates from the repulse in Congress and the breach of faith to them in 
 Washington, 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 KU-KLUX OUTRAGES. CONTINUED. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA FRAUD AND VIOLENCE IN ELECTIONS TWO CONTESTED 
 ELECTION CASES GEORGIA GENERAL SWAYNE'S REPORT GENERAL GOR 
 DON'S VIEWS NO EXCUSE FOR KU-KLUX ORGANIZATIONS OR RAIDS ALA 
 BAMA ASSASSINATION OF ALEXANDER BOYD INTIMIDATION OF STU 
 DENTSTHE METHODIST CHURCH SOUTH OUTRAGES UPON PREACHERS 
 MISSISSIPPI HOSTILITY TO FREE SCHOOLS OUTRAGES ON SCHOOL 
 TEACHERS THE MERIDIAN RIOT WHIPPING OF HUGGINS AND McBRIDE 
 
 THE KU-KLUX START IN TENNESSEE THEIR RAPID SPREAD IN OTHER 
 SOUTHERN STATES BAD GOVERNMENT CAUSES SECRET ASSOCIATIONS 
 
 HENCE, THE ILLUMINES THE TUGEND-BUND THE CARBONARI - THE 
 JACOBIN CLUBS THE NIHILISTS THE FENIANS THE LOYAL LEAGUES 
 -AND THE KU-KLUX KLANS THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE 
 BILL. 
 
 TESTIMONY that was taken in 1868, in two contested election cases 
 in the United States House of Representatives, exhibits the condi 
 tion of affairs that existed in the State of South Carolina at that 
 time. The contests in question were in the cases of Hoge and Reed, 
 of the Third district, and of Wallace and Simpson, of the Fourth district. 
 Mr. Hoge and Mr. Wallace were both Republicans. Almost as a matter of 
 course, they obtained their seats. Evidence was presented tending to show 
 that the two Democrats who had obtained certificates, had secured their 
 majorities by violence and fraud. Their opponents were seated, not because 
 they had received a majority of the votes, but on the ground that the two 
 Democrats were ineligible, being banned by the Fourteenth Amendment to 
 the Constitution. The Third district was composed of the counties of Abbe 
 ville, Anderson, Edgefield, Newberry, Lexington, Richland, and Orange- 
 burg ; and in all of these counties except the last the evidence showed that 
 there had existed the most defiant terrorism and fraud. Several hundred men 
 from Edgefield County had voted in Lexington County, and fifteen hundred or 
 
INTIMIDATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 465 
 
 more of the Edgefield County men had also voted the Democratic ticket in 
 the adjacent counties. But this violation of law was a venial offense, when 
 compared with the measures resorted to by the lawless Southern men to pre 
 vent the negroes from voting. The terrorism existing in Edgefield County 
 was so great that no man who was not in sympathy with the dominant white 
 element could be induced to act as commissioner of election. One commis 
 sioner was shot at and left the county, and others refused to serve. The facts 
 in support of the charges of violence are too numerous to be stated circum 
 stantially. The white clubs organized in the counties were secret, oath- 
 bound societies. They patrolled the county, generally undisguised. They 
 paid domiciliary visits to the negroes and white Republicans, shooting some, 
 whipping others, and warning all of the consequences of voting the Repub 
 lican ticket. The avowed purpose of these clubs was to break up the Loyal 
 Leagues. In order to accomplish this object, the patrol was instructed, if 
 necessary, to shoot the leaders and active men of the Leagues. One of the 
 patrol turned state's evidence. He confessed that he was one of three men 
 who had orders to murder a prominent Republican named Randolph. This 
 murder was committed about one o'clock in the day, at the railroad station, 
 on the arrival of the train on which Randolph was a passenger. The 
 tragedy occurred in Edgefield County. "William R. Tolbert, the man who 
 had turned state's evidence, stated that he himself and two associates fired 
 on Randolph, who fell dead. These murderers were probably men of the 
 lowest class of whites ; but they were not more guilty than their more intel 
 ligent abettors. According to the testimony, the members of the club were 
 sworn to obey the orders of their captain. They were instructed to find out 
 the meeting places of the Loyal League, and to fire into them. They were 
 to aim at their leading men. The club had special orders, at the Presiden 
 tial and congressional election on the 3d of November, 1868, to be at the 
 polls early and not to allow a negro or a Republican to vote. 
 
 Testimony to the same effect was given by other witnesses. Republi 
 cans of both races were intimidated and driven from the polls by the prac 
 tice of whipping, shooting, killing, and expelling them from their houses. 
 The terrorism was so great that, although Edgefield County contained 4,200 
 colored voters, only 800 of them voted at that election ; while the white vote 
 was between eighteen and nineteen hundred. There was less of violence 
 and bloodshed in Lexington County ; but there, also, the Republicans were 
 intimidated. Nine hundred Republican voters, six hundred of them colored, 
 were deterred from attempting to vote, while on the contrary several hundred 
 Democratic citizens of Edgefield County were permitted to vote in Lexing 
 ton. In Anderson County, about half of the colored voters abstained from 
 voting. This was in consequence of threats of expulsion from their homes. 
 Two young men were whipped for being Republicans. 
 
466 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION 
 
 Mr. Wallace, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Fourth dis 
 trict, testified at length as to the condition of terrorism in which the Repub 
 licans lived in his district. This district was, at that time, composed of the 
 counties of Fairfield, Chester, York, Spartanburg, Union, Laurens, Oconee, 
 Pickens, and Greenville. At the election in Laurens County, the Demo 
 crats formed lines around the polls. They thus kept off many of the negroes 
 who would have voted ; while some Republican negroes voted the Demo 
 cratic ticket, from fear of punishment or of expulsion from their homes. It 
 was testified that in Pickens County armed bands rode about through the 
 country every night for over a week previous to the election. They thus in 
 timidated the colored people and prevented them, as well as many white 
 people, from voting. Outside the polls, parties opened the tickets and took 
 down the names of all persons who voted the Republican ticket ; while those 
 who voted the Democratic ticket were given certificates by which they could 
 obtain employment. In fact, if this evidence be credible, even in the least 
 degree, the election was carried by fraud and intimidation. 
 
 The enforcement of the Reconstruction acts was the chief provocation to 
 the outrages perpetrated by the white people upon the blacks. The enfran 
 chisement of the negroes was resented by those who for generations had 
 been accustomed to treat them as chattels. 
 
 In reference to South Carolina, the report of the joint select committee 
 of the two houses of Congress of 1872 contains such a mass of revolting 
 details that one cannot decide where to begin their citation or where to stop . 
 Murders, or attempts to murder, are numerous. Whippings are without 
 number. Probably the most cruel and cowardly of these last was the whip 
 ping of Elias Hill. He was a colored man who had, from infancy, been 
 dwarfed in legs and arms. He was unable to use either. But he possessed 
 an intelligent mind ; had learned to read ; and had acquired an unusual 
 amount of knowledge for one in his circumstances. He was a Baptist 
 preacher. He was highly respected for his upright character. He was em 
 inently religious, and was greatly revered by the people of his own race. It 
 \vas on this ground that he was visited by the Ku-Klux, brutally beaten, 
 and dragged from his house into the yard, where he was left in the cold at 
 night, unable to walk or crawl. After the fiends had left, his sister brought 
 him into the house. Although this man was a Republican, his testimony 
 gave evidence of the mildness and Christian forbearance of his character, as 
 well as his freedom from ill-will toward the white race. In answer to a 
 question as to his feeling toward the whites, he replied that he had good-will, 
 love, and affection toward them ; but that he feared them. He said that he 
 had never made the wrongs and cruelties inflicted by white people on his 
 race the subject of his sermons ; but that he preached the gospel only 
 repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
BITTER FEELING IN GEORGIA. 467 
 
 It seems, according to the report of the committee (from which the 
 statements of this chapter are mainly taken), that the operations of the 
 Ku-Klux organization throughout the State of South Carolina since i86S> 
 had been confined chiefly to the nine counties already mentioned. There 
 were only a few sporadic cases in other counties. These were immediately 
 after the election in October, 1870. With the Hamburgh massacre of the 8th 
 of July, 1867, this bloody period of South Carolina history was brought to 
 a close. The writer has fully stated from his seat in Congress, his opinion 
 of the facts in that matter. The facts exonerate Mr. Butler, one of the 
 present Senators of South Carolina, who was harshly criticised at the North. 
 That gentleman, in all that he did, endeavored to allay and prevent, rather 
 than foment the terrible excitement. 
 
 The condition of affairs in the State of Georgia, immediately after the 
 close of the war, was represented in an official report made by Gen. Wa 
 ger Swayne, of the Freedmen's Bureau. It was dated Dec. 16, 1865. He 
 stated that the withdrawal of the Federal troops had been followed by out 
 rages on the freed people ; that their school-houses had been burned, their 
 teachers driven off or threatened with death, and the freed people compelled 
 by fraud, and even by violence, to enter into unjust contracts. The respon 
 sible and educated classes were represented by General Swayne as being 
 ashamed of these outrages and as claiming that they should not be judged by 
 the people who were mean and cruel enough to practice such wrongs. He 
 remarked, however, that the convictions of these higher classes never took 
 form in action ; and but seldom in manly open protest ; and that it required 
 the most careful nursing and culture to keep alive even a show of justice 
 toward the freed people. He stated that nearly all the females and young 
 men, and all the black-legs and rowdies, were open and defiant in their 
 expressions of hate toward the "Yankees" and negroes, and that the only 
 public opinion which made itself felt was as bitter and as malignant as 
 ever. 
 
 Such was the state of feeling in Georgia at the close of the war, as it 
 appeared to a United States army officer. It was a natural feeling of 
 chagrin and mortification at defeat. It was mingled with detestation of the 
 conqueror and contempt for the rights of the negro. Suffrage had not then 
 been given to the negroes, but President Johnson had stripped many of the 
 leading men in the Southern States in fact all those who had theretofore 
 participated in the government of the right to vote and hold office. It 
 would have been strange, therefore, if such bitterness of feeling had not 
 existed for a time. But it will be seen that, a few years later, General 
 Gordon, an eminent and eloquent Georgian, who had succeeded Stonewall 
 Jackson in the command of his corps, saw things in a very different light. 
 His statement before the joint select committee is summed up approvingly 
 
468 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 in the report of the committee. It is to this effect : that the magnanimity 
 and deference shown by General Grant and his officers toward the army of 
 the South, at the time of and after the surrender, had led them to hope that 
 they would be permitted to go home, resume their places and rights as citi 
 zens, organize their state governments, and resume their relations to the gen 
 eral government, just as if there had been no rebellion ; but that, after Presi 
 dent Lincoln's death, the people became apprehensive that some hanging 
 and general confiscation would follow. When relieved of those apprehen 
 sions, and when the terms of reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amend 
 ment were proposed by Congress, they began to complain of want of good 
 faith toward them. They became sullen and defiant. They regarded the 
 government as having outraged them and deprived them of their rights. 
 General Gordon spoke in high praise of the conduct of the negroes during 
 the war. He referred to a speech made by himself at Montgomery, Ala 
 bama, while the contest was still raging. In that speech he praised the 
 fidelity of the negroes. He urged the white people to provide for the edu 
 cation of the colored people. His remarks had been applauded, and many 
 of the negroes who were present had come to him afterwards and thanked 
 him. But he said that, when the " carpet-baggers" organized the Loyal 
 Leagues in 1865 and 1866, the white people became alarmed. They, too, 
 organized a secret order called u The Brotherhood." The whole object of 
 this organization, he said, was to repel attacks of the Leagues. It extended 
 throughout the state, and had no political end in view. This Brother 
 hood, however, dissolved, he said, as soon as the courts were re-established. 
 The people believed that the courts, although in the hands of Republi 
 cans, would execute the law r s fairly. 
 
 A secret organization that is formed for the purpose of regulating affairs 
 and of righting private wrongs will infallibly drift into politics. The Loyal 
 Leagues were organized for the purpose of keeping up, at fever heat, the 
 sentiment of loyalty to the Republican party. They became political organ 
 izations from the start. They impressed the negroes with the belief that 
 the adherents of the Democratic party were, at best, but lukewarm, half 
 hearted friends of the Union. 
 
 It is remarkable that, in Georgia as well as in North and South Caro 
 lina, and in other states where the Ku-Klux organization existed, its op 
 erations were carried on in counties where the whites preponderated. It 
 is also worthy of note that the numbers of the Ku-Klux Klan who sallied 
 out to make raids upon negro cabins or upon the teachers of negro schools, 
 were out of all proportion to the probable resistance to be encountered. 
 These valiant defenders of society who prowled over the country under the 
 cover of night and of hideous disguises, rarely encountered a foe, unless 
 they had a force of ten or twenty to one ; and there were cases in which a 
 
KU-KLUX IN ALABAMA. 469 
 
 score of them were put to flight by a well-directed shot from a cabin. So 
 true it is that men who are capable of acts of cruelty are apt to be poltroons. 
 In the State of Alabama there was the like amount of bitterness of feel 
 ing and of hostility toward "Yankees " and negroes that was exhibited in 
 the other Gulf states at the close of the war. Opposition to the education 
 of negroes was strong. Acts of violence were not infrequent. Governor 
 Lindsay was elected governor of Alabama under the first constitution 
 adopted in 1865, which confined suffrage to the white race. He admitted 
 that the Ku-Klux organization existed in Alabama in 1868. He stated that 
 he had approved and signed the act of the Republican legislature, passed 
 in December, 1868, for the suppression of the order. When he testified in 
 1871, he did not believe that the order then existed in that state There 
 was evidence, however, that an organized band of ruffians had perpetrated 
 murder by wholesale in Alabama as late as 1870. William C. Luke, a white 
 school-teacher, was murdered on the nth of July, 1870, near the village of 
 Cross Plains, in Calhoun County. At the same time and place four colored 
 men were murdered, named respectively Tony Cliff, Barry Harris, Caesar 
 Frederick, and William Hall. These and other murders were perpetrated 
 by a band of disguised men. The governor of the state employed ex-Gov 
 ernor Lewis E. Parsons to prosecute the murderers. The facts were fur 
 nished to the congressional committee by Mr. Parsons. He stated that, in 
 the progress of the trial, the proof in regard to the operation of the Ku-Klux 
 Klan showed that it had been active in several counties in northern Alabama 
 ever since the year 1868. In repeated instances colored men had been taken 
 out and whipped with hickory withes, sometimes beaten very severely with 
 canes, sometimes shot, and otherwise outraged Chancellor J. S. Clark, of 
 the middle district of Alabama, resided at Eutaw, in Greene County. He 
 was a Democrat. He gave it as his opinion that the Ku-Klux organization 
 had been set on foot for the purpose of scaring the negroes, and that the 
 negroes were intimidated thereby ; and that the larger portion of the people 
 in the community where he lived was opposed to the lawlessness of the 
 Ku-Klux, although no public meeting had been called to put it down. 
 
 A most atrocious act of assassination was committed in Greene County, 
 Alabama, in March, 1870. The prosecuting attorney of that county was 
 the victim. Alexander Boyd, on account of his activity in prosecuting per 
 sons charged with Ku-Klux outrages, was boarding at the hotel on the pub 
 lic square in the town of Eutaw. About eleven o'clock at night, a band of 
 disguised men, estimated at twenty-five in number, rode into the town. 
 They formed in front of the hotel, detached a squad of men who compelled 
 the clerk to show them to Mr. Boyd's room, and there deliberately murdered 
 him, putting two bullets through his forehead, and several through other 
 parts of his body. The town was full of strangers. Many people were on 
 
470 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the street, but no effort was made to arrest the murderers, although the 
 sheriff was at the hotel soon after the murder. Whatever the number of 
 honorable and humane people there, they were terrorized by the ruffians. 
 Mr. Boyd was buried the next day without receiving the usual testimonial 
 of respect from his legal brethren. Not one of them attended his funeral. 
 
 Intimidation and terrorism were practiced even against the students in the 
 University at Tuscaloosa. On one of the doors of that university a bundle 
 of letters was found one morning. It was fastened by a dagger. These 
 letters were addressed to individual students, notifying them to leave within 
 a given time, under penalty of the vengeance of the Ku-Klux Klan. The 
 threats had the desired effect. The students to whom they were addressed 
 left the university. Nothing is more likely than that, if the faculty and stu 
 dents had organized for their defense, the cowardly assassins would have kept 
 at a respectful distance. 
 
 The Methodist Church of the United States was divided into two bodies 
 in 1844, by the secession of that portion of it which was located in the slave- 
 holding states. The discipline of the church, while tolerating slave-holding 
 on the part of private members, denied the privilege to the ministers. This 
 .arrangement had worked very well in the days of small things, when the 
 ministers were, as a rule, poor men ; but, as the church grew in wealth and 
 consequence, the ministers not unfrequently married into families that owned 
 many slaves. The institution of slavery, as it grew in pecuniary value, 
 became less and less obnoxious to criticism, at least in the South ; and, from 
 these combined causes, the yoke imposed by the discipline dictated by 
 the great founder of Methodism, John Wesley, became unbearable. The 
 question of obedience to it as a test of fidelity to Methodism came up for 
 discussion in the general council in 1844. The discussion arose on the ques 
 tion of tolerating the disregard of it by one of the bishops. This bishop 
 was the Rt. Rev. Mr. Andrews, of Georgia. He had married a lady who 
 owned a number of slaves. He was not willing to surrender his claim of 
 right to hold them. If his offense against the discipline had been one 
 not likely to occur again, the difficulty might have been settled by com 
 promise ; but, as there were thousands of young ministers who stood ready 
 to follow the example of the bishop ; and, as the Southern branch of the 
 church had become thoroughly imbued with the pro-slavery sentiment, the 
 recalcitrant attitude of the Georgia bishop was universally sustained by the 
 people and clergy south of the Potomac. The result was, that the church 
 was rent in twain ; and from that day forward, there have been the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church South. Each is as 
 distinct in its organization as the Presbyterians and the Baptists. 
 
 Soon after the war, an effort w r as made by the Northern branch of the 
 .church and not without considerable success to re-establish the church 
 
PERSECUTION OF METHODISTS. 471 
 
 In the South, on the original basis of opposition to slavery. The occasion 
 was not illy chosen to make converts among the colored people and among 
 the poor whites ; but the attempt was none the less a source of irritation. It 
 led to the intervention of Ku-Klux violence. The Methodist bishop of Ohio, 
 Bishop Clark, in 1865, sent the Rev. A. S. Lakin into the South with this 
 object in view. Mr. Lakin met with a checkered experience. He never 
 advanced a political opinion in the pulpit ; and yet his mission was to set up 
 a church, the distinguishing feature of which was antagonism to slavery. 
 He testified before the congressional committee in 1871, at which time he 
 summed up the work which had been accomplished as follows : " We have 
 there now about 15,000 members, a fraction over three-fourths of whom are 
 white ; we have six presiding elder districts, seventy circuits and stations, 
 seventy traveling ministers, and about one hundred and fifty local preachers." 
 
 It seems that in 1868, Mr. Lakin was elected president of the State Uni 
 versity at Tuscaloosa, but was compelled to vacate by the Ku-Klux. He 
 was grossly assailed by a newspaper. His great success in building up the 
 church was not unattended by persecutions such as were experienced by the 
 early Christians ; but personally, he was not, like Paul, honored by " stripes 
 more abundant" than his fellow-laborers. On the contrary, he seems to 
 have escaped the ultima ratio of the Ku-Klux disputants. His subordinates 
 in the ministry, however, were not so fortunate, judging from the list of out 
 rages upon preachers which he furnished to the committee. The list showed 
 that the Rev. Mr. Sullivan was whipped ; that the Rev. J. A. McCutcheon, 
 presiding elder, was driven from the Demopolis district in 1868 ; that the 
 Rev. James Buchanan and the Rev. John W. Tailly, presiding elder, were 
 driven away ; that the Rev. Jesse Kingston, local preacher, was shot in 1869 ; 
 that the Rev. Mr. Johnson was shot in the pulpit in 1869 ; that the Rev. 
 James Dorman was whipped in 1869, and driven away in 1870; that Dean 
 Reynolds was whipped and left for dead, w r ith both arms broken ; that a 
 colored preacher and his son were shot dead on the West Point and Mont 
 gomery road ; and that the Rev. George Taylor was whipped. In Alabama, 
 as elsewhere, the most Ku-Klux outrages were committed in counties where 
 the white population largely outnumbered the colored. 
 
 The testimony taken by the joint select committee as to Ku-Klux out 
 rages in the State of Mississippi fills nearly twelve hundred octavo pages. 
 From such a wilderness of statements it is difficult to make up an intelligent 
 synopsis within allowable limits. Gen. George H. Thomas, in his report 
 dated Sept. 30, 1867, epitomized the report made to him by Gen. W. 
 D. Whipple. It contained General Whipple's observations in a tour through 
 the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, the preceding November. 
 The substance of it was that the general theme of conversation was the hated 
 Yankee and whatever represented loyalty to the Union ; that Union men 
 
472 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 were murdered in cold blood or were driven off their farms ; that soldiers 
 and government employes were shot at or assaulted in the performance of 
 their duties ; and that no redress was to be obtained from the civil author 
 ities. 
 
 There was a strong feeling of opposition manifested in Mississippi against 
 free schools, supported by taxation. > This opposition was attributed by 
 Northern men and Republicans to prejudice against the education of the 
 negroes ; but, by the planters and other Southern men who testified before 
 the committee, it was ascribed to the misuse of the school funds, which 
 were in some way, absorbed or injudiciously expended by the " carpet 
 baggers " ; and there is, indeed, abundant proof that the difficulties of recon 
 struction were greatly intensified by the character of the Northern men who 
 went, or were sent, South to fill the offices. The general hostility to free 
 schools on the part of the whites was illustrated by what took place in the 
 county of Pontotoc, as testified by Mr. Flournoy, the school superintendent. 
 In that county the whites largely predominated, so that out of sixty-four 
 public schools, only twelve were for colored children. Of the teachers there 
 were but eleven Republicans, and one of these was a colored man. Upon 
 these eleven school teachers a systematic war was made by the Ku-Klux. 
 Their homes or lodgings were invaded by night. Some of them were 
 whipped ; and all of them were warned to leave the neighborhood forth 
 with. Mr. Flournoy himself, although a Southern man, was not exempt 
 from attack. He had a raid made upon him by a band of Ku-Klux one night 
 in May, 1871. Having had warning of his danger, however, he had made 
 preparations, and, with a party of citizens who had volunteered to defend 
 him, and who were all, with one exception, Democrats, the assailants were 
 driven off, leaving behind them one of their number, mortally wounded. 
 
 What came to be known as the Meridian riot caused great excitement 
 throughout the State of Mississippi. It was carefully inquired into by the com 
 mittee. The recital of its details would occupy too much space, and would 
 only be an additional illustration of the disturbed condition of society in 
 those Southern States. It is enough to say that, at a magistrate's examina 
 tion of charges against three negroes for using incendiary language at a 
 public meeting and for threatening to burn the town, a fight occurred. 
 Some twenty or thirty pistol shots were fired in the court- room. Judge 
 Bramlette was shot dead while sitting on the bench. Several others were 
 killed or wounded. The alarm-bells were rung. Several houses in the 
 town were set on fire and burned. Among them was the colored Baptist 
 church. A number of colored men were killed. 
 
 But perhaps none of the lawless acts which so disgraced the states of 
 the South during this unfortunate period was more entitled to condemnation 
 and detestation than the brutal, merciless whipping of Mr. A. P. Huggins. 
 
OUTRAGES IN MISSISSIPPI. 473 
 
 He had been an officer in the Freedmen's Bureau. He was then, March, 
 1870, an assistant assessor of internal revenue, and superintendent of public 
 schools. On an official business tour in Monroe County, he was spending 
 the night, by invitation, at the house of a respectable Democratic citizen 
 named Ross. The house was surrounded by a band of about a hundred and 
 twenty men, armed and disguised. They induced Hiiggins to leave the house 
 and accompany them. They promised that not a hair of his head should 
 be injured, saying that they merely wanted to give him a warning. At 
 some little distance from the house the warning was given by the leader of 
 the band, in a very pompous manner. It was to the effect that Huggins 
 should leave the county within ten days, and that in the meantime he should 
 relieve them from all county taxes. He was told that the rule of the "camp" 
 was, first to give warning ; second, to enforce obedience by whipping ; third, 
 to have the killing done by the " Klan" ; or, fourth, to have it done pri 
 vately, by assassination or otherwise. Not deterred by these direful threats, 
 Huggins informed them that he should leave at his pleasure, and not until 
 he got ready. Thereupon he was surrounded and disarmed, and carried 
 off some distance farther. They paid no heed to his reminder that they had 
 promised to do him no injury, or to his warning that he was an officer of 
 the United States. They pulled his coat off, and commenced to whip him 
 with a short stirrup strap. The executioners relieved each other. None 
 struck more than ten blows, and some only two or three. The count reached 
 fifty. Then, as he still refused to yield, one of the strongest and most burly 
 in the crowd took the strap. He struck twenty-five blows without stopping. 
 Mr. Huggins heard them say "seventy-five"; and then nature gave way. 
 The victim of these cruel ruffians lost strength and consciousness ; and when 
 he came to himself, several of them passed in front of him showing their 
 pistols, and telling him that if he was not gone in ten days, they were sworn 
 to kill him either publicly or privately. 
 
 It ought to be said not in extenuation of the crime, but in explanation 
 of it that the popular dislike to Mr. Huggins arose from his active instru 
 mentality in the exaction of heavy taxes and his alleged extravagant and dis 
 honest use of the school moneys that passed through his hands. He was sup 
 posed to pay extravagant wages to teachers and exorbitant prices for school 
 buildings and furniture. He had graduated as a philanthropist in the school 
 of the Freedmen's Bureau, where he had not learned the lesson: "Thou 
 shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." 
 
 A similar outrage was perpetrated in March, 1871, against Cornelius Mc- 
 Bride. He was an intelligent man, from the North of Ireland. His only 
 offense was the teaching of a colored school. This outrage occurred near 
 Sparta, in Chickasaw County. 
 
 These are specimens of the achievements of the Ku-Klux in Mississippi. 
 
 30 
 
474 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The testimony exhibits a long list of killed and wounded. Of the killed 
 thirteen were white persons and thirty colored. Besides, there were some 
 unnamed and undescribed. Of the whipped twelve were white and sixty- 
 six colored, besides some half dozen others also unnamed and undescribed. 
 
 In Mississippi, as in the other states, the same fact was presented that 
 the Ku-Klux organization and operations were confined to those counties 
 wherein the whites largely predominated ; while in the counties where the 
 negroes were in great numerical majority, and where alone the peace 
 of society might be endangered by them, there was an almost entire 
 absence of Ku-Klux outrages. If the apology for Ku-Kluxism is to be ad 
 mitted, it follows that the danger to the white race from the presence of a 
 negro population, emancipated from the restraints of slavery, was not 
 directly, but inversely proportional to their numbers. 
 
 There was no testimony taken before the joint select committee in regard 
 to Ku-Klux outrages in Tennessee. The fact of their occurrence there is 
 sufficiently attested by the reports of army officers ; by the proclamation of 
 Governor Brownlow in January and February, 1869, declaring the existence 
 in middle and west Tennessee of" lawless bands who set at defiance civil 
 law" . . . and of " masked villains called Ku-Klux" ; by the fact that 
 the legislature passed a law on the 2Oth of January, 1870, making it a 
 felony for disguised or masked parties to enter a house by night or to de 
 mand entrance to the same ; and also by the fact that in several counties pub 
 lic meetings were held and resolutions adopted denouncing the Ku-Klux 
 Klan and all similar organizations in resistance to civil law. The disorders 
 that existed in that state were due, in great part, to the arbitrary and unwise 
 measures of reconstruction that were instituted and enforced by the Rev. 
 William G. Brownlow, afterwards governor, who was a man remarkable 
 for his prejudices and energies. There is much to be said in extenuation of 
 his harsh measures, for he was measuring out to others what had been given 
 in full measure to himself and thousands of other Unionists, in and out of 
 prison, in and out of office. While he was military governor, Andrew John 
 son was not entirely exempt from the same charge of unwisdom. The trav 
 esty of a state constitution had been framed at a popular partisan convention. 
 As shown in a former chapter there was a rigorous clause in it which ex 
 cluded from the right of suffrage all who had participated in the rebellion and 
 who had not afterwards joined the Republican party and voted with it. All 
 others, whatever might have been their course of conduct, were to be watched 
 closely. They were required, when they came to the polls and offered to 
 vote, to exhibit a clean bill of political health. It is not surprising that this 
 tyranny of a relatively small faction, supported as it was by the United States 
 Army, gave rise to the secret order of the Ku-Klux. This lawless and reck 
 less order, according to the statement of General Forrest before referred to, 
 
ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY. 
 
 475 
 
 originated in Tennessee in 1866. This was before the passage of the Recon 
 struction acts, and the effect of those acts was to spread the order over a great 
 part of the South. 
 
 The barbarous and cruel character of the outrages perpetrated by the 
 members of this secret, oath-bound organization, the shootings, hangings, 
 and whippings which took place during the midnight raids of those armed 
 and disguised malefactors, and which spread dismay and terror among the 
 weak and ignorant colored people, have been sufficiently described. It is 
 unnecessary, and would be tedious and sickening, to follow up the narrative 
 in the other Southern states. It will be enough to say that in Arkansas, 
 Texas, and Louisiana, the same deplorable condition of things existed, and 
 that outrages, terrorism, and intimidation took the place there of peace, 
 good order, and civil law. 
 
 Happily, Ku-Kluxism and its attendant horrors are now things of the 
 past. But while they are things of the past, they furnish us historic lessons. 
 When the Republican portion of the Ku-Klux committee recommended 
 amnesty at the end of their report to Congress, they demanded a further 
 enforcement of the rigors of the previous, Ku-Klux law. This was an ad 
 mission that the South was good enough for the one, even if bad enough 
 for the other. Repression was uppermost in the Republican counsels ; and 
 when an anodynous amnesty was proposed, it lost its efficacy by being ac 
 companied by caustic measures. An olive-branch was in one hand and a 
 sword in the other ; the open palm and clenched fist ; the kiss of peace and 
 the dirk of revenge. Mr. Blaine and others endeavored to reunite his parry 
 in 1868, upon the harsh measures. He could not do it with a quill from 
 the dove. If the Ku-Klux grew, what fed their inordinate appetite and gave 
 them strength? If the great writ was suspended, and elections were held 
 under enforcements of a bad law by convenient garrisons of soldiers, were 
 there not pretexts, if not causes, for the existence of such diablerie as the 
 fantastic and cruel secret societies inaugurated? No true Democrat ever 
 favored such societies or klans. 
 
 The writer was a member of that joint committee, along with Senators 
 Bayard, Beck, and others. His name with theirs is affixed to the minority 
 report. Some conclusions appear in it, worthy of note : there was an 
 unqualified admission that there were few if any disorders in Virginia, 
 Florida, and Louisiana. As to other states, there was not an accord of 
 judgment in the committee ; but it was agreed generally, that the disturbances 
 were limited to a few localities in certain portions of the Southern States. 
 Consequently there was no concerted system. Thus limited, and thus de 
 nounced by both parties, nevertheless, the existence of the klans was made 
 the pretext of a general military dictatorship over the entire Southern land. 
 
 During the debate in Congress upon the force bill, April 4, 1871, the 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 writer inveighed against the intolerable burdens which the ignorance,, 
 bribery, and corruption of the legislature of South Carolina had heaped' 
 upon that state, and the increase of her debt and bonds, through plunder* 
 These grievances, and the intolerable exactions of the Federal Government 
 by taxes and laws, should have had some consideration in Congress. Before 
 placing a whole people at the mercy of an ignorant race, and setting up a 
 vindictive military supervision of suffrage and courts-martial, there should 
 have been reasonable efforts made on the line of conciliation. 
 
 In one of the discussions Mr. Maynard, of Tennessee, asked the writer 
 if he wished it understood that he justified the conduct of the Ku-Klux 
 organization. The inference was repelled. The writer had condemned 
 it, from top to toe, inside, outside, and from every side. He stated that 
 he had proposed in the Democratic caucus, the issuance of an address, 
 denouncing all forms of lawlessness, secret or open. On Mr. Hoar's satiri 
 cal inquiry to be informed whether the caucus assented the Massachu 
 setts member received an affirmative answer. The following is a con 
 densed statement of what the writer said on that occasion, when speaking 
 against the force bill : 
 
 Recurring, then, to the invariable laws of society, and with the method 
 of Buckle and the rule of Mackintosh in mind, what do the science of his 
 tory and the maxims of good sense teach as to similar diseases and their 
 cure? Is not the secret conclave, the circle, the club, the league, the con 
 spiracy, ever the result of bad government? Is not despotism the devil 
 which begets desperation ? Is not repression the father of revolution ? Does 
 not history show that secret political associations grow out of tyranny and 
 persecution? Aye; and that, too, though they may be at first inspired by 
 generous and elevated ideas of human rights. 
 
 Whence came the Illumines, so potential within this century? From* 
 Weishaupt, a learned professor of Germany. They spread into France irr 
 the time of Louis XVI. They spread over Europe. Kosciusko and Mira- 
 beau, men of action Kotzebue, Schiller, Schlegel the geniuses of Europe 
 the liberty-loving men of the new era were its devotees. True, these 
 societies were stained with plots and assassinations. Bonaparte tried to- 
 crush them. The Tugend-Bund arose in Germany to counteract them, as 
 the Ku-Klux did to meet the Union Leagues. They spread, with sword in 
 hand, over Europe. They were even found on the banks of the Delaware- 
 fighting for our independence. 
 
 The Jacobin clubs of the French revolution were another form of unrest. 
 Their diabolical assassinations, open and secret, were a protest against the 
 ignorance, privileges, and prejudices of absolute monarchy. The same kind 
 of clubs, not so violent, but not less revolutionary, four hundred and fifty in 
 number, inspired the French revolution of 1848. They, too, were a protest 
 
DYNAMITE. 477 
 
 against an oligarchy which trampled on the popular interests. France, al 
 most to the present day, is gashing and slashing herself in wild despair, 
 under the influence of similar secret clubs, the result of that reaction which, 
 by immutable laws, follows the repression of a people. An oppressed peo 
 ple, as Curran said, will in some way strike down their oppressors, even with 
 their own shackles. 
 
 All history shows that such societies grow by persecution, and that they 
 are the bitter fruits of tyranny. Illustrations rush to the mind in throngs. 
 The French power trembled from secret societies in Algeria, the result of 
 harsh and unjust laws. The Fenian societies are the effect of long-continued 
 English oppression. What is Nihilism but justice, wildly protesting with 
 violence against hoary -wrong and insupportable despotism? The experi 
 ments begun by Robert Fulton, in 1805, by blowing up a buoy in Deal 
 Harbor, England, with two torpedoes filled with 180 pounds of gunpowder, 
 and by means of clock-work, have not only commanded the attention of gov 
 ernments since for legitimate warlike uses, but with the invention of nitro 
 glycerine and its adjuncts, nitro-gelatine, forcite, and giant powder, it has 
 made dynasties tremble for their injustice toward the people. Secrecy and 
 chemistry are not justifiable when used for violent and vain retaliations ; but 
 they are, nevertheless, the consequences of bad government. To uproot the 
 evils of secrecy and violence, a wise statesman will eradicate their proximate 
 and even remote causes. 
 
 The most conspicuous illustration, and the one most analogous to the Ku- 
 Kluxes, is that of the Italian Carbonari. Their name comes from carbonaro, 
 charcoal-burner. The remoteness of the charcoal-burning establishments, 
 in forests and amid mountains, especially in the Abruzzi, was a pro 
 tection to their secrecy. Their ritual was framed in a wild language. 
 Their object was to wreak vengeance on their political oppressors ; or, as they 
 expressed it in their symbolic motto, " Revenge upon the wolves who de 
 vour the lambs." From those rude huts in Italy they swelled to seven hun 
 dred thousand under the oppressions of their rulers. People of education 
 joined them. The growth of the order alarmed the governments of Europe, 
 especially the Bourbons. After 1819, they joined the republicans of France. 
 Men like Lafayette even joined the society. It was the prolific parent of in 
 surrection everywhere. In France it numbered six hundred thousand. It 
 was a dark and constant protest against despotism and in favor of liberty. 
 The order struck wildly at both religion and society. Men sought a covert and 
 a refuge for their wrongs, enthusiasm for their sentiments, and immunity for 
 their political disaffection. Poland is now, and has been since her spoliation, 
 full of secret associations. From the time of Ferdinand VII. to the death of 
 Prim, and even now, under her limited monarchy, Spain is menaced with 
 them. 
 
478 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 There is a history and mystery of horror about these secret societies of 
 Europe. Gun, infernal machine, dynamite and poniard are their terrible 
 playthings. Their object has been and is to overthrow, not to substitute. 
 They desire to be rid of evils without a thought of the worse ills that may 
 .come. They desire a new birth of state and society. They regard the old 
 order as incapable of reformation. Therefore they would raze it and sow 
 salt on its ruins. They work for its destruction with a generous self-sacrifice 
 worthy of a better and more open mode and cause. The conclusion from 
 these facts of history is that such societies are caused by oppression and 
 despotism, and that they become more implacable and secret by the sever 
 ity of the laws made against them. These Carbonari were to the south of 
 Europe what the Illumines were to France, the Tugend-Bund to Ger 
 many, the Fenians to Great Britain and the Ku-Kluxes to the South. They 
 were at once signs of reckless discontent and evidences of bad government* 
 But, heedless of the lessons, Congress went on, piling severity upon coercion* 
 as if it designed to make the South one great protest, secret, armed, and 
 dangerous, against all authority. 
 
 Hallam enumerates in his Constitutional History of England, five essen 
 tial checks upon the royal authority. Should there be a lesser number in a 
 republic ? One of these was : no arrest without a warrant ; another : trial 
 by a fair jury of the vicinage, per judicium parum et per leg-em terrce ; 
 and a third : that the violation of personal liberty could be excused by no 
 warrant, not even the direct order of the king. In England it was Sheri 
 dan's boast that not a hair of the head could be plucked without legal guilt 
 upon legal proof, but could he make his boast of the English government of 
 his own Irish people. . Our Constitution took its growth from these rudi 
 ments of liberty. They are the elements of Magna Charta : Nullus liber 
 homo capiatur. England grew great by these elements. We observed 
 them sacredly, and prospered, until these late unhappy times. Their in 
 fringement was the source of the disorders South. Their infraction by the 
 force bill would have brought renewed disorders. 
 
 In concluding his remarks against the policy of force and in favor of that 
 of freedom, the author then made this appeal to the better element of the 
 party in power, during that struggle for the force bill in 1871. With this 
 extract he closes this chapter : 
 
 " Shall there, then, be no attempt to crush these incendiaries? Aye, let 
 us begin here in our midst. Are we so guiltless ? Have we been moderate 
 and just? Admitting our derelictions, the question returns, shall we allow 
 these societies to continue? Do they not loosen the bonds of security and 
 lead to crimes ? Shall they not be eradicated ? Yes ; under the forms of 
 law. Otherwise they will grow stronger. Will you forever postpone gentle 
 ways of reaching them ? Or why will you not leave them to the states ? 
 
PLEA FOR MODERATION. 
 
 479 
 
 Do you ask what is to be done where the state authorities have the power 
 but not the wish to crush them ? 
 
 "I answer that the states will be depopulated. The states will feel their 
 own neglect in every interest, and should feel it till they act. Their credit 
 will be impaired and their resources crippled. The greater the violence 
 the sooner it will spend its force. Vengeance, like the Corsican Vendetta, 
 will meet with death, though it track its victims like a sleuth-hound. The 
 good band against it. Better have allowed the South to be overrun with it, 
 than destroy the Constitution by, illegal methods for its suppression. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I pray you to pause. You are on the brink. Your legis 
 lation will rebound. Save, oh ! save us the possible, probable, nay, certain 
 horrors to follow the execution of such laws by an irresponsible will ! Save 
 yourselves ; aye, save your party ! It has many ennobling memories ; it has 
 in its midst many gallant men ; it has enrolled many splendid statesmen. 
 Many of them have already deserted its flag, but still you number gentlemen, 
 statesmen, and Christians. They ornament your ranks. But I beseech you 
 to remember that there is no honor in pursuing with vengeance a discontented 
 people. Cut yourselves not off entirely from one-half of our nation ! You 
 would then flourish no longer ; for, as Brougham once said, ' the blossom 
 dies when severed from the root and stem/ Save your country as an en 
 tirety, that you may continue to adorn it ! Save the Constitution, without 
 which the Union is not a band of states, but the emblem of a roving banditti ! 
 
 ' ' Has that instrument lost all its wholesome terror ? Is it, like the battle-axe 
 of Richard Coeur de Lion, referred to by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
 (Mr. Butler), too great for our modern pigmies to wield? Is it a relic for 
 the sanctuary? If, indeed, it be an object only of reverence for what it was, 
 then pause before you mutilate it further ! Reverence its rust, if you cannot 
 respect its edge ! I make my humble prayer, first to you, who have the tem 
 poral power to stay your invasion of the Constitution and the flood-tide of 
 blood, faction, and ruin to ensue from the execution of this forceful act. 
 But if I fail in this appeal, I then appeal to the throne of God for that 
 mercy, in its abundance, which we shall need when such vindictive legisla 
 tion is the law of our land." 
 
CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 THE RECONSTRUCTION UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FIVE MILITARY DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTH VIRGINIA THE FIRST DISTRICT 
 PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION CALL ON THE PRESIDENT FOR INFOR 
 MATIONHIS REPLY MILITARY COMMANDERS GENERAL SCHOFIELD FOR 
 VIRGINIA HIS GENERAL ORDERS SUB-DISTRICT COMMANDERS DIVISION 
 OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INTO MODERATES AND RADICALS -INDICTMENT 
 OF HUNNICUTT FOR INCENDIARY LANGUAGE THE BILL OF RIGHTS THE 
 VOTE ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION GENERAL STONEMAN IN COMMAND OF 
 DISTRICT GENERAL CANBY SUCCEEDS HIM REMOVALS FROM CIVIL OF 
 FICEELECTION OF GOVERNOR WALKER VIRGINIA RECONSTRUCTED 
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
 
 THE Reconstruction acts provided for the division of the Southern 
 States into five districts, as stated in a preceding chapter. Virginia 
 constituted the First district, North and South Carolina the Second, 
 Georgia, Alabama, and Florida the Third, Mississippi and Arkansas 
 the Fourth, and Louisiana and Texas the Fifth district. The President was 
 authorized and instructed to appoint an army officer, regular or volunteer, to 
 the command of each district. When so appointed, their powers were abso 
 lute and unlimited. They were endowed with legislative, judicial, and ex 
 ecutive authority. The President himself could give them no directions or 
 instructions. He could only remove them and appoint their successors. 
 The general commanding the armies had no authority to approve or disap 
 prove any of their acts. They could abolish charters, extend franchises, 
 stay the collection of debts, and prohibit the foreclosure of mortgages, levy 
 taxes, impose fines, and inflict penalties, authorize the issue of bonds, and 
 the contraction of state indebtedness, set aside the decisions of the courts, 
 remove all officers, and fill all vacancies, without the form of an election. 
 These district commanders could even try persons by commissions selected 
 by themselves. Fortunately for the people of the South, the selection of 
 these commanders was in the hands of that pure patriot and honest man, 
 
METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION. 481 
 
 Andrew Johnson. Under these acts, and with these dictatorial powers, 
 Gen. John M. Schofield was appointed to the command of the First Dis 
 trict. His headquarters were at Richmond. 
 
 The act prescribing this method of reconstruction was passed over the 
 President's veto, March 23, 1867. It provided that before the first day of 
 September then ensuing, the commanding general in each district should 
 cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United States, 
 twenty-one years of age and upwards, residing in each county or parish of 
 the state. This registration should include only those persons who were 
 qualified to vote for delegates under the requirements of the act of March 2, 
 1867. Before registration the applicant must have taken and subscribed an 
 oath that he had not been disfranchised for participation in any rebellion 
 or civil war against the United States ; that he had not held any executive 
 or judicial office in any state and afterwards engaged in insurrection or 
 rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies ; 
 that he had never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United 
 States or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state leg 
 islature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the 
 Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection 
 or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies ; 
 and that he would faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of 
 the United States, and would, to the best of his ability, encourage others to do 
 .so. The act also provided that, after the completion of such registration, an 
 election should be held of delegates to a convention. This convention was 
 for the purpose of establishing a constitution and civil government for the 
 .state. The convention in each state was to consist of the same number of 
 members as the most numerous branch of the state legislature of such state 
 in the year 1860. They were to be apportioned among the several districts, 
 counties, or parishes in the ratio of registered voters, as nearly as might be. 
 The convention in Virginia was to consist of the same number of delegates 
 -as had been in the most numerous branch of the legislature of that state in 
 the year 1860. The counties, however, that constitute the State of West 
 Virginia had been lopped off. 
 
 Provisions were also made for boards of registration, arid for the usual 
 machinery of an election. The vote was to be cast in the usual mode, by 
 the registered voters: "For a convention " and "Against a convention." 
 The act provided that if a majority of the votes given should be in favor of 
 .a convention, the delegates should assemble at a time and place to be men 
 tioned in the notification. They should then proceed to frame a constitu 
 tion and civil government. When this was done, the constitution should be 
 submitted by the convention for ratification to the registered voters, at an 
 election to be conducted by officers or persons to be appointed by the com 
 manding general. It also provided that if the constitution should be ratified 
 
482 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 by a majority of the qualified and registered voters, the president of the 
 convention should transmit a copy thereof to the President of the United 
 States, to be by him transmitted to Congress. If it should appear to Con 
 gress that the election was one at which all the registered and qualified 
 voters in the state had an opportunity to vote freely and without restraint, 
 fear, or the influence of fraud, and that the constitution met the approval of 
 a majority of all the qualified electors in the state, and was in conformity 
 with the provisions of the Reconstruction act, then such constitution should 
 be approved by Congress. The state should then be declared entitled to 
 representation. Senators and Representatives therefrom should be admitted 
 to Congress. All elections were to be by ballot. The registers and poll- 
 keepers were required to take the test oath of July 2, 1862, the " iron-clad 
 oath." It subjected to the pains and penalties of perjury any of them wha 
 took it falsely. 
 
 The act of March n, 1868, which was amendatory of the acts of March, 
 1867, became a law by lapse of time, the President neither signing it nor 
 returning it with his objections. It had passed the Senate on the 25th of 
 February, by a vote of twenty-eight yeas to six nays. It had passed the 
 House on the next day by a vote of ninety-six yeas to thirty-two nays. It 
 provided that any election authorized by the act of March 23, 1867, should 
 be decided by a majority of the votes actually cast ; and that at an election 
 in which the question of the adoption or rejection of any state constitution 
 was submitted, any person duly registered in the state might vote in the 
 election district where he offered to vote, provided he had resided therein for 
 ten days next preceding the election. It also provided that the constitutional 
 convention of any of the states mentioned might provide that at the time of 
 voting upon the ratification of the constitution the registered voters might 
 also vote for Representatives in Congress, and for all elective officers provided 
 for by such constitution. The original acts of reconstruction required the 
 ratification of the constitution by majorities of the registered voters. But this 
 rule was changed by the first section of the act of March n, 1868. It pro 
 vided that a majority of the votes cast should determine the question. The 
 clause allowing voters to cast their ballots in any district where they had 
 resided for ten days was conceived with the motive of securing ratification. 
 This regulation admitted of the transfer of supernumerary voters from on& 
 district to another, in which their services might be needed. There could 
 be no difficulty in effecting such transfers of the freedmen, with the ample 
 powers possessed by the army and by the Freedmen's Bureau. The last 
 clause of the act provided for the election of governors, members of the leg 
 islature, and Representatives in Congress, not as the state constitutions might 
 provide, but as prescribed by an act of Congress. 
 
 The conventions in some of the states made suffrage universal. They 
 thereby enfranchised the numerous classes which were, by the Reconstruction. 
 
THE AMENDATORY ACT OF 1868. 483 
 
 acts, excluded from registration. But this act of March n, 1868, authorized 
 the district commanders to cheat these classes out of their rights by ordering 
 an election of congressmen and state officers on the same day that the votes 
 were given for ratification or rejection of the constitution, and by the same 
 registered voters and no others. No ingenuity could reconcile this act and the 
 proceedings under it with the Constitution of the United States, ,or with 
 those of the states. The Constitution of the United States declares that " the 
 House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second 
 year by the people of the several states ; and the electors in each state shall 
 have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of 
 the state legislature." It was, therefore, nothing else than rank usurpation 
 for Congress to say who should elect state officers. The persons thus 
 chosen had no legitimate authority. The so-called legislatures thus elected 
 by a part of the people designated and qualified by act of Congress, were 
 mere popular or party conventions. They had no right to contract debts, ta 
 impose taxes, or to make laws for the states which were subjected to their 
 rule by external force. Neither were the men who were elected to Congress- 
 by the registered voters, to the exclusion of thousands who were qualified by 
 the new constitutions, duly elected members of that body. Congress had m> 
 more authority to say that a part of the voters in a Southern state might choose 
 representatives, than it had to apply the same rule to Massachusetts or New- 
 York. 
 
 On the 3d of July, 1867, the Senate adopted a resolution requesting the 
 President to communicate copies of all orders, instructions, circular letters 
 or letters of advice issued to the respective military officers assigned to the 
 several military districts under the act of March 2, 1867. It also required 
 him to communicate copies of all opinions given by the Attorney-General 
 of the United States touching the construction and interpretation of such 
 acts. Copies were called for of all correspondence relating to the opera 
 tion, construction or execution of such acts, between the President and any of 
 such military commanders, between him and the general of the army, be 
 tween the general of the army and any of the commanders touching the 
 same subjects ; also copies of all orders issued by any of such commanders 
 in carrying out the provisions of the acts. The President was also requested 
 to inform the Senate as to the progress made in the matter of registration 
 under such acts, and whether the appropriation for that purpose was probably 
 sufficient. 
 
 This resolution of the Senate was conceived in the same want of confi 
 dence in the President of the United States that inspired the act of July 19, 
 to which reference has already been made. That act substituted the com 
 mander of the army for the Executive of the Nation. The President replied 
 to this resolution on July 15. He stated that the appropriation of half a 
 million of dollars for carrying the acts of reconstruction into effect had 
 
484 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 already been expended, and that over a million and a half was required for 
 immediate use. It was exceedingly difficult, he said, to estimate the proba 
 ble expense of carrying into effect these Reconstruction acts. If the existing 
 governments of ten states were to be deposed and their entire machinery 
 was to be placed under the exclusive authority of the district commanders, 
 all the expenditures incident to the administration of such governments 
 must necessarily be incurred by the Federal Government. He estimated 
 that the necessary expenditure, in addition to what had already been ex 
 pended, would not be less than fourteen millions of dollars. He expressed 
 the opinion that the cost of the administration of affairs by the Federal Gov 
 ernment in these ten states would exceed that amount, and that the abolition 
 of the state governments would make the Federal Government responsible for 
 the state debts created before the rebellion for laudable purposes of public im 
 provement. These debts amounted to about one hundred millions of dollars. 
 "Was it," he asked, "worthy of the consideration of Congress, whether 
 such an addition to the national obligations would or would not impair the 
 public credit ? " Would not a refusal to assume the debts of those states after 
 overthrowing their governments be viewed as a violation of good faith and 
 as a repudiation by the National Legislature of liabilities which the states had 
 justly and legally incurred ? It seems not to have occurred to the President 
 that the same doubts or questions might have arisen in the minds of the 
 creditors of those states in 1865, when he took the lead in overthrowing 
 their governments. In addition to this general information, the President 
 transmitted to the Senate the required correspondence. 
 
 General Schofield assumed the command of the First district, constituting 
 the State of Virginia, on the i3th of March, 1867. In his general order of 
 that date, he announced that all officers under the existing provisional gov 
 ernment of the State of Virginia would continue to perform the duties of 
 their respective offices, unless otherwise ordered in individual cases, until 
 their successors were duly elected and qualified in accordance with the act 
 of Congress of March 2, 1867. It was desirable (he said) that the military 
 authority should be exercised only so far as might be necessary to accomplish 
 the objects for which that power was conferred. He appealed to the people 
 of Virginia, and especially to magistrates and other civil officers, to render 
 the necessity for the exercise of military power as slight as possible, by strict 
 obedience to the laws and by the impartial administration of justice to all 
 classes. 
 
 This general order, like others issued by General Schofield, does honor 
 to his head and heart. It shows that, like General Hancock in Texas, he 
 took a statesmanlike view of the duties assigned to him. Other general or 
 ders were issued by him from time to time. Among them was one of April 
 20. It decreed that temporary appointments to fill vacancies occurring in 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRST DISTRICT. 485 
 
 county or city offices should be made upon the concurrent recommendations 
 of the county court or city council, and of the president of the Board of Reg 
 istration. It requested the county courts and city councils to confer with the 
 presidents of the Boards of Registration concerning such appointments, and 
 to agree upon suitable persons to fill them. These recommendations were 
 to be forwarded to the assistant adjutant-general. If the county court was 
 not in session, then five magistrates might make such recommendations. 
 
 The following warning, given to a Richmond newspaper, by the direction 
 of so mild a chieftain as General Schofield, will illustrate the unwisdom of 
 the leaders of public opinion in the South at this time : 
 
 HEADQUARTERS FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF VIRGINIA, ) 
 RICHMOND, VA., April 27, 1867. J 
 
 Mr. CJias. H. Winne, Proprietor of the Richmond Times : 
 
 SIR : The commanding general directs me to call your attention to an 
 editorial article in the Richmond Times of this morning, headed "A Black 
 Man's Party in Virginia," and to say that, while he desires not only to per 
 mit, but to encourage, the utmost freedom of discussion of political questions, 
 the character of the article referred to calls for severe censure. The follow 
 ing words : " It is a proposition which implies that they are ready to grasp 
 the blood-stained hands of the authors of our ruin," is an intolerable insult 
 to all soldiers of the United States Army ; and no less so to all true soldiers 
 of the late Confederate army, as they have long since extended to each other 
 the cordial hand of friendship and pledged their united efforts to restore 
 peace and harmony to our whole country. The efforts of your paper to 
 foster enmity, create disorder, and lead to violence, can no longer be toler 
 ated. It is hoped this warning will be sufficient. 
 
 An order of May 28 declared that, for the purpose of giving adequate 
 protection to all persons in their rights of person and property in cases where 
 the civil authorities might fail, from whatever cause, to give such protection ; 
 and in order to insure the prompt suppression of insurrection, disorder, and 
 violence, military commissioners, to be selected from the officers of the army 
 and of the Freedmen's Bureau, would be appointed and given jurisdiction 
 in sub-districts, to be defined in the orders appointing them. These officers 
 were to have a sufficient military force to execute, or to secure the execution 
 of, their orders. They were clothed with the authority of magistrates in the 
 counties, and of police magistrates in the cities. They were to be governed 
 in the discharge of their duties by the laws of Virginia, so far as the same 
 were not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. They were to- 
 report to the district commander each case of which they took jurisdiction r 
 and their disposition of it. Where parties were held for trial, a full state 
 ment of the facts was to be reported, so as to enable the district commander 
 to decide whether the case should be tried by military commission or by the 
 civil courts. The latter mode of trial was to be preferred in every case 
 
486 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 where there was satisfactory reason to believe that justice would be done. 
 Any person who should disobey or resist the lawful orders or authority of a 
 military commissioner was to be tried by a military commission, and punished 
 by fine and imprisonment, according to the nature of the offense. The State 
 of Virginia was divided into seven sub-districts by General Order No. 33. 
 The sub-district commanders were required to exercise a general supervision 
 over their subordinate military commissioners within their respective dis 
 tricts. The commissioned officers of the Freedmen's Bureau were appointed 
 commissioners in the several counties. They were required to report to the 
 sub-district commanders. The sub-districts were arranged as follows : 
 
 Sub-district of Richmond, Brevet Maj.-Gen. R. S. Granger in command, 
 with headquarters at Richmond. 
 
 Sub-district of Fortress Monroe, Lieut.-Col. George Gibson, Jr., in com 
 mand, with headquarters at Fortress Monroe. 
 
 Sub-district of Petersburg, Brevet Maj.-Gen. George Stoneman in com 
 mand, with headquarters at Prospect Station, Prince Edward's County. 
 
 Sub-district of Lynchburg, Brevet Maj.-Gen. O. B. Wilcox in command, 
 with headquarters at Lynchburg. 
 
 Sub-district of Winchester, Brevet Lieut.-Col. W. S. Franklin in com 
 mand, with headquarters at Winchester. 
 
 Sub-district of Alexandria, Maj. Joseph Stewart in command, with head 
 quarters at Alexandria. 
 
 Sub-district of Fredericksburg, Brevet Lieut.-Col. James Johnson in 
 command, with headquarters at Fredericksburg. 
 
 A board of five officers was appointed by the commander of the district 
 to select persons to form boards of registration throughout the district. An 
 army officer was to be selected as a member of each board. The other 
 members were to be taken from honorably discharged volunteers, and from 
 citizens who were not only loyal at the time, but who had always been loyal 
 to the government of the United States. Certainly there was not more than 
 one in ten thousand of this latter class in Virginia. The practical effect of 
 the requirement which was in strict conformity with the Reconstruction 
 acts was to give the appointments as registers to United States officers 
 and discharged soldiers. 
 
 By a general order of May 14, an association of colored men in Rich 
 mond, styled "The Lincoln Mounted Guard," was directed to lay aside 
 entirely its military character. Its members were forbidden to parade or to 
 appear in the streets in uniform with arms of any kind, or with field music, 
 or to assemble in any place for the purpose of parade or drill. They were 
 notified that they must in all respects maintain a purely civic character. 
 
 A general order was issued July 26, requiring sub-district commanders to 
 report for the action of the commanding general the cases of all state, 
 county, and municipal officers who were disloyal to the government of the 
 
QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS. 487 
 
 United States, or who used their official influence in any manner to hinder, 
 delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and proper administration of the acts of 
 Congress. Vacancies in such offices were to be filled by temporary appoint 
 ment, to be made by the commanding general. All who were appointed 
 were to be required to take the test oath of July 2, 1862. The governor, 
 courts of law, and city authorities were invited to recommend suitable per 
 sons for such appointments. Another order of the same date amended a 
 former instruction to registrars. It excluded from registration, the governor, 
 lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, auditor of public accounts, second 
 auditor, register of the land office, state treasurer, attorney-general, sheriffs, 
 sergeants of a city or town, commissioners of the revenue, county surveyors, 
 constables, overseers of the poor, commissioners of boards of public works, 
 judges of the supreme court, judges of the circuit courts, the judge of the 
 court of hustings, justices of the county courts, mayors, recorders and alder 
 men, coroners, escheaters, inspectors of tobacco, flour, etc., clerks of the 
 supreme, district, circuit and county courts, and of the court of hustings, and 
 attorneys for the commonwealth. Not only were these officers excluded, 
 but all persons who had at any time in former years filled the like offices 
 were excluded from the right to register and to vote. Of county officers 
 there were thousands either in service or on the retired list. The justices 
 of the peace were not compensated with fees for their services ; but as they 
 were exempted, ex officio, from mustering with the militia, from working on 
 the roads, and from serving on juries, these offices had been sought after and 
 distributed by the governor with a liberal hand and with little regard to the 
 public needs. There was also a constable for every magistrate, or at least 
 for every magistrate who had much business to do. Besides these persons, 
 all others were excluded from the right to register and vote who had in any 
 capacity taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and 
 afterwards joined the Confederates. In this class were army and navy 
 officers, members of Congress, members of the state legislature, postmas 
 ters, and, perhaps, attorneys-at-law. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, 
 that the returns of the tax-lists showed that there were nearly twenty thou 
 sand more white male adults taxed than were registered. 
 
 A general order dated September 12, announced that an election would 
 be held for delegates to a state convention to frame a constitution, and to 
 test the sense of the registered voters upon the question whether such con 
 vention should be held. The election was fixed for the 22d of October. 
 Regulations were made for it in conformity with the acts of Congress. The 
 first registration of qualified voters showed that there were in the State of 
 Virginia 115,068 white voters, and 101,382 colored voters. But it hap 
 pened in the apportionment of representation, that only forty-seven election 
 districts contained white majorities, while fifty-eight election districts con 
 tained colored majorities. In a note to the official report, this anomaly is 
 
488 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 explained by the statement that the white majorities in the western counties 
 were very large, while the colored majorities in the eastern counties were 
 comparatively small. A second registration showed 118,011 white voters 
 and 104,891 colored voters. The election resulted, of course, in the choice 
 of a large majority of Republican delegates, and in favor of holding the 
 convention. On this last point the vote cast amounted to 169,229, of which 
 76,084 were cast by white men, and 93,145 by the blacks. The vote for a 
 convention was 107,342, and against a convention 61,887. Of the white 
 voters 14,835 were for a convention. If all the registered whites had voted 
 there would still have been a small majority in favor of the convention. It 
 is probable that an active campaign on their part would have prevented so 
 large a defection from their ranks as actually took place. Of the 105 dele 
 gates chosen, seventy were " Republicans," and thirty-five were " con 
 servatives " ; and of the seventy Republicans, twenty-five were colored men. 
 The Virginia Republicans, soon after the enfranchisement of the negroes,, 
 became divided between the men of moderate and men of radical views. 
 The latter constituted an overwhelming majority of the party. John M. 
 Botts, a man of talent and a Unionist, well known to politics from the time 
 of President Tyler, was the leader of the moderates. He had been impris 
 oned in Richmond at the beginning of the war, on account of his outspoken 
 devotion to the Union. But his eloquence could make no headway against 
 the surging tide of radicalism. It was led by one James W. Hunnicutt. He 
 was the sparkling phosphorescence of its topmost wave. The first meeting 
 of the party after the passage of the Reconstruction acts was held in Rich 
 mond on the 1 7th of April, 1867. The resolutions adopted on that occasion 
 were not of an extreme character. But, in the counties, such meetings were 
 signalized by utterances that were well calculated to excite the white people 
 in a high degree. Mr. Botts proposed a meeting of the conservative Union 
 men of Charlotteville on the 4th of July. But at a meeting on the i2th 
 of June, called for the purpose of bringing about harmony between the two- 
 wings of the party, it was agreed to hold a convention at Richmond on the 
 ist of August. At the preliminary meeting, Senator Henry Wilson, of 
 Massachusetts, and Mr. John Jay, of New- York, were present, with Mr. 
 Botts and Mr. Hunnicutt. When the so-called convention assembled, there 
 was such a crowd of negroes in it that Mr. Botts and his friends decided to 
 take no part in it. Hunnicutt had gathered his crowd from the highways 
 and by-ways of Richmond and other towns. The assembly had no claims 
 to be recognized as a representative body. This charge was made against 
 it, even by a colored speaker. The convention, or crowd, after getting to the 
 park, adopted, without alteration, the resolution that had been adopted at the 
 meeting of April 1 7. The next day there was a public meeting in the park. 
 It was addressed by Mr. Botts. The conservatives appear to have suc 
 cumbed to the dominant element. 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 489 
 
 In the month of November following, Hunnicutt was arrested on the 
 charge of having used incendiary language in a speech to the colored peo 
 ple of Charles City County. The language charged in the indictment was, 
 i ' you [the colored people] have no property. The white race have houses 
 and lands. Some of you are old and feeble, and cannot carry the musket ; 
 but you can apply the torch to the dwellings of your enemies. There are 
 none too young. The boy of ten and the girl of twelve can apply the 
 torch." Hunnicutt denied the charge. He was a delegate to the constitu 
 tional convention ; but, by order of General Schofield, he was bound over 
 in a bond of $5,000, to appear before the Charles City County court, ten days 
 after the adjournment of the convention. 
 
 The constitutional convention met in the hall of the House of Delegates, 
 in Richmond, Nov. 3, 1867. Judge John C. Underwood, of the United 
 States District Court for the Eastern district of Virginia, was elected presi 
 dent. After the election of officers and the appointment of committees, it 
 took a recess till the 2d of January, 1868. It then continued in session till 
 the iyth of April, when it finally adjourned. It adopted a state constitu 
 tion, but made no provision for submitting it to a vote of the people. 
 There was a well-founded apprehension that the people would reject it. 
 
 The bill of rights adopted by the convention declared the freedom of all 
 men, and the perpetuity of the Union ; it prohibited slavery, and declared for 
 equal rights and privileges. All this was well. It met universal assent. 
 But the clauses relating to the right of suffrage and to a test oath caused a 
 warm debate in the convention, and led to a division among the Republi 
 cans, which proved fatal to the ascendancy of that party in the state. The 
 first section of the third article provided for the disfranchisement of all 
 classes of persons who were excluded from the right to vote for delegates to 
 the convention. All who had, prior to the war, held any civil office and 
 had participated in the rebellion were embraced in this formidable list 
 of the excluded from political privileges. By the seventh section of the same 
 article, all the higher state officers, including members of the legisla 
 ture, were required to take and subscribe the test oath, or " iron-clad," of 
 July 2, 1862. The effect of this would have been to exclude almost every 
 competent Virginian from office. On this head, General Stoneman, who 
 succeeded General Schofield as commander of the First district at Rich 
 mond, stated in his report of the 3ist of October, 1868, that, in appoint 
 ments made by his predecessor, the available material that to which he 
 was restricted by the Reconstruction acts had been nearly exhausted. A 
 vacancy on the bench had to be filled by an army officer. This instance 
 was cited to show the impossibility of carrying on the state government in 
 the event of the thousands of state officers suddenly ceasing to perform 
 their functions. Their places could not be filled under the provisions of 
 the reconstruction laws. 
 31 
 
490 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Virginia was fortunate in having such a military dictator as General 
 Stoneman in her most critical stage of reconstruction. He filled a large part 
 in the military relations of that time. He was only next to General Hancock. 
 He was born on the shores of Chautauqua Lake, in western New York, on 
 the 8th of August, in the year 1822. He is of the Teutonic race, as his name 
 indicates. He is the eldest of a family of ten children. His early years 
 were passed on his father's farm, and in the lumber camp. His life is note 
 worthy in many regards. From the year of his West Point graduation, in 
 1846, to 1853, he served with his company of dragoons on the Pacific slope. 
 He made the first government survey for a railroad across the continent. It 
 was substantially adopted by the Southern Pacific Railroad. In 1855, he 
 was a captain in the Second cavalry ; with him in that regiment were Albert 
 Sidney Johnston, Robert E. Lee, George H. Thomas, W. J. Hardee, Earl 
 Van Dorn, E. K. Smith, John B. Hood, and others of lesser note. Captain 
 Stoneman spent two years in Europe before the war. He availed himself 
 of the opportunity to study foreign armies, and more especially their cavalry 
 service. The Civil War found him on the Rio Grande. He was guarding 
 the frontier of Texas against the incursions of Mexican bandits and plun 
 derers. Refusing to recognize the authority of General Twiggs, then in 
 command of Texas, to surrender the troops under his command, Captain 
 Stoneman seized a steamer, and escaped with his company. He reached 
 Washington in time to lead the cavalry advance guard across Long Bridge, 
 on the memorable night of May 23, 1861. 
 
 Upon the assignment of General McClellan to the command of the Army 
 of the Potomac, Captain Stoneman was appointed by the President brigadier- 
 general and chief-of-cavalry. Under General Burnside, he commanded the 
 Third Army Corps, and under General Hooker, he was promoted to major- 
 general. Unlike McClellan, Hooker appreciated the value of cavalry. He 
 therefore assigned Stoneman the duty of organizing what soon became the 
 famous cavalry corps of the Army of the Potomac. Stoneman's cavalry 
 battles and raids are the most thrilling incidents of the war. Shortly after 
 the battle of Gettysburg, the Secretary of War determined to establish a cav 
 alry bureau in the War Department, for the purchase and distribution of all 
 the horses for the whole army, this duty having been, up to that time, per 
 formed by the Quartermaster Department. General Stoneman was called 
 to Washington to organize it. By his request, he was soon relieved from 
 the duty, and assigned to the command of the Twenty-third Army Corps, 
 then in east Tennessee. Upon the reorganization of General Sherman's army, 
 he was assigned to the cavalry command. He held this command until the 
 capture of Atlanta. After that, he was engaged in several successful expedi 
 tions in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina. At the time 
 of the surrender of Lee's army, Stoneman, with his command, was at Salis 
 bury, North Carolina. He was in complete possession of Lee's communi 
 cations with the rear. The bridges were burned and the tracks destroyed. 
 
REMOVAL OF OFFICE-HOLDERS. 491 
 
 To the credit of General Stoneman, be it said, that during his command 
 of the First district, he never exercised the authority with which he was 
 clothed, when there was any law of the State of Virginia governing the case, 
 or applicable to the question involved. He referred all such cases to the in 
 vestigation and determination of the courts. His administration of the affairs 
 of the state was eminently conservative. It was satisfactory to the people. 
 Dissatisfaction was expressed only by the " carpet-baggers." Their princi 
 pal causes for complaint were that he did not make places for them to fill ; 
 that he did not appoint negroes to offices, and that 'he did not make the 
 people of Virginia sufficiently anxious to get back into the Union. To ap 
 pease those creatures and satisfy their demands, President Grant found it ex 
 pedient to relieve General Stoneman from the command of the district. He 
 sent him to Arizona. It was then the Botany Bay of the army. There he 
 served until, by his own request, he was put upon the retired list in 1872. 
 Since then he has filled the position of Railroad Commissioner of California. 
 At the last general election in that state, he was elected governor for four 
 years. His majority was unprecedented. Governor Stoneman, considering 
 the hardships and exposures he endured in the service of his country, is 
 physically well preserved. He is six feet tall, and of proportionate weight. 
 He has strongly-marked features. He is erect in carriage, and has that fine 
 military presence peculiar to the beau ideal cavalry commander. No officer 
 of the army has filled more varied, or more delicate and responsible positions. 
 He is a soldier who has been always a citizen. He is a citizen. He is one 
 of the very few officers of the regular army who have been elected by the 
 people governor of a state. He well deserves to wear the civic crown. 
 
 A joint resolution passed by Congress in February, 1868, provided 
 that the persons then holding civil offices in Virginia and Texas, who could 
 not take the test oath, should be removed, and that the vacancies thus 
 created should be filled by the appointment of persons who could take it. 
 General Stoneman issued an order on the i6th of March following, announc 
 ing the removal of the civil officers banned by this joint resolution. Within 
 a week following, he reported to the Attorney-General at Washington that, 
 of the 5,446 civil offices in the state, 2,504 had been filled by his predecessor, 
 General Schofield, and himself; and that, of the remainder, 329 incumbents 
 could take the test oath, leaving still 2,613 vacancies to be filled. These 
 facts demonstrated the impolicy of the course pursued by Congress. If any 
 of the 5,446 office-holders in the state had refused to perform their duties, it 
 would have been quite easy to find others ready and competent to take their 
 places. There could be no necessity for the disfranchisement of the whole 
 intelligent population of the state. The effect of the measures was to put 
 a premium on political prostitution and perjury. It invited to the South a 
 horde of hungry adventurers, who robbed and oppressed the people in the 
 name of freedom and Union, and who ruined the public finances in the 
 
49 2 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 name of philanthropy and progress. Among the removals from civil office 
 was that of H. H. Wells, the governor. The removal was not made on 
 the ground of Mr. Wells' inability to take the test-oath. No such inability 
 existed. Governor Wells was removed because, under the reconstruction 
 laws, all the powers of the chief executive of the state devolved on the com 
 manding officer of the First military district, by whom they were assumed, 
 and would be performed. General Stoneman was shortly afterwards re 
 moved from the command of the First district, and General Canby was 
 assigned to it. Until the arrival of the latter officer, Gen. Alexander S. 
 Webb was to act as commander. General Webb's earliest official acts were 
 to restore Mr. Wells to the office of governor, and to proceed to fill the vacan 
 cies in the civil offices by the appointment thereto of army officers. In 
 restoring the civil governor, he violated General Grant's order of March 20, 
 1867. 
 
 General Canby assumed command of the First district of Virginia on 
 the 2Oth of April, 1869. On the 2ist of May, he issued an order for an 
 election for the ratification or rejection of the state constitution which had 
 been adopted by the convention in April of the preceding year. Con 
 gress had, in compliance with the earnest petitions of the more intelligent 
 and respectable Republicans, authorized a separate vote to be taken on the 
 disfranchising clause before referred to, and on the test oath. The election 
 was held on the 6th of July. The total vote on the question of ratification 
 was 215,422. There were 206,233 f or > an< ^ on ty 9? ^9 against ratification. 
 The total vote on the disfranchising clause was 208,765 84,404 being in 
 its favor, and 124,361 against it. The test oath clause was rejected by a 
 majority of 40,992 votes. This co-operation of the Virginia Democracy 
 with liberal Republicanism saved the state from the misfortunes that over 
 took North Carolina and other states. The postponement of the election 
 for a year was also attended with good results. It gave an opportunity for 
 the President and Congress to see what sort of men they had installed in 
 power in the South. It tended to relax their rigorous policy. The authority 
 given by Congress, on the recommendation of the President, for the submis 
 sion of the constitution to the popular vote, and for a separate vote on the 
 disfranchising clauses, furnishes conclusive evidence of the growth of a more 
 generous feeling. 
 
 An election for governor and state officers was held on the same day that 
 the vote was taken on the constitution. Gilbert C. Walker, then a liberal 
 Republican, was elected governor by a vote of 119,535 as against 101,204 
 for H. H. Wells, the provisional governor. The conservatives elected 
 thirty of the forty-three state senators and ninety-five of the 138 members of 
 the house of delegates. Six of the Republican senators and eighteen of 
 the Republican delegates were colored men. The legislature met on the 
 5th of October. Previous to that time Mr. Wells had resigned the pro- 
 
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF VIRGINIA. 493 
 
 visional governorship, and Mr. Walker had been installed in his place. 
 General Canby held that the members of the legislature should be required 
 to take the test oath ; but the Attorney-General of the United States gave an 
 opinion to the contrary. It was absurd to say that the members of a state 
 legislature should be sworn into office under an oath prescribed by an 
 act of Congress, which they could not take without perjury. The gov 
 ernor and legislature, however, were still provisional, until the state should 
 be received back into the Union under a formal act of Congress. The 
 bill for this purpose became a law on the 26th of January, 1870, and con 
 tained the requirement that every member of the legislature, before taking 
 his seat, should make oath either that he had never as a member of Congress, 
 as an officer of the United States, or as a state officer or legislator, taken an 
 oath to support the Constitution of the United States and afterward engaged 
 in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or that the disabilities imposed 
 upon him by the Fourteenth Amendment had been removed. From that 
 date the Virginians have enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of self-govern 
 ment. The white race was dominant in both branches of the legislature, 
 and in the person of Governor Walker. He was a Northern man who had 
 gone into the state from New-York during the war. He was afterward in 
 Congress from Virginia, as a Democrat. He returned to New- York City 
 a few years ago. His death has just been announced. 
 
 Although Northern men have been elected to office by the Repub 
 licans, together with men of the African race, still it cannot be said 
 that Virginia, like most of the other Southern States since the era of re 
 construction, has been subjected to the yoke of the carpet-baggers and ne 
 groes. Her political status, recently, has a histoiy connected rather with her 
 fiscal than her social order. This chapter on reconstruction, therefore, as 
 regards Virginia, will be closed with the following statement of her 
 financial condition. From the report of the sub-committee of the joint 
 select committee of Congress, in 1872, the following facts are gathered : 
 
 Debt of Virginia in 1860, $31,938,144 
 
 Old debt in 1865, 41,061,316 
 
 This is exclusive of the repudiated debt incurred in aid of the rebellion, 
 which amounted to $7,505,724. In 1870, the "old debt," by the accruing 
 of unpaid interest, had risen to $45,872,778. In 1872, there was a slight 
 reduction, about $300,000, from the figures of 1870. In 1860, the state 
 held assets, in the shape of railroad and canal aid and bank stock, amounting 
 to about forty million dollars ; but, the bank stock having been lost or squan 
 dered during the war, there remained in 1865 only about twenty-seven mil 
 lions of assets, consisting of unproductive railroads and canals. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION ACTS IN THE SECOND MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL SICKLES ASSIGNED TO COMMAND 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS APPLIED REMOVALS OF 
 LOCAL OFFICERS- OBJECTIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT- STATE " STAY LAWS " 
 ENFORCED BY GENERAL SICKLES THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL OF 
 NORTH CAROLINA DISREGARDS THE "STAY LAW HE IS SUSTAINED BY 
 THE PRESIDENT GENERAL SICKLES RESIGNS THE COMMAND GENERAL 
 CANBY SUCCEEDS HIM HE APPROVES OF SICKLES' COURSE THE REGIS 
 TRATION OF VOTERS IN THE TWO STATES THE WHITE AND COLORED 
 VOTES THE CONVENTIONS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONS THE LEGISLATURES 
 AND THE LEGISLATION THE STATE OFFICERS THE METHODS OF THE 
 " CARPET-BAGGERS" AND THEIR NATIVE ASSOCIATES NOT MAKING BRICKS 
 WITHOUT STRAW THE ISSUE OF FRAUDULENT BONDS THE TAXATION 
 AND THE DEBTS THE PLUNDERERS DISPERSED A JUSTIFIABLE REVOLU 
 TIONCONGRESSIONAL CONDITIONS OF REHABILITATION THEIR ACCEPT 
 ANCETHE LONG PROBATION 1865 TO 1877. 
 
 GENERAL Daniel E. Sickles assumed the command of the Second 
 military district; composed of North and South Carolina, with 
 headquarters at Charleston, on the 2ist of March, 1867. On the 
 same day he issued an order announcing his assumption of au 
 thority, and the principles by which he would be governed. The latter 
 were those of the Reconstruction acts of Congress. For the protection of the 
 inhabitants in their persons and property, and the suppression of insurrection 
 and disorder, the local civil tribunals were permitted to take jurisdiction 
 of and try causes, excepting only such as might, by order of the command 
 ing general, be referred to a commission or other military tribunal for trial. 
 The order stated that the civil government then existing in North Carolina 
 and South Carolina was provisional only. It was subject to the paramount 
 authority of the United States. It might at any time be abolished, modi 
 fied, or superseded. Local laws and municipal regulations, not inconsistent 
 with the Constitution and laws of the United States or the proclamations 
 
GENERAL SICKLES IN COMMAND. 495 
 
 of the President, or with such regulations as might be prescribed in the 
 orders of the commanding general, were declared to be in force. In con 
 formity with these principles, the civil officers were authorized to continue 
 the exercise of their proper functions. Every case of neglect or refusal on 
 the part of the civil authorities to perform the duties required of them by law 
 was to be promptly reported to headquarters by the post commanders. These 
 officers were required to make arrests for crimes and offenses against the 
 laws, whenever the civil officers neglected or failed to act. The command 
 ing general appealed to the civil officers and to all good citizens to aid him in 
 the delicate duties imposed upon him for preservation of order. A special 
 order was issued on the loth of April, in regard to affairs at Wilmington, 
 North Carolina. By this order, two policemen of that town were removed, 
 on the charge that they had " shown a want of discretion and judgment in 
 the discharge of their duties, and had exhibited unwarranted violence in mak 
 ing arrests." This, and similar acts on the part of other district commanders, 
 led to an elaborate opinion from the Attorney-General on the powers con 
 ferred upon the district commanders by the Reconstruction acts. The 
 opinion was to the effect that no authority had been given them to remove 
 the civil officers of the states, or to appoint others in their places. This 
 is the same opinion to which reference is made on page 378, ante. On the 
 i4th of June, General Sickles sent a telegram to the Attorney-General, 
 which read as follows : " In the present condition of these states, it is not 
 practicable to afford adequate security to persons and property, unless the 
 commanding general of the district is authorized to remove civil officers who 
 fail to perform their duties." 
 
 General Sickles regarded the opinion of the Attorney-General as an im 
 peachment of his administration. Other district commanders had construed 
 their powers in favor of removals, and had acted accordingly. He tendered 
 his resignation in a dispatch dated June 19. It was not acepted, however. 
 An order issued by him on the nth of April forbade sheriffs to execute civil 
 process for the sale of property. This was in the nature of a stay law. It 
 conformed to the act of the state legislature. It led to his removal from com 
 mand of the district. The administrative officers of the two states obeyed 
 the order. The marshal of South Carolina did likewise ; but the marshal of 
 North Carolina disregarded it. He attempted to sell the property of parties 
 in Wilmington, under executions issued by order of Chief Justice Chase, 
 presiding in the Circuit Court at Raleigh, in June of that year. General 
 Sickles* subordinate, Colonel Frank, stopped the deputy in the execution of 
 his duty. The deputy was instructed by the marshal to suspend the sale 
 until General Sickles could be heard from. The latter officer sustained 
 Colonel Frank. The marshal reported the facts to the Attorney-General, 
 who laid the matter before the President. The course of the marshal was 
 fully sustained. Chief Justice Chase had said on the 6th of June, when ad- 
 
496 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 dressing the Raleigh bar at the opening of his circuit in reference to the 
 military government under the act of March 2, 1867 : " This military author 
 ity does not extend in any respect to the courts of the United States." This 
 was, no doubt, the first judicial interpretation of the act, and probably Gen 
 eral Sickles had no information of it. He had too much regard for lawful, 
 judicial authority ever to attempt to resist it. General Sickles was relieved, 
 August 26, from the command of the district. He was directed to repair to 
 New -York on leave. 
 
 Prior to his being relieved, General Sickles issued a general order 
 announcing that a registration of voters under the Reconstruction acts 
 would commence on the third Monday in July. Instructions for this purpose 
 were embraced in the order. On the 6th of July, however, he proposed, in 
 a letter to the Adjutant-General, that the work should be postponed until the 
 rights of certain classes to registration should be determined by Congress, or 
 otherwise. General Canby superseded General Sickles on Sept. 5, 1867. 
 Among his first important acts as commander of the district was a regulation 
 for the selection of juries. He ordered that personal fitness, and not color, 
 should be the rule. In his annual report of Aug. 31, 1868, General Canby 
 expressed his approval of General Sickles' order for the arrest of the execu 
 tion of civil process. The order continued to be enforced against process 
 out of the state courts, because, as stated, the legislature had passed a stay 
 law, on which the order was based. It is true that stay laws are unconstitu 
 tional, but martial rule is avowedly above constitutional restraints. This 
 action of Generals Sickles and Canby evinced a strong disposition on their 
 part to respect and enforce the state laws. 
 
 The number of persons registered under the acts of Congress, and au 
 thorized to vote for delegates to the state convention of 1867, as well as on 
 the question whether a convention should be held, was 178,665. Of these, 
 93,006 voted for a convention, 32,962 voted against a convention, and 
 52,697 refrained from voting. A large majority of the delegates chosen 
 were Republicans, in name at least, though most of them were ignorant of 
 the real import of the term. The constitution framed by this convention en 
 franchised the whole male population of voting age, twenty-one years, 
 without regard to race or color. In other words, the class which had been 
 excluded from the polls in electing delegates to the convention, and in the 
 ratification of the constitution, was enfranchised. They were given equal 
 privileges to those conferred on their former slaves by the Reconstruction 
 acts. The revised registration, which was made on April i, 1868, only six 
 months after the first, showed the voting population of the state to be 198,- 
 873, or 20,208 more than the original registration under the Reconstruction 
 acts. These additional voters, who were mostly white, did not vote, however, 
 at the first election for governor, state officers, legislature, and congressmen. 
 This was owing to an amendatory act of Congress, passed on March n, 
 
RECONSTRUCTION IN NORTH CAROLINA. 497 
 
 1868, only six weeks before the state election under the new constitution. 
 It provided : " That the constitutional convention of any of the states men 
 tioned in the acts to which this is amendatory may provide that at the time 
 of voting upon the ratification of the constitution, the registered voters may 
 vote also for members of the House of Representatives of the United States, 
 and for all elective officers provided for by the said constitution ; and at the 
 same election, the officers who shall make the return of the votes cast on the 
 ratification or rejection of the constitution, shall enumerate and certify the 
 rotes cast for members of Congress." It is obvious that this act of Con 
 gress, by which ten or twelve thousand of the most intelligent people of the 
 state were deprived of the right to vote at that election, was a flagrant viola 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States, as well as of the spirit of the 
 new constitution which was to be put in force. Under that new consti 
 tution, persons disfranchised by the Reconstruction acts were to be made 
 qualified voters. 
 
 According to the report of the chief of the bureau of civil affairs, the 
 original registration showed the white electors to be 106,721 in number, and 
 the blacks to be 72,932 ; total, 179,653. The vote in 1868 on the ratification 
 of the constitution was white, 1 17,431 , and colored, 79,445 ; for ratification, 
 93,118 ; against it, 74,009. From these figures, and in view of the fact that 
 nearly every colored man voted, and voted one way, it would follow that 
 of the 93,006 votes cast for the convention, and the 93,118 votes cast for the 
 ratification of the constitution, not more than twenty-one or twenty-two 
 thousand were white votes. It is singular that the six thousand five hundred 
 and odd colored votes which were added by the revised registration failed to 
 increase the Republican vote for ratification above that cast for the conven 
 tion. Upon this view of the case the white vote for rejection of the con 
 stitution was considerably more than double the number cast against holding 
 the convention. The Republicans elected large majorities to both branches 
 of the legislature, thirty-eight to twelve in the senate, and eighty-two to 
 thirty-eight in the house of representatives. They also elected five of the 
 seven Representatives to Congress, among them John T. Deweese, a North 
 ern man. Holden's majority for governor over Thomas S. Ashe, Demo 
 crat, was 18,641. The elections in 1870 and 1872, when the vote was uni 
 versal, as the new constitution provided, reversed these majorities. 
 
 A history of reconstruction in North Carolina would be incomplete if it 
 failed to give some account of the wholesale bribery and peculation that 
 were practiced by majorities in the constitutional convention of 1867-^68, and 
 in the legislature and by state officials in i868-'69. 
 
 The Democrats came into power, or into the control of the legislature, in 
 1870. They appointed investigating committees. The details of the sworn 
 testimony fill volumes. Want of space confines the author to a brief state 
 ment of a few of the cases. 
 
498 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 George W. Swepson, a citizen of the state, a banker of Raleigh, presi 
 dent of the western division of the Western North Carolina Railroad, and a 
 principal actor in these transactions, was brought before one of these com 
 mittees. He stated on oath, in reply to a question as to the methods used to 
 secure appropriations in aid of his and other roads, that he was told by 
 " Littlefield and Deweese, lobby lawyers," that he could get no bills through 
 the legislature in aid of his railroad unless he entered into the same arrange 
 ments that other railroad presidents had made. He was to pay them ten per 
 centum in kind, of the amount of the appropriations. Littlefield passed for 
 an ex-Union general, was a man of imposing presence, and possessed great 
 influence with the unsophisticated native Republicans, white and colored. 
 Deweese was also an ex-Union officer, whose character will be understood 
 when it is stated that he bought his nomination to Congress from a colored 
 rival, and resigned within three months after taking his seat, in order to 
 avoid expulsion for selling a cadetship in the Annapolis naval school. 
 Swepson, who had no repugnance to such methods, admitted that he ac 
 cepted the terms of Littlefield and Deweese, and paid to them, or their 
 order, $241,000, and some odd hundred dollars in money and bonds, for 
 their services in procuring the passage of acts making appropriations for 
 his railroad. He stated that he paid the amount in various ways sometimes 
 upon Littlefield's order, sometimes by taking up his notes and those of other 
 parties at his request, sometimes in money, and sometimes in bonds. Swep 
 son referred the committee of investigation to his clerk, G. Rosenthal, who 
 gave a list of the parties to whom the money was paid. This list embraced 
 nearly every leading Northern member of the convention and legislature, and 
 not a few natives, "without regard to race, color, or previous condition of 
 servitude." 
 
 Among the persons named as recipients of large sums were Gen. Joseph 
 C. Abbott, who went from New Hampshire, and who was elected a United 
 States Senator ; George Z. French, a prominent member of the convention 
 and legislature ; and Colonel Estes, a delegate to the convention, who was 
 appointed collector of internal revenue. Mr. A. W. Tourgee, who was 
 a leading member of the convention, and a number of others were said to 
 have received smaller sums. Littlefield and Deweese, of course, drew their 
 dividends, amounting to a large sum. The parties accused were allowed to 
 go before the committee and give explanations of their connection with this 
 fund. In some instances comparatively small amounts appear to have been 
 paid out for legitimate objects, and under circumstances which show no com 
 plicity in the unlawful conspiracy against the treasury of the state. But this 
 cannot be said of the transactions of the leading men in the convention and 
 legislature with the managers of this corruption fund. Mr. Tourgee had 
 been a captain or lieutenant in one of the Union regiments. After the war 
 he remained in North Carolina. At the time he located there he was far 
 
ILLEGAL ISSUE OF BONDS. 499 
 
 from being in affluent circumstances. He was not one of those wealthy 
 Northern gentlemen who went South on " a fool's errand." But he was not 
 without thrifty enterprise, in office-seeking. Before obtaining a license to 
 practice law, he got elected to the office of circuit judge, at a salary of $2,500 
 a year, for a ten years' term. While on the bench he was for three or four 
 years one of the commissioners for codifying the state laws. This office 
 brought him an additional two thousand a year. When his judgeship ex 
 pired by limitation, he obtained the lucrative office of United States pension 
 agent. Altogether, it may be said of Mr. Tourjee, that he did not fill the 
 description of one who had to make "bricks without straw." 
 
 Swepson, as a patron of the lobby, played a princely part. There is no 
 evidence that he shared in the spoils, except through the large appropria 
 tions to his railroad. Other railroad presidents were made to bleed freely, 
 as a consideration for the passage of measures favorable to their roads. 
 The president of the Chatham road stated that he sold Littlefield $100,000 
 worth of stock, on a credit of ninety days, when the bonds were worth 
 sixty-five cash in New-York. The president of the Williamston and Tar- 
 borough road paid $10,000 for a charter. The same company gave Little- 
 field a contract for furnishing cross-ties, at a liberal rate, in a section of the 
 state which the contractor had never seen. Another case was that of a com 
 mittee of the legislature who had contracted with parties for eight thousand 
 acres of land on which to build a penitentiary. They stipulated to pay 
 twelve dollars per acre, in state bonds, and the bonds were issued to the 
 parties. The land consisted of poor pine barrens, within a few miles of 
 Raleigh. This the contractors purchased, after making the contract, at 
 sixty-five cents per acre. The fraud was detected, and the legislature, which 
 was still in session, repudiated the bonds. 
 
 The convention and legislature appropriated, altogether, about twenty- 
 five millions in railroad bonds. The new constitution which these men 
 had made provided that in every instance in which such appropriations 
 should be made in favor of a new road, the question should be submitted to 
 the popular vote for ratification. Furthermore, it contained the following 
 provision : ' ' Until the bonds of the state shall be at par, the general assem 
 bly shall have no power to contract any new debt or pecuniary obligation in 
 behalf of the state, except to supply a casual deficit, or for suppressing inva 
 sion or insurrection, unless it shall in the same bill levy a special tax to pay 
 the interest annually." The state bonds were greatly below par, and the 
 question had not been submitted to the people for approval. Moreover, 
 another clause limited the amount of taxes to two dollars in the hundred, 
 which limit had already been exceeded. On these grounds the Republican 
 supreme court decided that nearly half of the twenty-five millions of bonds 
 authorized by the legislature were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Pearson 
 gave the opinion on this point, which was concurred in by a majority of the 
 
500 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 court. In 1880, the invalidity of the special tax bonds was declared by an 
 amendment to the constitution. The legislature was by this amendment for 
 bidden to pay, either directly or indirectly, any debt or bond incurred or 
 issued by the constitutional convention of i867~'68, or by the legislature 
 elected in 1868, at any of its sessions, except the bonds issued to fund the 
 interest on the old debts of the state, unless the proposition to pay were first 
 submitted for ratification to the people of the state, and approved by a ma 
 jority of the qualified voters. This amendment became necessary in order 
 to put a stop to the efforts of the holders of the fraudulent bonds and their 
 attorneys to overturn the decisions of the court. 
 
 The bonds authorized by the convention and legislature, according to 
 the printed report of J. M. Worth, the state treasurer, amounted to $23,- 
 640, OCX) ; of which the convention had authorized $2,150,000, and the 
 legislature $21,490,000. Of the convention bonds, $800,000 were not issued 
 and $170,000 were returned, leaving $1,180,000 outstanding. Of the bonds 
 authorized by the legislature, $5,290,000 were not issued ; and $4,493,000 
 were returned to the treasury, leaving $11,707,000. The supreme court of 
 the state declared $5,150,000 of these bonds to be unconstitutional, and the 
 people, as above stated, declared the remainder invalid by a constitutional 
 amendment. It is not to be inferred from the foregoing statement, that the 
 court declared any of the bonds to be constitutional. It could only give 
 decisions upon the cases brought before it. 
 
 The outcry of the people of North Carolina against the reckless extrava 
 gance and unconstitutional legislation of the carpet-baggers and their native 
 coadjutors was loud and deep. The purchasers of the bonds in New-York 
 were not imposed upon. They had full warning of the character of the 
 bonds they were buying. They bought below par, on speculation, hoping 
 to get rid of them before they should fall lower. Indeed, it was only pro 
 fessional stock-jobbers who got hold of them. They managed to save 
 themselves from loss. For months, the Raleigh lobbyists, among them 
 several members of the convention and legislature, railroad men, and state 
 officials, were in New- York, buying and selling these bonds to each other, 
 really or nominally, and having their sales published, in the hope of in 
 veigling capitalists into the snare. But they failed, utterly, disgracefully. 
 They were hoist by their own petard. They deserved their fate. 
 
 South Carolina being a part of this district, the general orders enforced 
 in that state have for the most part been already presented in their essential 
 features. It is due to General Sickles to say that during the brief period of 
 his authority in the district, he manifested a kindly spirit toward the people, 
 and that his most arbitrary acts seemed to be inspired by a benevolent pur 
 pose ; for example : his enforcement of the stay law of North Carolina 
 and his application of the same rule in South Carolina. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 501 
 
 A large majority of the population of South Carolina has always been of 
 the negro race ; the proportion being quite three-fifths colored to two-fifths 
 white. The universal enfranchisement of the negroes by the Reconstruc 
 tion acts, and the disfranchisement of some thousands of the most intelligent 
 and wealthy white men, was, therefore, equivalent to turning society upside 
 down. It was the enthronement of stark ignorance, accompanied by abject 
 poverty. Yet the more intelligent among the blacks displayed good sense, 
 as well as correct feeling, at the beginning of the new order of things. The 
 mass of the colored people seemed to be easily impressed with the import 
 ance of a good understanding with the whites. Soon after the passage of 
 the Reconstruction acts, a meeting was held at Columbia to celebrate the 
 great event. Eminent white gentlemen were invited to be present and 
 address them. Among others, Gen. Wade Hampton accepted the invita 
 tion. He addressed the meeting and pointed out the identity of interests be 
 tween the two races. He advised the colored people to seek political affiliation 
 with the best class of whites, whose interest it was to restore peace, order, 
 and prosperity to the South. Beverly Nash, a colored speaker, declared 
 that the negroes recognized the Southern white man as the " true friend of 
 the black man." He was in favor of removing political disabilities. At 
 Charleston the colored men met in convention and formed the " Union Re 
 publican Party of South Carolina." They adopted a platform free from the 
 rancor which is inspired by the antagonisms of race and party. At a meeting 
 held at Columbia, Governor Orr addressed the people. He advised them 
 to keep clear of national politics and the great party organizations of the 
 country, to devote themselves to the interests of the state, and to seek coun 
 sel of those who were most concerned in her welfare. The resolutions 
 adopted declared that " universal suffrage accords with the principle that all 
 free governments are founded upon the consent of the governed." They 
 were in favor of a constitution for South Carolina that would grant equality 
 before the laws, irrespective of race, color, or previous condition. They 
 were in favor of free schools " alike for all," and of a reform in the criminal 
 code of the state. It is not clear whether mixed schools for the two races 
 were meant. The idea of mixed schools is of Northern origin. The negroes, 
 themselves, prefer separate schools, taught by colored men and women. 
 
 General Sickles addressed the freedmen at Columbia, to whom he gave 
 excellent advice. He told them that they should cultivate friendly relations 
 with their former masters, and refrain from extravagant demands and offen 
 sive language. He said: " It will not be necessary, nor can it be other 
 wise than injurious to yourselves, for you to neglect your regular employment 
 and associations to attend to political affairs. I promise you that, without 
 any such sacrifice on your part, every man in the Carolinas entitled to a voice 
 in the decision of the great questions to be passed upon under my supervi 
 sion, shall have a fair chance to act his part without let or hindrance from any 
 
502 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 one." In addressing the Board of Trade at Charleston, General Sickles reit 
 erated his purpose, as expressed in his first general order, to make use of 
 the aid of all faithful civil officers in the state in maintaining order, and 
 in efforts to promote the material prosperity of the commonwealth. He 
 called upon all good citizens to aid him in reorganizing the institutions of 
 the state. Governor Orr, on the same occasion, advised acquiescence in 
 the measures of Congress, although they were objectionable in several re 
 spects. He deplored the disfranchisement of many of the best citizens ; he 
 deprecated the enfranchisement of the colored race without regard to their 
 education and their fitness to exercise the right of suffrage. 
 
 The registration of voters was completed in October. Of the whites 
 there were 46,346, and of the blacks, 78,982, registered. On the i6th of 
 that month, General Canby, in a general order, directed that an election be 
 held Nov. 19 and 20, for delegates to a state convention to frame a constitu 
 tion. The regulations for registration, holding the election, counting and 
 announcing the result of the vote were altogether similar to those which have 
 been stated with reference to North Carolina. The number of delegates 
 chosen was ninety-seven. The " Union Republicans" held a convention at 
 Charleston in October, for the purpose of securing organization and concert 
 of action. A like assemblage of the " conservatives," under the leader 
 ship of Gen. Wade Hampton, ex-Governor Perry, and Judge Aldrich, was 
 held at Columbia. The conservatives put forth an address, in which the 
 plan of reconstruction was condemned in the strongest terms. 
 
 The white people took very little part in the election of delegates to the 
 convention. Of the 125,328 registered votes, only 71,087 were cast on the 
 question of holding the convention, and of these 68,876 were colored, cast 
 for, and 2,081 white, against the convention. There were only 130 white 
 votes for the convention. Of the ninety-seven delegates chosen, sixty-three 
 were colored, and thirty-four were white, and of the whites nearly or quite 
 all called themselves Republicans. According to the revised registration 
 returns, the number of the black voters was 80,286, and the white, 47,010. 
 
 The convention assembled by order of General Canby, in Charleston, 
 Jan. 14, 1868. A. G. Mackey, an old and respectable citizen of the state, 
 of northern birth, was elected president. Governor Orr was invited to 
 address the body. He spoke earnestly. He expressed his regret that the 
 white people who were permitted to vote by the Reconstruction acts had very 
 generally abstained from exercising the privilege ; and that, as a conse 
 quence, the " intelligence, refinement, and wealth of the state" were not rep 
 resented in the convention. He urged the importance of moderation. He 
 hoped that all political disabilities would be removed, and that provision 
 would be made for the education of both races. He said that he regarded 
 the doctrine of secession as exploded, and that the highest allegiance of the 
 citizen was due to the general government. 
 
THE STATE ELECTION. 503 
 
 The convention passed an ordinance u staying" executions under civil 
 process for the collection of debts. General Canby had it enforced. A 
 constitution was adopted which abolished slavery, and placed all persons on 
 an equality before the law. The carpet-baggers, who prepared the consti 
 tution and dictated measures generally, put in a saving clause for them 
 selves, in the article prescribing the qualifications of the governor. No person 
 was to be governor, " except at the first election under the constitution," who 
 had not been a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of this 
 state for two years next preceding the day of election. The persistent seces 
 sionists were shelved by requiring of all officials an oath renouncing forever 
 any right of the state to secede. Suffrage was made universal, except as to 
 those who were barred by the United States Constitution. The legislature 
 was to provide a liberal system of free education. The compulsory attend 
 ance of children at school was to be required by law. A poll tax, and a 
 tax on property were to be levied for the support of schools. This constitu 
 tion was ratified by the popular vote in April, 1868. The majority was 
 43,470, in a total vote of 98,046. Only about half the white registered 
 voters availed themselves of their privilege. Their sullen indifference 
 brought its retribution. 
 
 The election of governor, assembly, and other state officers was held at 
 the same time. It resulted in the triumph of the Republicans, as a matter of 
 course. The governor and all general officers were elected by large ma 
 jorities, and only a few " conservatives " were chosen for the legislature. 
 The Democrats, or conservatives, forwarded to Congress an earnest protest 
 against the acceptance of the constitution. They called attention to the 
 eighth article, which, as the protest said, " enfranchises every male negro 
 over the age of twenty-one, whether a convict, felon, or a pauper." This 
 was an overstatement of the case as regards paupers. While in an alms- 
 house, they were expressly excluded ; but otherwise, not. The case was 
 similar in respect to white convicts. Attention was called to the dis- 
 franchisement of * every white man who had held office in South Carolina." 
 
 Richard K. Scott, an officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, from Ohio, was 
 elected governor. Lemuel Boozer, a native colored man, was elected lieu 
 tenant-governor. Franklin J. Moses was elected adjutant and inspector- 
 general. He was a native white man, who had before and during the war 
 signalized himself as an extreme secessionist. The secretary of state was 
 Francis L. Cardoza, a colored man of education. The attorney-general 
 was Daniel H. Chamberlain, of Massachusetts, who had served in the army 
 of the Union. The state treasurer was Niles G. Parker, of Massachusetts ; 
 and the comptroller-general, N. J. Neagle, was from New- York, but said 
 to be originally from North Carolina. Of the 124 members of the house of 
 representatives, seventy-six were men of color, and Republicans, of course ; 
 and of the forty-eight white members, fourteen were Democrats. The sen- 
 
504 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ate consisted of thirty-three members, nine of whom were colored Republi 
 cans, and of the remaining twenty-four, all white, seven were Democrats. 
 On joint ballot, therefore, the Republicans numbered 136, and the Demo 
 crats twenty-one. This body met on the 6th of July, 1868. The new 
 governor was inaugurated on the 9th. The retiring provisional governor, 
 James L. Orr, who had been elected by the white people in 1865, in com 
 petition with Gen. Wade Hampton, delivered an address, by invitation of 
 the legislature, upon the condition of affairs. His suggestions were similar 
 to those which have already been quoted from his speeches. The Fourteenth 
 Amendment was ratified on the 9th, by a vote of 108 to 10. United States 
 Senators were chosen ; Thomas J. Robertson being selected for the short 
 term, and Frederick A. Sawyer for the long term. Judges of the supreme 
 court were also chosen. These were F. J. Moses, Sr., chief justice, and 
 A. J. Willard and S. L. Hoge, associates. 
 
 Among the first measures introduced in the house of representatives 
 was, " A bill to protect all persons in the state in their civil rights, and fur 
 nish the means of their vindication." It required, among other things, that 
 hotel-keepers should entertain all comers who could pay their way, without 
 discrimination as to color. The bill passed the house. It went to the 
 senate. There it received important amendments before being adopted. 
 The two houses failed to agree on these amendments, and the bill fell to 
 the ground. An act was passed to enable the freedmen to buy lands. A 
 land commission was established for the purpose of purchasing lands to be 
 sold in small parcels, on favorable terms, to persons wanting permanent 
 homes. Within a year 45,000 acres were thus bought up, and surveyed for 
 re-sale. 
 
 At the next session of the legislature an act was passed making it unlaw 
 ful for common carriers or any party or parties engaged in any business, 
 calling, or pursuit, for the carrying on of which a license or charter was 
 required by law, municipal, state, Federal, or otherwise, to discriminate 
 between persons on account of race, color, or previous condition. As a 
 Federal license was at that time required of inn-keepers, this law was appli 
 cable to them ; but there was doubtless found some means of resistance or 
 evasion. It applied also to chartered colleges and academies even to such 
 as were dedicated to the education of females. This law, if rigidly enforced, 
 would have broken up every high school and college in the state. Acts of 
 this character were not dictated by aspirations of the colored people for 
 white and black association, but by the fanaticism or malevolence of the 
 Northern adventurers. 
 
 The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified 
 by a nearly unanimous vote, there being but one vote in opposition to it in 
 the senate, and only three in the house of representatives. A law regulating 
 the drawing of jurors from the list of voters was passed. It required that 
 
THE UNION REFORM PARTY. 505 
 
 the number of names of white voters on the lists should bear to the number 
 of names of colored voters, as near as might be, the same proportion as the 
 whole number of white voters bore to the whole number of colored voters 
 in the township, city, or county, as the case might be. This arrangement 
 assured the supremacy of the densest ignorance in the jury-box, in four-fifths 
 of the state. 
 
 In February, 1870, a black man of Northern birth, J. J. Wright, was 
 elected by the legislature to the office of chief justice of the supreme court. 
 The next legislature, chosen in the fall, impeached Judge T. O. P. Vernon, 
 of the circuit court, on charges of drunkenness, and of having issued and 
 signed blank writs of habeas corpus, addressed to no one, and without 
 designating the person to be brought before the court. He was allowed to 
 escape the penalties annexed to these offenses by resigning. It seems to 
 have been the rule to pardon criminals before the expiration of their terms of 
 service in the penitentiary, in order to prevent their disfranchisement. This, 
 however, was an exclusive privilege granted only to Republicans. 
 
 During the spring of 1870, a new political organization was formed. 
 It was styled the " Union Reform Party." It was composed chiefly of 
 Democrats, with a few Republicans. A convention of this party met in 
 June, at Charleston, and nominated candidates for state officers. Judge 
 R. B. Carpenter, an ex-Confederate soldier, was selected as the candidate 
 for governor ; and Gen. Matthew C. Butler, an ex-Confederate officer, now 
 United States Senator, for lieutenant-governor. But the new party was 
 doomed to overwhelming defeat. Governor Scott was re-elected by a ma 
 jority of 33,500 in a total vote of 136,000 ; and his colored colleague on the 
 ticket, Ranier, was elected lieutenant-governor by a majority of 31,000. 
 The Republican platform complimented Governor Scott upon his "wise, 
 economical, and honest" administration of affairs. It insisted on a "con 
 tinuance of strict and close economy" in all departments of the govern 
 ment. The public debt had been augmented by two millions, it is true ; 
 and there was nothing to show for the expenditure except the sudden eleva 
 tion of certain needy adventurers, and illiterate "field hands" from ex 
 treme poverty to affluence. There had also been a four-fold increase^of 
 taxes. This situation was heralded as a subject of public congratulation. 
 
 The legislature, in 1871, made the novel attempt to raise means by au 
 thorizing the issue of " sterling bonds." Having exhausted their credit at 
 home, they vainly attempted to entice the English capitalists, by issuing 
 bonds especially adapted to that market, which promised to pay six per 
 cent, interest. The amount authorized was 1,200,000, or nearly six mil 
 lions of dollars. But the bait was not caught at. The scheme fell to the 
 ground. The bonded debt now rose from $5,790,000 in 1868, to $9,528,- 
 ooo in September, 1871. Governor Scott, in an official statement made to 
 the committee of Congress sent to investigate the condition of the " insur- 
 
506 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 gent states," gave figures showing that the bonded debt, prior to the war, 
 was $4,046,540.16; that the provisional government added $1,023,473.94, 
 making $5,070,014.10 ; and that the amount of bonds issued by the Repub 
 licans, in their three years' administration, was $4,458,550. The public 
 debt at the meeting of the legislature in November, 1872, was $15,851,000. 
 The estimate of expenditures for 1873 was $2,054,000, in addition to $1,266,- 
 ooo for the deficiency of 1871. There were contingent liabilities also, 
 amounting to $4,797,000, arising from the indorsement of the bonds of rail 
 road companies. 
 
 Franklin J. Moses, Jr., was elected governor in 1872. As already stated 
 in this chapter, he was a native of South Carolina. His administration was 
 even more corrupt than that of any of his predecessors. His father, then 
 chief justice of the state supreme court, was an honorable man. Governor 
 Moses was criminally indicted while in office, but he escaped conviction on 
 some technical point in respect to the jurisdiction to try a governor in the 
 courts before his removal by impeachment. Since his retirement from 
 executive cares, ex-Governor Moses* adventures and financial exploits in 
 Northern cities have furnished the local reporters of police courts with not 
 a few disgraceful items. Had it not been for the Southern men of this and 
 the Swepson type men of high social standing (and they were in every 
 reconstructed state) , the Northern adventurers would have been far less suc 
 cessful in their spoliations. 
 
 In 1874, the former attorney -general, Daniel H. Chamberlain, was 
 elected governor. He was a native of Massachusetts, a distinguished soldier, 
 and a gentleman of scholarly and executive ability. Like Governor Ames, 
 of Mississippi, he had clean hands in financial matters ; but he was no less 
 in the toils of the spoil-hunters. Nothing short of their total dispersion 
 could give honest administration under any executive. But the change from 
 Moses to Chamberlain was a vast improvement in the dreary waste of con 
 gressional reconstruction. The new governor recommended a re-assessment 
 of property. He thought the result would be a falling off in taxable valua 
 tion amounting to $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. The deficiency of revenue 
 for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 1874, amounted to $472,619.54; and 
 that for the preceding year was $540,328. The public indebtedness, Oct. 
 31, 1874, is stated at $17,017,651.23. But this statement is based on the 
 repudiation of $5,965,000 of " conversion" bonds ; and perhaps, also, on the 
 proposed refunding of the debt contracted prior to March i, 1870, two mil 
 lions of which had already been exchanged for one million of new bonds. 
 
 The foregoing is a summary of the results of misgovernment in North 
 and South Carolina. It is all that can be presented in this place. Since 
 the world began, no parallel can be found to the unblushing knavery which 
 a complete history of carpet-bag government in these states would exhibit. 
 If the entire body of penitentiary convicts could be invested with supreme 
 
INCOMPLETE RESTORATION. 507 
 
 power in a state, they could not present a more revolting mockery of all that 
 is honorable and respectable in the conduct of human affairs . The knaves 
 .and their sympathizers, North and South, complain that the tax-payers, the 
 men of character and intelligence in South Carolina and other states, finally 
 overthrew, by unfair and by violent means, the reign of scoundrelism, en 
 throned by ignorance. If ever revolutionary methods were justifiable for the 
 overthrow of tyranny and robbery, assuredly the carpet-bag domination in 
 South Carolina called for it. Only scoundrels and hypocrites will pretend to 
 deplore the result. 
 
 Nominally North and South Carolina were restored to their full Federal 
 relations on June 25, 1868, nearly eight years after they had so violently 
 .severed them. They passed under the rod, but were not yet through the 
 defile. The act of Congress of that date imposed as conditions for rehabili 
 tation : first, that the state constitution should never be amended so as to de 
 prive any citizen or class of citizens of the right to vote who were then 
 entitled to vote ; second, that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
 of the United States should be ratified ; and third, that no person who would 
 be ineligible to office under that amendment should be eligible for state 
 office. The President vetoed the bill that made these conditions, but it was 
 passed over the veto on the above date. The vote in the House was, yeas 
 108, nays 31. North Carolina ratified the amendment on July 4, 1868, and 
 South Carolina five days after. This action included the required guarantees 
 for the colored vote and exclusion from office, and established the right to full 
 restoration in the Union, but it was not until many years after, as the fore 
 going sketch shows, and subsequent chapters set forth, that this right was 
 allowed free exercise. The Republican party did not concede it until the 
 year 1877, of Electoral Count memory, and then only in part in local affairs. 
 
CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE THIRD MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 GENERAL POPE IN COMMAND REGISTRATION AND CONVENTION IN GEORGIA 
 CONFLICT BETWEEN GOVERNOR JENKINS AND GENERAL POPE RATIFICA 
 TION OF THE CONSTITUTION GOVERNOR BULLOCK INAUGURATED COL 
 ORED MEMBERS EXPELLED FROM THE LEGISLATURE MILITARY INVES 
 TIGATIONTHE EXPELLED RE-ADMITTED THE AMENDMENTS RATIFIED 
 
 FINANCIAL CONDITION FLIGHT OF BULLOCK THE ELECTION LAW OF 
 1870 ALABAMA REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS REGISTRATION MOB 
 IN MOBILE THE CONVENTION THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION OBNOXIOUS 
 
 FAILURE OF RATIFICATION BY THE PEOPLE STATE ADMITTED NOT 
 WITHSTANDING- THE LEGISLATURE - STATE INDEBTEDNESS FLORIDA 
 REGISTRATION CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DIVISION OF THE REPUBLI 
 CANS INTO TWO FACTIONS -UNITY RESTORED, AND A CONSTITUTION VOTED 
 
 A MILITARY OFFICER ACTS AS TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF THE CONVEN 
 TIONCHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUTION ELECTION OF GOVERNOR REED 
 
 CHARGES OF FRAUD IN THE ELECTION ADMISSION OF THE STATE INTO 
 THE UNION THE LEGISLATURE PROPOSED IMPEACHMENT OF GOVERNOR 
 REED JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THE IMPEACHMENT ABANDONED NEW 
 IMPEACHMENT PROPOSED BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, AND FRAUD CHARGED 
 AGAINST THE GOVERNOR VOTE AGAINST IMPEACHMENT ACTS OF USURPA 
 TION-LEGISLATIVE LEGERDEMAIN REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE "COUNTED 
 IN" THE OSBORN RING A THIRD ATTEMPT AT IMPEACHMENT ALSO 
 FAILS THE DEMOCRATS REGAIN CONTROL OF THE STATE FINANCIAL 
 CONDITION. 
 
 IT has already been stated that Georgia, Alabama, and Florida formed the 
 Third military district under the Reconstruction acts, and that Maj.-Gen. 
 John Pope was assigned to the command of it. He announced from his 
 headquarters at Montgomery, Alabama, on April ist, that he had as 
 sumed the command of the district ; and that the sub-districts of Georgia 
 and Alabama would remain under the commanders then on duty. He fur 
 ther announced that the civil officers in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, 
 if they administered justice impartially and faithfully, would, unless otherwise 
 directed in special cases, be allowed to retain their offices until the expiration 
 of their terms of service. He expressed the hope that no necessity would 
 arise for the interposition of military authority in the civil administration. 
 
GEORGIA UNDER MILITARY RULE. 509 
 
 Civil officers would be required to adhere strictly to their official duties, and 
 to refrain from using any influence whatever tending to deter or dissuade 
 others from uniting in the work of reconstruction. He announced, also, 
 that no elections to fill vacant offices would be held pending the period of 
 reconstruction ; and that such vacancies would be filled under appointment 
 by the commanding general. On April 8, 1867, the commanding general 
 issued directions to the sub-district commanders of the three states for a 
 registration of the voters. As these directions were necessarily conformable 
 to the acts of Congress and similar to those set forth in preceding chapters, 
 it is needless to recite them here. 
 
 The result of the registration in Georgia gave 192,235 names of persons 
 entitled to vote for delegates to the constitutional convention : 96,262 were 
 white, and 95^973 were colored. The vote for a convention was 102,282, 
 and the vote against it was 4,127. As might be inferred, the largest part of 
 the vote was cast by the colored men ; probably few of them failed to exer 
 cise the privilege on that, their first opportunity. Only 36,500 of the votes 
 were cast by the whites. Of the 166 delegates chosen on the same day, 133 
 were white, and thirty-three were colored. The convention met on the 9th 
 of December, 1867, at Atlanta, and it remained in session until the 23d, 
 without entering upon the work of framing a constitution. This time was 
 spent in passing ordinances of a legislative character, and among them one 
 for the stay of executions for the sale of property. The convention memo 
 rialized Congress for the repeal of the cotton tax, and on the 23d it adjourned 
 until the 8th of January, 1868. 
 
 General Pope, who had been applied to by citizens to exercise his au 
 thority in stopping the sale of property under execution, gave an answer 
 which does him great honor. It contrasts favorably with the high-handed 
 course of other military commanders. He said: u I know of no con 
 ceivable circumstance that would induce me to interfere by military orders 
 with the great business of the state, or with the relation of debtor or creditor 
 under state laws, except perhaps in individual cases, where very manifest in 
 justice had been done. The only military orders which I have issued, or in 
 tend to issue, in this district are such as I consider necessary to the execution 
 of the Reconstruction acts." 
 
 Charles J. Jenkins, who was elected governor by the white people on 
 President Johnson's plan of reconstruction, set himself in opposition to the 
 Reconstruction acts of Congress. He endeavored to have their constitution 
 ality tested by an appeal to the Supreme Court. This course was in conflict 
 with the general order of the commander, which forbade all state officials to 
 attempt to thwart the measures of Congress. The governor's attention was 
 called to the subject by General Pope, who informed him in respectful and 
 even regretful language, that it would be necessary for him either to conform 
 to the order or to resign. The governor consented to conform. The next 
 
510 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 year he was removed by General Meade, the successor of General Pope, for 
 refusing to issue an executive warrant on the treasurer of the state for $40,- 
 ooo, to pay the members of the constitutional convention. General Meade 
 acted in accordance with the requirements of the Reconstruction acts, but 
 he treated Governor Jenkins with marked courtesy. 
 
 The constitution framed by the convention guaranteed equal rights and 
 privileges to all citizens, without distinction of race or color, abolished and 
 forever excluded slavery, and declared that Georgia should ever remain a 
 part of the American Union. These were essential conditions of restoration 
 to the Union. The constitution also provided for universal suffrage, includ 
 ing the classes that were excluded from registration and the right to vote for 
 delegates to the convention. There is no full statement of the vote on the 
 ratification of the constitution. The majority was 17,699. In the guberna 
 torial election, Bullock, the Republican candidate, received 83,146 votes,, 
 against 76,099 for the gallant John B. Gordon, the Democratic candidate. 
 
 General Meade, Feb. 22, 1868, issued a general order for carrying into 
 effect the resolutions of the convention forbidding imprisonment for debt. 
 No distinction was drawn in the resolutions, nor in the general order r 
 between ordinary cases of inability to pay, and those characterized by 
 fraudulent concealment of goods and chattels. 
 
 At the close of the session, a resolution was adopted by a majority of 102 
 to twenty-six, asking Congress to remove the political disabilities of all the 
 citizens of the state. The governor-elect, Mr. Bullock, was appointed pro 
 visional governor in place of General Ruger, by General Meade, pending the 
 decision of Congress upon the question of re-admitting the state to its 
 44 practical relation" to the Union. The legislature met on the 4th of July, 
 at which time the governor was inaugurated. The senate consisted of forty- 
 four members, and was equally divided between the two parties. The 
 house of representatives consisted of 102 Democrats and seventy-three Re 
 publicans. The senate contained three colored men, and the house twenty- 
 five. 
 
 Congress, by act of June 25, 1868, required the legislature of Georgia, as 
 conditions of restoration to the Union, to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment 
 to the United States Constitution, and to abrogate a clause of the state consti 
 tution which forbade the courts to entertain suits for debts contracted prior 
 to the first day of June, 1865. This act also prescribed as a primary con 
 dition of re-admission, that no change should ever be made in the constitution 
 whereby any citizen or class of citizens already entitled thereunder should 
 be deprived of the right to vote. All these conditions were finally com 
 plied with. 
 
 The legislature expelled all the colored members from both branches of 
 that body. This scandalous proceeding was attempted to be justified on the 
 ground that Article XI. declared valid all acts passed by any legislative 
 
INCREASE OF THE STATE DEBT. 511 
 
 body, sitting in the state as such, since the nineteenth day of January, 1861, 
 including the laws known as the Code of Georgia, and the acts amendatory 
 thereto as passed since that time, which said code and acts were embodied 
 in the printed book known as Irtvin's Code; except such of those legis 
 lative acts as might be inconsistent with the supreme law therein recognized^ 
 viz., the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The consequences of this conduct were the refusal of Congress to admit 
 the state to representation, and its re-subjection to military rule. The gov 
 ernor was authorized by Congress to require of the members who had been 
 elected to the legislature, a test oath to the effect that they had not held office 
 before the war, and afterwards participated in the rebellion. The negro 
 members were all re-admitted, and twenty-one white men were excluded by 
 a military commission of investigation. At the first session, the Fifteenth 
 Amendment to the National Constitution was rejected, for the Democratic 
 majority had not only thrown out twenty-eight colored members, but had 
 admitted as many white men of their own party to the vacant seats, they 
 having received the next highest number of votes ; thus they had deprived 
 the negroes of the right to be represented, as well as the right to act as repre 
 sentatives. Under the act of Congress remanding the state to military con 
 trol, Bullock and his friends turned the tables on their opponents, and ad 
 mitted to seats twenty-one Republicans in place of the twenty-one Democrats 
 who were pronounced disqualified, for participation in the rebellion. These 
 changes gave decided majorities to the Republicans in both houses, and both 
 the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were ratified. 
 
 Brief as was its rule, the improvised Republican party in Georgia man 
 aged to run up the public debt to three or four times the amount that had 
 been contracted prior to its accession to power. The state as it may be said 
 in view of its resources was almost free from debt at the beginning of the war. 
 The bonded debt is stated at $1,718,750, in 1861. The interest on the debt 
 was $105,890. This is the statement of the American Annual Encyclo 
 paedia for 1871. Mr. Poland's committee of investigation states that the debt 
 of Georgia in 1860 was $3,170,000, and that it amounted to $5,706,500 in 
 1865. The debt incurred in aid of the rebellion was $15,104,726 ; but this, 
 of course, was repudiated. The same authority states the debt in 1868 at 
 $6,544,500, when Bullock's Republican administration was inaugurated. 
 
 The debt and liabilities of the state, in 1872, are given as follows : 
 
 Debt, $8,618,750 
 
 Contingent and prospective liabilities for railroads, . . 30,000,000 
 
 Mr. Angier, the treasurer, who was a northern-born Republican, makes a 
 statement showing that the contingent debt was even greater than is stated 
 above. He charges Bullock with having issued $6,000,000 of state bonds 
 for which there was no need, and for the use of which he seems to have 
 
512 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 rendered no return. The ordinary expenses of the state government dur 
 ing the four years ending with 1860 averaged $318,0x50 ; while during Bul 
 lock's administration of two and a half years, commencing in 1868, the an 
 nual rate of ordinary expenditures was $858,000. It must be understood 
 that this statement of expenditures is exclusive of interest on the public debt, 
 and of appropriations for railroads or other public works, and public schools. 
 Mr. Angier states, also, that the rate of state taxation increased six-fold on 
 the amount paid in 1860. 
 
 "Governor Bullock," says the minority report of the Poland Commit 
 tee, " fled, to avoid impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. His 
 partner, Kimball, from the State of Maine, who had got to be president of 
 seven of the great railroads of the state, though a bankrupt in 1868, was 
 shorn of his power. Blodgett, who was indicted for criminal offenses, was 
 so notoriously corrupt that he could not be admitted into the Senate of the 
 United States.'* Kimball claimed that he was worth half a million. 
 
 In October, 1870, the Republican legislature passed an act providing 
 that the elections should be held from day to day, for three days, and forbade 
 any person from challenging a vote. The obvious purpose of such legisla 
 tion was to facilitate fraudulent voting by giving time for passing from one 
 precinct, or one county, to another. The act also placed it in the power of 
 the governor to prevent elections at such precincts as he should neglect to 
 appoint election managers for. 
 
 There was no public or private record kept of the ages of the negroes : 
 and even if such record evidence existed, it was subordinated by this act to 
 the apparent full age of the person claiming the right to vote. The eighth 
 section was conceived in the same spirit: " Sec. 8. They shall not permit 
 any person to challenge any vote, or hinder, or delay, or interfere with 
 any other person in the free and speedy casting of his ballot." 
 
 Maj.-Gen. Wager Swayne was placed in charge of the State of Alabama, 
 and this fact was announced in a general order, April 2, 1867. 
 
 On the 1 5th of April, General Pope, the district commander, in a special 
 order, set aside a municipal election which was held at Tuscumbia on the 
 first day of the month, in violation of orders from the general-in-chief of the 
 army. Lemuel S. Cockburn was appointed mayor of the town. On May 
 1 4th, General Swayne removed the mayor an^l city council of Selma and 
 appointed others in their places. 
 
 On May ist, the colored people, in state convention at Mobile, adopted 
 resolutions which were of a less conciliatory nature than those of former 
 meetings, and which complained of combinations among planters to refuse 
 them employment if they should unite with the Republican party. The 
 convention called on Congress to protect the laborers against such combina 
 tions. 
 
ALABAMA UNDER MILITARY RULE. 513 
 
 General Order No. 20, prescribing the mode of registration, was issued 
 May 2ist. The result of the registration was 72,748 white voters, and 88,- 
 243 colored ; total, 166,991. A census taken by the state authorities in 1866 
 returned 261,004 white males, and 214,253 colored males. According to 
 these figures, a full registration of the white men would have shown about 
 107,000. 
 
 It deserves to be noticed that a mob in Mobile, May I4th, broke up a 
 public meeting, at which Representative W. D. Kelley, of Philadelphia, 
 spoke. Two men, one white and one colored, were fatally wounded by 
 pistol shots. The disturbers of the peace, according to the statement of 
 General Swayne, were a few ruffians, while the body of the people had no 
 part in the affair. But the unruly elements in society were set in motion by 
 this event, and led to the removal of the mayor and other officers of the city, 
 and the appointment of others in their stead. 
 
 The state convention to make a new constitution was authorized by a 
 vote of 90,238, against 5,628. The election was held October ist, 2d and 3d, 
 1867. There were 100 delegates elected at the same time, of whom ninety- 
 six were Republicans, or "radicals," including seventeen colored persons, 
 and four were Democrats, or " conservatives." A revision of the registration 
 added about five thousand voters, but still the total vote cast for and against 
 the convention was little more than a majority of the whole. The convention 
 assembled November 5th, at Montgomery, in conformity with a general order 
 of General Pope. Eighty-nine members met at the time appointed, and 
 elected E. W. Peck, of Tuscaloosa, an old citizen and lawyer of Northern 
 birth, as president. He is said to have been a Union man, or an opponent 
 of secession, of Whig antecedents. A resolution requiring of members an 
 oath to support the constitution, and fidelity to the trust reposed in them, 
 was adopted. A colored member offered the following resolution, which 
 was adopted : 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That this convention do memorialize Congress to remove all 
 the political disabilities of those citizens of Alabama, at its next session, who 
 have materially aided in the reconstruction of said state on the plan proposed 
 by Congress." Another resolution, in a better spirit, was adopted, which 
 made the existing constitution of Alabama the basis of the new one, on 
 which such amendments should be engrafted as might be necessary in order 
 to conform to the new order of things, and, at the same time, secure equal 
 political rights to all, without distinction of color. General Pope was invited 
 to take a seat in the convention, and in a brief address he advised modera 
 tion in speech and in action. 
 
 A resolution calling on General Pope to supersede the government estab 
 lished under President Lincoln's policy was voted down, by yeas forty-five, 
 nays forty-two ; most of the colored men voted in the affirmative. 
 
 The constitution adopted was justly obnoxious to the white race. It 
 
514 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 disfranchised all who were denied by the Reconstruction acts the right to 
 vote for delegates to the convention. As a condition of voting, it required 
 of those who were permitted to register, an oath of recantation of all former 
 theories of secession, and it required them to vote for or against the ratifica 
 tion of the constitution. It also enjoined upon the legislature the establish 
 ment of a system of mixed common schools for white and colored children. 
 These odious features were engrafted upon the constitution by the men of 
 Northern birth, who knew that their tenure -of power depended upon keep 
 ing down the intelligent native whites. The negro members were, for the 
 most part, against the prescriptive and offensive policy. It was provided in 
 the Reconstruction acts that the constitutions to be adopted by the conven 
 tions of the' Southern States must be ratified by a majority of the registered 
 voters, as a condition precedent to their acceptance by Congress, and to the 
 re-admission of the state into fellowship in the Union ; or, as more correctly 
 stated, that a majority of the registered voters must vote on the question of 
 ratification. The language of the fifth section of the supplemental act 
 passed March 21, 1867, is as follows: 
 
 " SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That if, according to said returns, 
 the constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the votes of the registered 
 electors, qualified as herein specified, cast at said election, at least one-half 
 of all the registered voters voting upon the question of such ratification, the 
 president of the convention shall transmit a copy of the same, duly certified, 
 to the President of the United States, who shall transmit the same to Con- 
 gress." .... 
 
 The people of Alabama availed themselves of this clause in the Recon 
 struction acts to defeat the constitution by non-action. They decided not to 
 vote either for or against the constitution, and carried out their resolution to 
 that effect. 
 
 The vote, as reported by the military commander, was 69,807 for the 
 constitution, and against it only 1,005; total, 70,812. The registered vote 
 was 165,812; so that the vote for and against ratification fell far short of 
 half. When the question came before the House of Representatives in 
 March, for the admission of Alabama, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens contended that 
 it would be wrong and inconsistent on the part of Congress to admit the 
 state, in violation of the terms of the enabling act. The bill for admission 
 was accordingly recommitted, and it was decided to submit the constitution 
 to the popular vote a second time, for ratification. But two months later, 
 and before another vote was had, he voted for the admission of Alabama, 
 with North Carolina and other states, on the ground that " they have sent 
 these constitutions here, backed in every instance, even in that of Alabama,, 
 by a majority of all the voters in the state." 
 
 The act for the admission of Alabama was passed over President John 
 son's veto, and became a law, June 25, 1868. It provided as conditions of 
 
LEGISLATIVE EXTRAVAGANCE. 515 
 
 admission that the constitution of the state should never be so modified as to 
 take away the right to vote from any citizen or class of citizens to whom it 
 gave that right ; and that the legislature should ratify the Fourteenth Amend 
 ment. 
 
 W. H. Smith, who had received a majority of the votes cast for gov 
 ernor, called a session of the legislature to convene July 13. This body was 
 elected at the time the vote was cast on the question of ratification, when the 
 Democrats abstained from voting ; the members were, therefore, all Repub 
 licans. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of 
 the United States were ratified by both houses. Governor Smith recom 
 mended the removal of all political disabilities ; and made an earnest appeal 
 to the members in behalf of popular education. Among the first acts passed 
 was one in regard to the pay of members and officers of the legislature. 
 The members, composed of Northern adventurers, needy white natives, and 
 some thirty men of color, voted themselves $8 per day, the secretary $10, 
 the assistant secretary $8, door-keeper $6, pages $4, chaplain $4, president 
 of the senate $12, sergeant-at-arms $6 ; mileage, 80 cents. But the governor 
 vetoed this bill. 
 
 This legislature, chosen by a minority of the people, passed a bill in 
 tended to relieve the people from the trouble of voting for President and 
 Vice-President of the United States, by assuming that duty themselves. 
 But this benevolent purpose was defeated, also, by the executive veto. 
 After an adjournment for a few weeks the governor issued a call for the re 
 assembling of the legislature, to provide for a new registration of the voters 
 with reference to the Presidential election. An act to this effect was passed ; 
 and as a guarantee of free and fair voting, it was made a misdemeanor for 
 any person to challenge a voter. The Democrats took an active part in this 
 election, but General Grant received a majority over Mr. Seymour of 2,480 
 votes, in a total vote of 148,452. This Republican triumph occurred after 
 the troops had been withdrawn, and after the military had been superseded 
 by the civil rule. 
 
 The first legislature elected under the new constitution contained several 
 members who could neither read nor write. The constitution fixed the term 
 of state senators at four years. One half were to go out every two years, and 
 those chosen at the first election were required by the constitution to draw lots 
 for the long and short terms. But it was determined, by a vote of sixteen to 
 ten, that all should hold over, in spite of the constitution. The same legis 
 lature, without a shadow of authority, and in violation of the constitution, 
 voted to declare vacant all the municipal offices of Mobile. The governor, 
 Smith, who had done well in other things, was so weak as to sign this out 
 rageous measure. The mayor and other officers were Republicans ; but 
 they were not radical enough. 
 
 The election in November, 1870, resulted favorably to the Democrats* 
 
516 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 They elected the governor and a large majority of the house of representa 
 tives. The senators held over, as has been explained. 
 
 The highest votes polled at this election by the opposing parties were, 
 78,682 for the Democratic candidate for lieutenant-governor, and 76,292 for 
 the Republican candidate for governor, making a total of 154,974. Lindsay, 
 the Democratic candidate for governor, defeated Smith, the Republican, by 
 1,441 votes. The election passed off quietly, but it was not acquiesced in 
 without a struggle. The state superintendent of public instruction, Mr. 
 Cloud, refused to yield the office to his successful rival, Mr. Hodgson, on the 
 ground that the latter had sent a challenge to fight a duel. 
 
 The vote having been counted by the assembly, and Lindsay having been 
 recognized as governor, Smith at length yielded. 
 
 The minority report of the Poland Committee sums up the actual and 
 contingent indebtedness of Alabama at the beginning of the year 1872, as 
 follows : 
 
 The direct bonded indebtedness of Alabama is . . $5,442,300 oo 
 
 The indebtedness on account of the school fund is . . 2,795,995 5 
 Outstanding certificates, auditor's warrants, and temporary 
 
 loan, 623,672 32 
 
 The total, $8,861,967 37 
 
 To this must be added amount borrowed by Governor Lind 
 say to pay the interest on Alabama and Chattanooga 
 bonds, ... ...... $545,000 oo 
 
 Altogether these items foot up, $9,406,967 37 
 
 The contingent liabilities of the state on bonds indorsed for 
 
 nine railroad companies are stated to be . . . $15,420,000 oo 
 
 The minority report states that $7,300,000 of these bonds had, up to that 
 date, virtually become a part of the direct indebtedness of the state. They 
 were issued in favor of the Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad, which com 
 pany had gone into the hands of a receiver. 
 
 The majority report endeavors to divide the responsibility for extravagant 
 appropriations between the two parties in Alabama ; and it is undoubtedly 
 true that a wild spirit of railroad building existed among the people. But 
 the peculation seems to have been monopolized by the Republicans. The 
 Democrats, in 1867, were responsible for the scheme of encouraging rail 
 road building by a general offer of $12,000 per mile. But the execution of 
 the act fell to the hands of the Republicans, who the next year increased the 
 offer of state aid to $16,000 per mile ; while the Republican governor disre- 
 
FLORIDA UNDER MILITARY RULE. 517 
 
 garded the limitations and conditions of the grants, in his liberal distribution 
 of the bounty. 
 
 The State of Florida, part of the Third military district, under the com 
 mand of Maj.-Gen. John Pope, was, as a sub-district, placed under the con 
 trol, for reconstruction purposes, of Col. John T. Sprague, of the Seventh 
 United States Infantry. His headquarters were at Tallahassee. The regis 
 tration showed 11,148 white voters, and 15,434 colored voters; total, 26,- 
 582. The votes cast on the question of a constitutional convention were 14,- 
 503, all but 203 being for the convention. The convention met on the 2Oth 
 of January, 1868. Of the forty-six delegates composing it, all but three 
 were Republicans. This included eighteen colored men. Its first president 
 was a New-Yorker. He was named Richards. He subsequently turned out 
 to be ineligible and was expelled from the body. He was succeeded by 
 Horatio Jenkins after the military commander, Colonel Sprague, had inter 
 vened to reconcile the two discordant factions into which the Republicans 
 were split, and had even officiated as temporary chairman. These facts 
 make up a serio-comic presentation of politics, as to which the writer cannot 
 take part, without making history ludicrous. 
 
 The constitution that was subsequently framed by this body, though too 
 long for a fundamental law, was perhaps the most liberal and rational of 
 any of those made during that prolific period of fundamental fooling. Suf 
 frage was to be universal ; and the judges and all state officers were to be 
 appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. The vote on 
 the ratification of the constitution took place on the first Monday, Tuesday, 
 and Wednesday in May. It resulted : for ratification, 14,520; against ratifi 
 cation, 9,491. Harrison Reed, who was a man of Northern birth and had 
 settled in Florida at the close of the war, was elected governor by a vote of 
 14,170; Scott, conservative, receiving 7,852, and Walker, 2,262. 
 
 The result of the legislative election was, that the senate was composed 
 of nine Republicans and two Democrats, and the house of thirty-three 
 Republicans and seven Democrats. The legislature met on the first of 
 June. It ratified the Fourteenth Amendment as required by the Recon 
 struction acts. The re-admission of the state to representation in Congress 
 was accomplished by the act of Congress of June 25, 1868, upon the same 
 essential conditions respecting the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 
 and perpetuity of the right to the ballot which were imposed in the case 
 of Alabama. Four days afterwards, General Meade succeeded General Orr. 
 The former gave orders to turn over all the state offices to the newly con 
 stituted state government. 
 
 The states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida 
 had now undergone the process of reconstruction. It was announced from 
 the War Department that the Second and Third military districts, which 
 
518 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 comprised those states, had ceased to exist. The ceremony of the surren 
 der of the military and provisional governments in the State of Florida, and 
 of the installation of the newly-elected state officers, took place in Tallahas 
 see on the 4th of July, 1868, in the presence of the legislature. 
 
 The session of the legislature lasted two months. An adjournment took 
 place till the 3d of November. On that day, the governor, for some inex 
 plicable reason, issued a proclamation calling an extraordinary session of the 
 legislature for eight o'clock the same evening. 
 
 Horatio Jenkins, who had headed the revolt against Richards, the first 
 president of the convention, proposed to impeach Governor Reed because the 
 latter had declared the seats of Jenkins and of three other members of the 
 legislature vacant on the ground that they held state offices the constitu 
 tion expressly forbidding the combination of such functions in the same per 
 son. Jenkins, although a member of the senate, the tribunal before which 
 the impeachment should be tried, appeared before the house of representa 
 tives, and presented articles of impeachment against the governor. They 
 charged him with falsehood and lying, with signing commissions in blank 
 and allowing irresponsible persons to issue them, with declaring seats in the 
 legislature vacant, contrary to the right of the matter, with embezzlement of 
 state securities and money, and finally with corruption and bribery in the dis 
 tribution of offices. The house promptly voted the articles of impeachment ; 
 yeas 25, nays 7.. The senate was informed thereof with the usual formalities. 
 A committee was appointed to wait on the lieutenant-governor, inform him- 
 of the proceedings against the governor, and invite him to assume the duties 
 of the executive as provided for in the constitution. On the same day, No 
 vember 6th, the lieutenant-governor, W. H. Gleason, issued a proclamation 
 announcing the impeachment of the governor by the house of representatives 
 and the lieutenant-governor's assumption of the executive duties. The next 
 day, November ^th, the house adopted a joint resolution for an adjournment 
 to the first Monday in January, 1869. But the senate refused to concur. 
 The acting governor sent a message to the two houses, proroguing them to 
 the day named in the resolution. 
 
 In disregard of the impeachment proceedings, Governor Reed continued 
 to exercise the executive duties. He based his action on the ground that 
 the senate had no quorum, and that consequently no legislature had assem 
 bled in obedience to the call. Mr. Alden, the secretary of state, recognized 
 Mr. Gleason as acting governor, and co-operated with him in the admin 
 istration of affairs. Governor Reed treated Alden's course as equivalent to 
 resignation. He appointed Jonathan C. Gibbs, a colored man, in his stead. 
 At the same time, the governor laid all the circumstances before the supreme 
 court of the state, and requested answers to these questions: ist, whether 
 the legislature, consisting of a senate and assembly, had convened in extraor 
 dinary session on November 3d ; and 2d, whether the proceedings in his im- 
 
FLORIDA UNDER CARPET-BAG RULE. 5l(y 
 
 peachment were legal and binding on him, compelling him to surrender the 
 executive office. The court concurred substantially in the opinion of Asso 
 ciate Justice James D. Westcott, which was in these words : " It is therefore 
 my opinion that, on the facts submitted in your communication, and upon the 
 .authorities and precedents cited, twelve senators did not constitute a quorum 
 to do business ; and hence that there was no senate within the meaning of 
 this clause of the constitution ; and that a legislature of the State of Florida, 
 consisting of a senate and assembly vested with the legislative authority 
 of the state, did not convene in extraordinary session under your procla 
 mation of Nov. 3, 1868." There seems to have been no doubt expressed by 
 the supreme court about its authority to render an opinion in the case. But, 
 in the suit of ouster against Mr. Gleason, on a writ of quo ivarranto on the 
 ground that he was ineligible, being a non-resident of Florida, he denied 
 the jurisdiction of the court. This plea availed him nothing, however, and 
 a judgment of ouster was rendered against him, restraining him from exercis 
 ing the functions of the office of lieutenant-governor. From that decision 
 Mr. Gleason appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. A 
 " citation writ" was granted him by Justice Miller, returnable on the first 
 Monday in December, 1869. The legal effect of this writ was to continue 
 Gleason in office, pending the case before that court ; but, practically, it 
 availed nothing, as the impeachment was abandoned by the assembly. It 
 was even ignored by both branches of the legislature, at the next session, 
 Jan. 5, 1869. 
 
 The vacant seats in the senate having been filled by a special election, 
 that body met in January with a quorum of members. The character of 
 both branches of the legislature had undergone a change in the brief interval 
 between Nov. 7, 1868, and Jan. 5, 1869. Governor Reed was recognized 
 without a murmur. It was as if nothing had happened. The house of 
 representatives, which so lately had acted as the grand inquest to impeach, 
 .and the senate, which had prepared itself as a tribunal to try the governor, 
 were quiescent. The senate adopted the following resolutions, which com 
 pletely ignored the existence of the called session of November : 
 
 "Resolved, That the senate recognize no other journal of its proceedings 
 for this session than the journal commencing Tuesday, Jan. 5, 1869; and 
 that all other so-called journals be expunged from its records." 
 
 In the house of representatives, which, without inquiry into their truth, 
 had been so swift to impeach the governor on the charges made by Jenkins, 
 the following resolution was adopted as its first official act in January : 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the speaker to 
 wait upon His Excellency, Harrison Reed, and notify him that the assembly 
 is in session and ready to receive any communication which he may wish 
 to make." On the second day of this session, January 6th, the assembly 
 .adopted a resolution for the appointment of a committee of five to inquire 
 
520 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 into and investigate the conduct, acts and doings of the governor, and to 
 report the results of its investigation. Thus, having condemned the gov 
 ernor and arraigned him at the bar of the senate as a criminal, the assembly, 
 within two months thereafter, appointed a committee to investigate the 
 charges and report the facts. 
 
 The legislature adopted a concurrent resolution on the 7th of January, 
 politely informing " his excellency" that the two houses were ready to pro 
 ceed to business, and inviting him to make any communication he might 
 think proper on the state of public affairs. Accordingly the governor ad 
 dressed them in conciliatory terms upon the improved tone of public feeling. 
 He said words to encourage all prospects of material development. The 
 committee which had been appointed to investigate the conduct of the gov 
 ernor made its report on the 26th of January. The assembly, having lis 
 tened to the reading of the testimony, declared, by a vote of forty-three yeas 
 to five nays, that there was nothing to justify an impeachment. This was a 
 ridiculous conclusion of the portentous proceedings begun on November 6th. 
 
 The governor, however, had managed to escape only one impeachment. 
 He fell into another. It was a more serious one. A committee appointed 
 at the legislative session which convened on Jan. 4, 1870, reported certain 
 testimony. It showed that he had received and appropriated to his own use 
 $5,000, on a deposit of $100,000 of state bonds with Messrs. Soulter & Co., 
 of New-York, and that this sum was part of a bribe of $12,500 given him by 
 George W. Swepson, of North Carolina, in consideration of his calling a spe 
 cial session of the legislature and agreeing to exert his influence in favor of cer 
 tain railroad legislation. Comprised in the testimony was a letter from Swep 
 son to Reed, dated Raleigh, May 31, 1869. It contained an explicit, but dam 
 aging statement : " You remember when in New- York, our agreement was 
 this : You were to call the legislature together and use your influence to have 
 our bills passed as drawn by us ; and if you were successful in this you were 
 to be paid $12,500 in cash, out of which amount was to be deducted the 
 $7,500 you have heretofore received, leaving a balance of $5,000 to be 
 paid at an early day. Should our bills as drawn pass, we want you to go 
 to New-York and sign and issue to us the state bonds, and receive the bonds 
 of our road in exchange for them." 
 
 The committee also reported that Reed had wrongfully appropriated the 
 sum of $1,140 belonging to the Internal Improvement fund; also, that a 
 sum of $6,948 belonging to the state, which Reed had received in "United 
 States currency," he had paid over to the treasurer in "state scrip," then 
 at a depreciation of ten per cent, below par; also, that a sum of $22,500 
 received by him as the proceeds of $30,000 of state bonds, sold for state 
 purposes, had been turned over by him to the treasurer in depreciated 
 scrip, and that in the purchase of rifles, for which this money was to be 
 used, he had made an overcharge of from $3.00 to $3.50 each. 
 
FLORIDA UNDER CARPET-BAG RULE. 521 
 
 In view of all these facts, the committee reported a resolution of impeach 
 ment of Governor Reed, for "high crimes and misdemeanors, malfeasance T 
 and incompetency in office." Mr. William H. White, as a minority of one, 
 presented his own views. These were to the effect that, while the conduct 
 of the governor had been in some instances informal, irregular, and indis 
 creet, particularly in connection with financial matters, these irregularities 
 were palliated, or perhaps excused, by a lack of co-operation and accord be 
 tween the governor and a portion of his cabinet ; and he offered a resolution 
 declaring that in view of the explanations offered, and of attending circum 
 stances, there was no sufficient evidence to warrant the impeachment. The 
 "explanations" referred to by Mr. White are not to be found in the report 
 of the committee's proceedings. The "attending circumstances" of the 
 assembly must have been similar to those which befogged the intellect and 
 conscience of Governor Reed, for the minority report, in the face of the 
 clearest evidence, which was not rebutted in any particular, was adopted by 
 yeas 27, nays 22. 
 
 The effort to impeach Governor Reed thus failed. Its promoters were 
 members of the Republican party. They are reported to have expressed the 
 sentiment, in a caucus held the next day, "to harmonize Republicans and 
 to concentrate Republican effort," that " they had been fairly and thoroughly 
 whipped " ; that they " accepted the result both as a finality and as directory 
 of the wishes of the party" ; that they had " misunderstood the wishes of the 
 party " ; and they pledged themselves to sustain Mr. Reed's administration. 
 If this report can be relied upon, these penitent impeachers were as bas* 
 as the man whom they charged with having embezzled the public money. 
 
 Between acts of embezzlement and acts of usurpation, the governor 
 seemed resolved to make his administration memorable. His next movement 
 in the latter line was the " appointment" of a lieutenant-governor. He sent 
 a message to the senate on the twenty-fourth day of January. It notified 
 that body that he had "appointed" Edmund C. Weeks lieutenant-gov 
 ernor in place of William H. Gleason, declared ineligible by a decision of 
 the supreme court, on the ground of non-citizenship. The senate, how 
 ever, repudiated the appointment. It ordered the sergeant-at-arms to arrest 
 the usurper if he should undertake to assume the chair. Weeks, however, 
 deemed " discretion the better part of valor." He did nothing to provoke 
 arrest. Another extraordinary circumstance in which the governor was con 
 cerned, was in connection with a bill in relation to agricultural land scrip. 
 A bill of similar title was signed by the proper officers of both houses, and 
 by the governor, while the bill which had really been passed on that subject 
 had not got any farther in its legislative progress than the Committee on 
 Enrolled Bills. It had not even been enrolled. When the governor pre 
 sented himself at Washington to realize the scrip for which the bill pro 
 vided, he learned that this little act of legislative legerdemain had been 
 
 33 
 
522 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 made known to the Secretary of the Interior, and that the device would not 
 work. 
 
 In these matters Governor Reed was no worse, and no better, than the 
 legislators and politicians with whom he co-operated. In an election held 
 on the 8th of November, 1870, for members of the legislature, lieutenant-gov 
 ernor, and members of Congress, the Republican candidates were "counted 
 in" by the returning board. It was done by the rejection of votes in nine 
 Democratic counties, on the pretense of " glaring informalities, and non-com 
 pliance with the law." The matter was brought before the supreme court 
 of the state. That tribunal issued a writ commanding the returning board 
 to count the rejected votes. But the writ was not obeyed. The rejected 
 votes were not counted. The result of the election, therefore, was, that in 
 the senate there were eleven Republicans and ten Democrats ; and in the 
 assembly, twenty-three Republicans and twenty Democrats ; that Josiah T. 
 Wales, a colored man, was the Representative in Congress, and S. T. Day 
 the lieutenant-governor. The rejection of the votes in the nine counties was 
 attributed by leading Democrats to the influence of the " Osborn Ring." 
 This ring derived its name from Thomas W. Osborn, United States Senator 
 from Florida. The opinion which Reed and Osborn entertained of each 
 other may be gathered from a speech made by the former at Tallahassee, in 
 1870, pending his impeachment. In it he says : 
 
 4 'And how had I offended Senator Osborn? I had refused to make ap 
 pointments at his dictation . . . and I had blocked one of his schemes 
 for plunder. He proposed to me that we should obtain from the United 
 States Government the grant of a large tract of land at Pensacola for the state, 
 and that I should then influence the surveyor-general that this land might 
 be sold at a mere nominal price to Senator Osborn. I refused to counte 
 nance this scheme ; and so I must be removed, that a more pliant tool 
 might take my place, and the ring might plunder to its heart's content." 
 
 A third attempt to remove Governor Reed by impeachment was made in 
 February, 1872. The assembly presented articles of impeachment, and 
 the senate resolved itself into a court to try them. Fourteen charges were 
 brought against him, including those which had been the subject of the 
 previous investigation. The new charges were of the same general charac 
 ter bribery, appropriation of state money to his own use, and fraudulent 
 conspiracy with railroad managers and others to cheat and rob the state in 
 connection with the issue of state bonds. Governor Reed announced his 
 readiness to meet the charges ; but the impeachment managers applied for 
 a continuation of the trial, to give them time to collect evidence and bring 
 witnesses from distant states. This application being denied, and the man 
 agers being unprepared to proceed with the trial, the court and legislature 
 adjourned. 
 
 Immediately on the adjournment of the legislature, Governor Reed 
 claimed the right to resume his executive functions, which (as the constitu- 
 
STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION. 523 
 
 tion required) he had had to yield to Lieutenant-Governor Day, on being 
 impeached. But Day showed no disposition to surrender them. Reed, 
 taking advantage of Day's temporary absence from the capital, stepped into 
 the executive office at Tallahassee, got possession of the great seal of the 
 state, and issued a proclamation announcing his resumption of the executive 
 office. He did this on the ground that the abandonment of the impeach 
 ment proceedings was equivalent to his discharge from constructive arrest. 
 This was on the 8th of April, 1872. On the fifteenth, Lieutenant-Gov 
 ernor Day issued a counter-proclamation. It asserted his right to the office 
 of governor. It denounced Reed as a usurper, and his proceedings as rebel 
 lious. Reed submitted the question to the supreme court of the state. 
 The majority of the judges decided adversely to his claim. They held that 
 his impeachment was still pending before the senate ; and that, until final 
 action by that tribunal, he was, within the meaning of the constitution, sus 
 pended. 
 
 Day was equally unfortunate in his movement. When Reed appealed to 
 the court, Day, as acting governor, summoned the legislature in extraor 
 dinary session. The impeachment proceedings were thus resumed before 
 the managers were ready. The consequence was an immediate acquittal 
 of Reed, and his restoration to office, so that each in turn was "hoist by his 
 own petard." Each was indebted to the other for the degree of success 
 achieved. The lieutenant-governor might have held the office of governor 
 for months longer possibly through the term if he had not precipitated 
 the impeachment trial by calling the legislature together in extraordinary 
 session. This was the presidential year. General Grant was the Republi 
 can candidate. The Republicans carried the state by larger majorities than 
 they had two years before. The Grant electors received 17^7^3 v tes ; 
 the Greeley electors only 15,427. The Republican candidate for governor, 
 Mr. Hart, received 17,603 votes, and the Democratic candidate, Mr. Blox- 
 ham, 16,004. The Republican candidates for Congress were elected by 
 about the same majorities. The state senate consisted of thirteen Republi 
 cans and eleven Democrats, and the assembly of twenty-eight Republicans 
 and twenty-four Democrats the Republicans thus having a majority of six 
 on joint ballot. 
 
 The new legislature met on the i7th of January, 1873. It proceeded to 
 the election of a United States Senator in place of Mr. Osborn. The choice 
 fell on Simon B. Conover. He was speaker of the assembly, and late state 
 treasurer. He was a native of New Jersey, of a most approved family 
 from Monmouth County. 
 
 The measure of this session bearing on the question of reconstruction 
 was an act "to protect the citizens of Florida in their civil rights." It 
 provided that no person should be excluded, by reason of race, color, or 
 previous condition of servitude, from hotels, theatres, or other places of 
 amusement, from traveling in public conveyances, from cemeteries, or from 
 
524 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 public schools. All such attempts to enforce social intercourse between 
 classes that have no affinities have been a failure, although backed by laws 
 of Congress and of "reconstructed" states. They are now practically 
 abandoned because of the righteous adverse decisions of the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. 
 
 The Republicans elected the two congressmen in 1874. The legislative 
 election was in favor of the Democrats. They had a majority of four on 
 joint ballot. The Democratic party was thus enabled to take control of 
 public affairs. They elected a Democrat, Charles W. Jones, to the United 
 States Senate, in place of Gilbert, Republican. Senator Jones is of Irish 
 descent, of stalwart form, gentle manners, accomplished talent, rare genius 
 for law and comprehension of fact and philosophy. He was one of the 
 first to aid in lifting the South out of its quagmire. 
 
 Governor Hart died in March, 1874, and was succeeded by the lieuten 
 ant-governor, M. L. Stearns. 
 
 The financial condition of Florida, in 1872, is thus stated in a congres 
 sional report of that period : 
 
 Debts and old railroad liabilities, $2,556,072 
 
 Increase since 1868, 1,032,215 
 
 Contingent liabilities for railroads (secured) , . . 4,000,000 
 
 Prospective contingent liabilities (to be secured) , . . 10,000,000 
 
 $17,588,287 
 
 The four-million-dollar item represents state bonds bearing interest at 
 eight per centum. They were issued to the Jacksonville, Pensacola and 
 Mobile Railroad Company in exchange for first mortgage bonds of the com 
 pany to the same amount. Their issue furnished one of those splendid op 
 portunities for robbing the state and for enriching their manipulators that 
 were so much in vogue about the same period in nearly all the " recon 
 structed" states. It was in connection with them that some of the charges 
 of fraud were made against Governor Reed in the impeachment proceedings. 
 In his message of Jan. 4, 1872, Governor Reed referred to these same bonds 
 as having been entrusted by the company " to one of the firms of swindlers 
 who abound in New- York, who by fraud and villainy have diverted much of 
 the proceeds." He had, however, placed the whole four thousand bonds, 
 which nominally represented $1,000 each, or $4,000,000 in the aggregate, in 
 the hands of his particeps, M. S. Littlefield. This notorious sharper had 
 sold them to a London broker at the rate of JCioo, or $500 each ; so that, 
 as they bore eight per cent, interest, the people of Florida were thus bouncl 
 to pay for the money which was received on these bonds, and which was 
 largely diverted from its legitimate purpose, interest at the rate of sixteen 
 per centum. The experience of Florida in this respect was not different 
 from that of Arkansas, Louisiana, and other "reconstructed" states. 
 
CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FOURTH MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION THE DEMOCRATS ALLOW THE ELECTION FOR 
 CONVENTION TO GO BY DEFAULT APPREHENSIONS OF A NEGRO OUTBREAK 
 
 COURT-MARTIALING OF A NEWSPAPER EDITOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
 CONVENTION LIBERAL COMPENSATION TO DELEGATES AND OFFICERS 
 GENERAL AMES APPOINTED PROVISIONAL GOVERNOR, AND GOVERNOR HUM 
 PHREYS OUSTED AT THE POINT OF THE BAYONET THE CONSTITUTION 
 DEFEATED EX-SENATOR BROWN'S EXPLANATION OF THE VOTE MODERA 
 TION IN POLITICS OBNOXIOUS FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION ELIMI 
 NATEDTHE CONSTITUTION RATIFIED CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRESI 
 DENT GRANT AND JUDGE DENT THE FALL ELECTION OF 1869 JAMES L. 
 ALCORN CHOSEN GOVERNOR HE DECLINES THE "PROVISIONAL" APPOINT 
 MENTELECTIONS TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE A COLORED SENATOR 
 
 ADMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI TO THE UNION MEETING OF THE LEGISLA 
 TUREGOVERNOR ALCORN'S INAUGURAL A MURDER CASE THE NEW 
 CONSTITUTION THE ELECTORS OF 1871 CENSUS AND TAXATION DEMO 
 CRATIC VICTORY IN 1875 ARKANSAS HIGH-HANDED MILITARY INTERFER 
 ENCE WITH STATE OFFICIALS -THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ELEC 
 TION FRAUDS CHARGES OF FRAUD ON ONE SIDE, AND OF INTIMIDATION ON 
 THE OTHER MILITARY RULE TERMINATED, AND THE STATE RESTORED TO 
 THE UNION FUNDING THE PUBLIC DEBT THE HOLFORD BONDS HOSTILITY 
 BETWEEN GOVERNOR CLAYTON AND LIEUT.-GOV. JOHNSON THE FALL 
 ELECTION OF 1872 MORE WHOLESALE FRAUDS THE BAXTER-BROOKS CON 
 FLICTADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1874 THE PARTIES AND THEIR 
 LEADERS EXCHANGING POSITIONS PRESIDENT GRANT CHANGES WITH 
 THEM REPORT OF THE POLAND INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE STATE 
 FINANCES. 
 
 GENERAL E. O. C. Ord was appointed commander of the Fourth 
 military district. It consisted of the states of Mississippi and 
 Arkansas. His headquarters were at Vicksburg. He entered 
 on his duties on the twenty-sixth of March, 1867. In a general 
 order, dated April 15, he stated that elections to fill vacancies in state offices 
 would not take place until a registration of voters had been made, and that 
 in the meantime he would fill such vacancies by appointment. He advised 
 the freedmen that their most important duty was to labor for the support of 
 themselves and their families, and not to neglect that duty for politics. 
 
526 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The result of the registration in Mississippi showed that there were 46, 636 
 white registered voters, and 60,167 colored ones. An election was then held, 
 for and against a state convention, and for delegates thereto. The whites 
 complained that the selection of delegates was unfairly made, so as to 
 give a large preponderance to the negroes. They were for a time divided 
 in opinion as to the utility of making any opposition to the Republicans. 
 They therefore allowed the election to go practically by default. There 
 were only 6,277 votes, out of a total of 76,076, cast against a convention. 
 
 In December, 1867, the provisional governor, Benjamin G. Humphreys, 
 found it necessary to call upon General Ord for assistance in preventing a 
 violent outbreak of the blacks. The blacks had been led by demagogues to 
 expect that lands would be confiscated and distributed among them. He 
 also issued a proclamation against threatened combinations and conspiracies 
 among the blacks to seize lands and establish farms. General Ord gave 
 orders for the arrest of all persons engaged in such unlawful enterprises, and 
 of all white men who should advise negroes to unlawful acts. These vigor 
 ous measures had the desired effect. The reckless schemes were abandoned. 
 
 A disturber of the peace among the whites was W. H. McCardle. He 
 was the editor of a Vicksburg newspaper. He was arrested and court-mar 
 tialed on charges of publishing articles intended to incite the people to a 
 breach of the peace, and to impede reconstruction. Judge Hill, of the 
 United States District Court, issued a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of 
 McCardle. To this General Ord made return, setting forth the facts ; and 
 that the prisoner was held by the authority of the acts of Congress known as 
 the Reconstruction acts. Judge Hill ruled that those acts were valid and 
 constitutional. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. That court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 
 
 The constitutional convention met in Jackson on the 7th of July, 1868. 
 It continued in session until the i8th of May. It contained a large Republi 
 can majority. B. B. Eggleston was elected president. He was an Ohio 
 man. The delegates showed a liberal appreciation of their services by voting 
 themselves a compensation of $10 a day; $20 a day to the president; $15 
 each to the secretary and reporter ; $10 to the sergeant-at-arms, and $2. 50 to 
 the pages. There was considerable opposition to this scale of compensation, 
 but the dissatisfied were regarded as almost guilty of treason, and as deserv 
 ing of expulsion. A committee was appointed to prepare a memorial to 
 Congress, asking for power to remove the state officials appointed or elected 
 under the provisional government and to appoint others in their stead. A 
 protest against this memorial, repelling the charge that the provisional gov 
 ernment was in the hands of the rebels, and that the lives and property of 
 loyal men were insecure, was signed by fifteen members, but it was not 
 allowed to be entered on the journal. The convention, by a vote of fifty to 
 nineteen, ordered the protest to be "wrapped in brown paper and returned 
 to its author." 
 
MISSISSIPPI UNDER MILITARY RULE. 527 
 
 General Ord was, on June 4, 1868, succeeded in the command of the 
 Fourth military district by Gen. Irwin McDowell. This officer, on the 
 fifteenth of the same month, issued a general order removing Governor Hum 
 phreys, and appointing Maj-Gen. Adelbert Ames provisional governor 
 in his place. At the same time, Capt. Jasper Myers was appointed attor 
 ney-general of the state, instead of Charles E. Hooker, removed. General 
 Ames notified Governor Humphreys of the change ordered, and requested to 
 be informed when it would be convenient to make the necessary arrangements. 
 Governor Humphreys replied that he regarded the general order as a 
 " usurpation of the civil government of Mississippi, unwarranted by, and in 
 violation of the Constitution of the United States." He stated that he had tele 
 graphed to the President, and was authorized to say that the President dis 
 approved the order. He, therefore, refused to vacate the office. In this 
 case, however, the power of the President, though " Commander-in-chief of 
 the Army and Navy," was subordinate to that of his inferior officer. The 
 commander of the Fourth military district was backed by Congress. Gov 
 ernor Humphreys was ousted from his office at the point of the bayonet. 
 General Ames, of Maine, took possession of the governor's house, and of all 
 the public buildings and archives. 
 
 The white population of Mississippi was, almost universally, opposed to 
 the reconstruction measures. Although in a voting minority, the whites were 
 able to defeat the ratification of the constitution which was the work of the 
 convention. The obnoxious clauses of that instrument were those relating to 
 suffrage and eligibility to office. In general terms suffrage was declared to be 
 universal ; but persons offering to register were required to swear that they 
 were not disfranchised by any of the Reconstruction acts. No one who was 
 not a qualified elector was eligible to any public office. The same disquali 
 fications were extended to such members of the legislature as had voted for 
 the call of the convention that passed the ordinance of secession ; to all who 
 had voted for, or signed, such ordinance ; and to all who had aided or coun 
 tenanced the rebellion unless they had afterwards aided reconstruction by 
 voting for the constitutional convention, and had, in good faith, advocated its 
 acts. Private soldiers of the Confederate army were, however, exempted 
 from this exclusion from office. 
 
 This clumsy and contradictory proscription went even beyond the restric 
 tions of the Reconstruction acts. A quiet citizen who had managed to keep 
 out of the fight, but had given aid, comfort, countenance, or counsel to the 
 rebellion, was placed in a worse situation than the man who had fought in 
 the ranks. And even the worst cases of treason and rebellion were condoned 
 by voting for the convention and continuously supporting the reconstruction 
 measures. It is not at all surprising that the white people in Mississippi 
 united in an effort to defeat such a constitution. Ttye intelligent and re 
 spectable colored men sympathized with them. 
 
528 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The total vote on ratification was 120,091, of which 56,231 were for the 
 constitution, and 63,860 against it. This showed an opposition majority of 
 7,629. Benjamin G. Humphreys, the Democratic candidate for governor, 
 was elected. He received 63,321 votes, against 55,250 for the Republican 
 candidate, B. B. Eggleston. Four of the five congressmen elected at the 
 same time were Democrats. The Democrats had a small majority in the 
 legislature. 
 
 Ex-United States Senator Albert G. Brown appeared before the congres 
 sional reconstruction committee as a representative of the Democratic party. 
 He is the statesman referred to in our early chapters. He testified that pro 
 found quiet prevailed in all parts of Mississippi ; that there was not a state in 
 the Union where the law was administered more impartially, or where the 
 civil courts had a higher regard for the rights of men of all parties and of all 
 colors. He stated that the people were willing to submit to the Reconstruc 
 tion acts of Congress, if those acts were fairly carried out. The proposed 
 constitution had been defeated, he said, not by fraud and intimidation, as 
 had been alleged, but distinctly because it was more vindictive in its spirit 
 than the people, white or black, would tolerate. It was more prescrip 
 tive than the acts of Congress required. He said that the Republican candi 
 dates were defeated because they stood as the representatives of the tone of 
 the constitution, and not because they were trying to reflect the will of Con 
 gress. He declared that if Congress would take up the rejected constitution 
 of 1868, and so amend it as to make it conform to the requirements of the 
 fourteenth article of the Reconstruction acts, the people would accept it with 
 unparalleled unanimity. They would not, however, he said, willingly accept 
 as officers the men who had been rejected with the constitution, because those 
 men stood as the exponents of that constitution and were pledged to carry 
 out all its vindictive and proscriptive features. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed by Congress early in March, 1869. It de 
 clared that the offices held in Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi by persons 
 who could not take the test oath prescribed by the act of July 2, 1862, should 
 be vacated. It declared also that the commanders of the military districts 
 embracing those states should fill such offices by the appointment of persons 
 who could take the test oath. An exception was made in favor of those whose 
 disabilities had been removed. This joint resolution was carried into effect 
 in Mississippi by a general order of General Ames. It was dated March 
 23d. Another general order was issued requiring that men of color should 
 be received by the courts as competent jurors. 
 
 Considering the ardent temperament of the Mississippi character and the 
 profoundly important questions at issue, the politics of the state took a singu 
 lar turn. Moderation became the order of the day. Eggleston and his asso 
 ciates, who had framed the constitution of May, 1868, and who had made it 
 so proscriptive that it was disapproved by- General Grant and a majority of 
 
RIVAL REPUBLICAN PARTIES. 529 
 
 Congress, were thrown overboard by the Republican party ; while the Dem 
 ocratic party, which had urged affairs to the opposite extreme, had the good 
 sense to stand aside in favor of the "National Union Republican Party." 
 President Grant, under the authority of Congress, issued a proclamation 
 ordering a new election on the question of ratification of the constitution, 
 in which the sections containing the obnoxious features that had been pointed 
 out were submitted for a separate vote. The result was that all these were 
 rejected by large majorities. The constitution itself, thus amended by exec 
 utive pruning, was ratified. It was ratified by an almost unanimous vote. 
 There were only 954 votes against ratification, to 105,223 in its favor. 
 
 The radical Republicans, probably under inspiration from Washington, 
 put in nomination a relatively conservative ticket for state officers. James L. 
 Alcorn, a studious economist and cotton raiser of fair and conservative views, 
 was at its head for governor. Their platform also was denuded of all its 
 most offensive features. It differed very little in tone from that of the 
 National Union Republicans. It pledged fidelity to the Union and to the 
 Republican party. It favored a just and economical administration of the 
 state and national governments, freedom of speech and of elections, free 
 schools, and reformation of the system of taxation. It declared that all men, 
 without regard to race, stood as equals before the law. The platform 
 declared in favor of a removal of political disabilities as soon as the dawning 
 spirit of toleration should warrant Congress in declaring them at an end. It 
 recommended the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. 
 
 The National Union Republican party adopted a platform quite as 
 liberal as that of the radical Republicans. It expressed the thanks of the 
 party to the President and Congress for rejecting the scheme of Eggleston 
 and others to secure the acceptance of the constitution after it had been re 
 jected by the people. It declared in favor of universal suffrage and of free 
 schools for all. This party nominated as its candidate for governor, Judge 
 Lewis Dent. He was a brother-in-law of President Grant. He doubtless ex 
 pected to receive the support of General Grant and his administration. In 
 this, however, he was mistaken. General Grant declared in an emphatic 
 letter his purpose to sustain the candidates of the other party. This letter, 
 which was addressed to his brother-in-law, was as follows : 
 
 " LONG BRANCH, August ist, 1869. 
 
 "DEAR JUDGE : I am so thoroughly satisfied in my own mind that the 
 success of the so-called conservative party in Mississippi would result in the 
 defeat of what I believe to be for the best interest of the state and country, 
 that I have determined to say so to you (in writing of course) . I know, 
 or believe that your intentions are good in accepting the nomination from 
 the conservative party. I would regret to see you run for an office and be 
 defeated by my act ; but, as matters now look, I must Sirow the weight of 
 
530 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 my influence in favor of the party opposed to you. I earnestly hope that be 
 fore the election there will be such concessions on either side in Mississippi 
 as to unite all true supporters in the state of reconstruction and of the ad 
 ministration together in support of one ticket." 
 
 This letter of President Grant was volunteered on his part in order to 
 prevent a misapprehension of his wishes. It gave tone to public feeling. 
 
 The reply of Judge Dent to the letter of the President was manly and 
 vigorous. It deserves a place in this history. He said : 
 
 " Is it reasonable to suppose that a people having the free choice of their 
 representatives would elect for their rulers a class of politicians whose aggres 
 sive and hostile conduct hitherto has rendered them peculiarly obnoxious and 
 disagreeable ? 
 
 " And to this class of men, whom you foiled in their attempt to force upon 
 the people of Mississippi the odious constitution rejected at the ballot-box, 
 you now give the hand of fellowship and support ; and spurn from you that 
 other class who, accepting the invitation of the Republican party in good 
 faith, came en masse in Virginia and Tennessee, as they will come in Mis 
 sissippi and Texas, to stand upon its platform and advocate its principles." 
 
 The result of the election showed that General Grant's letter had the 
 desired effect. There were 114,283 votes cast for the office of governor, of 
 which Mr. Alcorn received 76,186 and Judge Dent 38,097. The entire 
 delegation to Congress chosen on the same day was composed of Republi 
 cans. That party also elected three-fourths of the legislature. A military 
 order which announced the result of the election directed the legislature to 
 meet at Jackson on the nth of January, 1870. Another general order 
 appointed Mr. Alcorn provisional governor; and the other gentlemea 
 elected on the ticket with him were provisionally appointed to the 
 places for which they were chosen by the people. These provisional ap 
 pointments were to continue until Congress should decide on the validity of 
 the constitution and the elections under it. Mr. Alcorn, for reasons which 
 do honor to his head and heart, declined this appointment. " Coming from 
 military authority and subject for its support to the military power," he said, 
 " the fitness of things appears to me to forbid my acceptance of it, while I 
 hold in immediate prospect the position of civil governor by that sanction 
 most acceptable to my instincts as an American citizen, that of popular 
 choice." 
 
 The legislature which met on January nth, proceeded to elect three 
 United States Senators, two to fill unexpired terms and one for the regular 
 term commencing March 4, 1871. Mr. Alcorn, the governor elected, was 
 chosen Senator for the long term. General Ames was elected for the longer 
 of the two unexpired terms. A colored man named Revels was assigned to 
 the remaining short term which would expire March 4, 1871. Mr. Alcorn 
 received a unanimous vote in the state senate and a vote of ninety-one to two 
 
THE FIRST COLORED SENATOR. 531 
 
 in the other house. The votes for the other two Senators were also large. 
 The Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution 
 were adopted by large majorities. 
 
 The act for the admission of Mississippi to representation in Congress, 
 prescribing the same conditions as those laid down in the case of Virginia, 
 was adopted, after discussion, on the i7th of February, 1870, and approved 
 on the twenty-third of the same month. There was a proposition to impose 
 other and harder conditions, but it is probable that the presence of a man of 
 African descent with a certificate of election as a United States Senator 
 turned the scale in favor of the bill. The state legislature, which had ad 
 journed, re-assembled on the 8th of March. On the tenth of the same 
 month, Governor Alcorn was inaugurated. In his inaugural he said : 
 
 " The Union has brought us back, pardoned children, into its bosom. It 
 bids us go forward this day to the reconstruction of a government on the 
 ruins left by our own madness. Restored to our lost place in the sisterhood 
 of states by the grace of the Nation, that grace has brought us back an equal 
 among sovereigns. The Northern Democracy have overthrown the South 
 ern oligarchy. This is the measure of the fact accomplished by the action 
 of the United States. Entering on our duty in acceptance of that result, we 
 must go forward to make the overthrow of the old system that had reigned 
 amongst us a practical reality, by insuring all the blessings of free govern 
 ment for the masses of the people.'* 
 
 Governor Alcorn's idea of state sovereignty might be accepted practically 
 by the older champions of consolidation. Holding that the states were sov 
 ereign before the rebellion and sovereign after their overthrow and recon 
 struction under acts of Congress which subjected the people to military rule, 
 he yet rejoices at their overthrow, and bids the people go forward in build 
 ing new institutions of freedom and progress on the ruins of slavery ! 
 
 A local event of startling import occurs at Jackson. Jackson is the 
 seat of government. This is the murder, or at least the killing of Lieut. - 
 Col. Joseph Crane. He is the provisional mayor of the town. He is killed 
 by Edward M. Yerger, an ex-Confederate colonel. In Yerger's absence from 
 home, a seizure of a piano has been made at his house, under a warrant of 
 distress issued by the mayor to satisfy a tax levy, which Yerger disputes. 
 On his return, he has a street altercation with Crane. In this he stabs Crane 
 to death with a bowie-knife. A military commission is ordered to try Yer 
 ger, but his counsel protests against such a form of trial. The question is 
 brought by habeas corpus before the United States Circuit Court for that 
 district, but this court decides in favor of the military authorities. The mat 
 ter is carried by certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, but 
 before a decision is reached the state is "reconstructed." All claim of military 
 authority to try the case ends. When Yerger comes to be tried before a jury 
 he is acquitted. There is no precedent for hanging a man in that state for 
 killing his adversary on the street. 
 
532 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Under the new constitution, the judges were to be appointed by the gov 
 ernor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. Formerly their 
 offices had been elective. The change, though a wise one, indicated distrust 
 of the new voters. The new constitution also provided for the establish 
 ment of a system of common schools. Although nothing was said in it about 
 separate schools for the two races, that plan was probably adopted from the 
 beginning. Mixed schools in the South are utterly impracticable. Their ad 
 vocates must be fanatical devotees of social equality, rather than friends of 
 education. Among the provisions made for the public schools was a poll- 
 tax of two dollars. 
 
 At the election of November, 1871? the Democrats made considerable 
 gains, but not enough to overcome the immense Republican majorities. The 
 senate was made up of twenty-two Republicans and fourteen Democrats ; the 
 house of sixty -two Republicans, forty-six Democrats, and three Independents. 
 
 The census of 1870 showed a population in Mississippi of 827,992 of all 
 races and ages, and an assessed valuation of property amounting to $177,000,- 
 ooo. The state and county taxes aggregated the enormous sum of $3,736,- 
 432. This was at the rate of $4.52 for each person, or something over $20 
 per head of the adult male population. Otherwise expressed, the rate was 
 $47.37 for every thousand dollars' worth of property assessed. This enor 
 mous taxation was five times greater than the amount of the state and county 
 taxes in 1860, when they only aggregated $783,729. 
 
 There was no state election in Mississippi during the year 1872. In the 
 Presidential election, Grant's majority over Greeley was 34,887. The Dem 
 ocrats gained a member of Congress in the first district. The other four 
 members chosen were Republicans. In December, 1871, Mr. Alcorn re 
 signed the office of governor. He took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 The minority report of the joint select committee appointed in 1871, to 
 investigate Southern affairs, attributes the outrages in Mississippi to the cor 
 rupt and oppressive county governments. These imposed taxes from five to 
 six-fold greater than those which were borne by the people before the war. 
 The same report gives credit to Governor Alcorn for his efforts to check ex 
 travagance and to prevent the accumulation of a public debt. It quotes from 
 his message of January, 1871, in which he speaks of the expenditures as 
 making a "startling comparison" with those of former years. 
 
 The election in November, 1873, resulted favorably to the Republicans, 
 notwithstanding the dissatisfaction of a large number who organized under 
 the name of " The Republican Party of Mississippi." The Democratic party 
 held a convention. They decided to put no candidates in the field for state 
 officers. It was understood that they would support the liberal ticket. They 
 failed to do so, cordially. The regular Republicans nominated General 
 Ames for governor, Alexander Davis, a colored man, for lieutenant-governor, 
 James Hill, colored, for secretary of state, and J. W. Cardozo, colored, for 
 
OVERTHROW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RADICALS. 533 
 
 superintendent of education. The nominees of the regular Republicans for 
 attorney-general, auditor, and treasurer were denounced by the Liberals as 
 corrupt or incompetent. General Ames was denounced as an irresponsible 
 non-resident. The same terms were applied to one or more of his col 
 leagues on the ticket. The Liberals re-nominated ex-Governor Alcorn for 
 the governorship. The result of the election was that Ames received 74,307 
 votes as against 52,904 for Alcorn. The senate was made up of twenty Re 
 publicans and fourteen Democrats, and the house of representatives of sixty- 
 eight Republicans and forty-four Democrats. 
 
 Enormous as were the taxes, they failed to equal the expenditures during 
 the four years beginning with 1870. The excess of expenditures was $871,- 
 947. A general convention of tax-payers without regard to party met at 
 Jackson on the fourth of January, 1875, for the purpose of bringing about 
 reforms in the administration of state affairs. A committee was appointed 
 which drew up a petition. It set forth, in respectful language, the 
 grievances. It represented that the people were growing poorer, and that 
 the value of their land was reduced, which they attributed to the extravagant 
 expenditures of the state government, and to the consequent increase of taxa 
 tion. They represented that the tax on land in 1869 was ten cents on the 
 $100 of assessed value; that that tax was four-fold greater in 1871, eight 
 times greater in 1872, twelve and one-half times greater in 1873, and four 
 teen times greater in 1874. It was alleged that the assessment of property 
 was greatly above its market value. 
 
 Several bills were introduced in the legislature having in view the reduc 
 tion of expenses, but they were defeated by the colored members, who con 
 stituted a large part of the body, and who voted solidly against them. 
 
 In 1875 the Democrats made a determined effort to regain power. Their 
 convention, which met at Jackson on the 3d of August, and of which Mr. 
 Lamar was the leading and courageous spirit, adopted an extremely liberal 
 platform. The Republican platform was a repetition of the well-known 
 principles of that party. The canvass was attended with much disorder and 
 bloodshed. Governor Ames applied to President Grant for troops to quell 
 the u domestic violence." His application was refused. President Grant 
 telegraphed to the attorney-general that the public was tired of the annual 
 autumnal outbreaks in the South. 
 
 Failing to obtain this military aid, Governor Ames undertook to organize 
 the militia to aid the sheriffs in the preservation of peace while the election 
 was pending. This proceeding brought forth an earnest protest from the 
 Democratic state committee, in which the governor was charged with endeav 
 oring to incite a war of races. 
 
 The election resulted in an overwhelming Democratic victory. The 
 Democratic candidate for treasurer received 96,596 votes, against 66,155 for 
 the Republican candidate. Of the six members of Congress to which the 
 
534 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 state was entitled, five Democrats were elected, including Mr. Lamar, in the 
 First district. The state senate stood twenty-six Democrats and eleven Re 
 publicans, and in the house of representatives there were ninety-seven Dem 
 ocrats and twenty Republicans, so that on joint ballot in the legislature the 
 Democrats had a majority of ninety- two. The credit for this result is largely 
 due to the present United States Senator George. There can be little doubt 
 that if military government had prevailed in Mississippi during the election 
 these figures would have been reversed, and this fact is conclusive with 
 many why military .rule should have continued. But to take that position, 
 is to admit that the large negro majority in the state, with the few thousand 
 whites who acted with it, was incapable of governing the state ; and that the 
 white minority, unaided by the Federal military force and without Federal 
 patronage, could govern it. A state administration which cannot stand 
 alone has no reason of being. It ought to stand aside. Moreover, it is in 
 accordance with the fitness of things that the intelligent tax-payers should 
 have some voice in the control of the state that imposes the taxes. 
 
 Arkansas belonged to the Fourth military district. Gen. E. O. C. Ord 
 was appointed its commander. He entered upon his duties March 26, 1867. 
 On the 1 5th of April he addressed a note to Gov. Isaac Murphy, notifying 
 him that the provisional legislature, which had recently been in session, must 
 not re-assemble. He ordered the seizure of the public money in the hands of 
 the state treasurer. The reasons which he assigned to the Secretary of War 
 for these proceedings were : that the legislature proposed to impeach a 
 judge, mainly for the reason that he had protected loyal men ; and that the 
 state treasurer was disloyal. In a general order of the 6th of September, 
 1867, he enjoined the courts against proceeding with the trial of offenders 
 in cases wherein two credible men would swear to their belief that justice 
 would not be done. This order was subsequently modified by Gen. A. 
 C. Gillem, to the extent of having a military officer detailed to pass upon 
 the question of jurisdiction of the courts. 
 
 The result of the state registration was, that there were 66,316 voters 
 registered. Of these, 43,170 were white and 23,146 colored. The vote on 
 the question of calling a convention to frame a constitution was small, being 
 little more than half the registered vote, 24,973 for, and 11,293 against it. 
 Nearly all the delegates chosen were radicals. The constitution framed by 
 this convention was adopted by a vote of 27,913 for it, and 26,597 ag am st it. 
 Nearly twenty thousand registered voters refrained from voting. It was 
 charged, and proved, that undisguised frauds were perpetrated to secure 
 the result. Ballot-box stuffing, "repeating," and other forms of carrying 
 elections were resorted to. When even these were not effectual, the votes of 
 Democratic counties and precincts were thrown out entirely. The restrictive 
 clauses of this constitution were most oppressive, depriving large classes of 
 
ARKANSAS UNDER MILITARY RULE. 535 
 
 the white population of the right to vote or hold office. These were all, 
 however, omitted from the constitution of 1874. 
 
 Mutual charges of fraud on the one part and intimidation on the other 
 part were made by the opposition parties in reference to this election. It 
 was represented on the Democratic side that Little Rock was overrun with 
 political adventurers charmed with the allurements of office and flattered by 
 the hope of greatness ; that these men, many of them being registrars, had 
 committed frauds which they justified by falsehood and were willing to clinch 
 with perjury ; that there was a greater amount of scoundrelism there than ever 
 was before concentrated at one place in the same age ; that the frauds com 
 mitted upon the ballot in many of the counties were shameless and enor 
 mous, having no parallel in all history ; that women and children were 
 allowed to vote ; that they voted early and voted often, traveling from ballot- 
 box to ballot-box ; that some ballot-boxes were stuffed, while votes were ab 
 stracted from others ; that votes offered by duly-registered voters were torn 
 up and thrown under the table by the registrars, and that the indefinite con 
 tinuance of military authority was preferable to the sanctioning of these 
 shameless frauds. On the other side, it was charged that the freedmen 
 were to a large extent intimidated and deterred from voting, and that a 
 general conspiracy had been entered into by what was known as the ' ' White 
 Man's party," to prevent freedmen from voting at all hazards. These charges 
 were made in relation to several townships and counties. Congress, how 
 ever, took little notice of these mutual charges, or of the doubt thus thrown 
 on the election. Having decided to admit Alabama, whose people had failed 
 to ratify the constitution by a majority of the registered votes, it would 
 have seemed whimsical to higgle over Arkansas on account of some alleged 
 irregularities by which the majority was secured. The state was admitted 
 on June 22. President Johnson vetoed the act ; but Congress passed it 
 over the veto. The act imposed the same condition with respect to amend 
 ment of the constitution in regard to the elective franchise that was after 
 ward prescribed in the cases of North Carolina and other states, and that has 
 already been noted in an earlier chapter. 
 
 The legislature assembled on the ist of April, 1868, without waiting for 
 the formal announcement of recognition by Congress. It revised the laws. 
 It ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on the 6th of April. The acts passed 
 before the admission of the state were held by the legislature to have been 
 made valid by that event. The military commander, in a general order dated 
 June 30, declared that the acts of Congress under which the state had been 
 acting in military subjection had ceased to have force. Accordingly he turned 
 over to the civil authorities the public archives, buildings, and all property of 
 the state. 
 
 The governor-elect, Powell Clayton, was inaugurated on the 2d of July, 
 1868. In the Presidential election of that year, General Grant received 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 22,152 votes, and Mr. Seymour 19,078. The aggregate vote was less than the 
 white registered vote alone. The legislature which was elected at the same 
 time contained only two Democrats one in each house. Two years after 
 ward the Democrats elected two out of the three congressmen. They made 
 large gains in the legislature the senate consisting of eighteen Republicans 
 and eight Democrats (or " Conservatives"), and the house of forty-five Re 
 publicans, twenty-nine Democrats, and nine Liberals. Two of the senators 
 and eight of the representatives were colored. 
 
 The legislature, in 1869, passed an act for funding the public debt. This 
 gave rise to much controversy. Some thirty years previously the state had 
 lent its credit, in the shape of six per cent, bonds to the amount of $500,000, 
 to an institution known as the Real Estate Bank ; and to the amount of 
 $441 ,000 to the State Bank. The bonds issued to the Real Estate Bank 
 were hypothecated to the American Trust Company of New-York, to cover 
 a loan of $121,336. They were subsequently pledged by the Trust Com 
 pany to a London banking firm, for a loan of $325,000. The Trust Com 
 pany became insolvent. The state bonds passed into the ownership of 
 James Holford, of London. At that time they were ascertained to be 
 of the actual value of $425,000. Although, according to legal and equi 
 table principles, the state was only liable for the amount for which the 
 bonds were pledged with the American Trust Company, and which, with 
 interest to 1869, made $340,000, the legislature passed an act authorizing 
 the issue of new bonds to Holford or his assigns to the amount of $1,370,- 
 ooo, being for the full original sum of $500,000, with interest from Sep 
 tember, 1840, to January, 1870. No such act could have passed in a legis 
 lature whose members represented the tax-payers. Certainly it was not 
 passed out of respect for the plighted faith of the state. 
 
 Governor Clayton, although sufficiently influential to secure an election 
 to the United States Senate at a later day, was growing unpopular with 
 his party. Resolutions denouncing his administration were adopted at a 
 public meeting held at Little Rock in April, 1869. At that meeting, 
 eighteen members of the legislature are said to have been present. His 
 management of affairs was denounced as criminal and corrupt. The legis 
 lature also came in for a share of this condemnation, especially in regard to 
 the funding of the public debt. 
 
 Governor Clayton was elected Senator on the loth of January, 1871, by 
 a vote of ninety-four, on joint ballot, in a total vote of 103. The term was 
 to commence on the 4th of March following. A quarrel had sprung up 
 between the governor and the lieutenant-governor, Johnson. A desperate 
 effort was made to get rid of Johnson, so that he should not succeed to the 
 governorship. Articles of impeachment were introduced against him on 
 the ground that he had " wrongfully and corruptly" sworn in Joseph Brooks 
 as a state senator before the senate had passed upon his credentials. This 
 
RIVAL REPUBLICANS IN ARKANSAS. 537 
 
 attempt met with little favor. It was indefinitely postponed. Another 
 equally futile attempt to get him out of the way was based upon his non- 
 compliance with the law in respect of the time at which he should take the 
 oath of office. But Clayton was not to be balked in his determination to 
 keep Johnson out of the executive chair. He declined the senatorship 
 rather than have Johnson as his successor. He stated in his letter of 
 declination that an anti-Republican coalition had been formed under the 
 leadership of the lieutenant-governor between a few Republicans and the 
 conservatives of both houses, having for its object the overthrow of the 
 existing state government on the one part, and the gratification of private 
 malice and revenge on the other ; and that he could not, by any act of his, 
 be instrumental in placing the leader of that coalition in the executive chair. 
 
 The reasons assigned by Governor Clayton for his course seem manly 
 and honorable. His action upon them displayed an unusual degree of cour 
 age and firmness. As a rule, the office of governor is esteemed chiefly as a 
 stepping-stone to the Federal Senate, and in this case the term of Governor 
 Clayton had less than two years to run, with only a chance of his re-election. 
 
 A counter-attempt was made on the part of the lieutenant-governor and 
 his friends to impeach the governor on various charges. Another attempt 
 was made to impeach Judge McClure, of the supreme court. Both failed. 
 Finally, the rivals concluded to bury their quarrel. The governor induced 
 the lieutenant-governor to accept the office of secretary of state. This was 
 a position that was preferable to the contingent right to the executive office. 
 A. W. Hadley, a friend of Clayton's, was then chosen president of the sen 
 ate, which officer is ex ojficio lieutenant-governor. The succession being 
 thus arranged in the interest of the Republicans, Clayton was again elected 
 United States Senator. 
 
 The elections in the fall of 1872 resulted in another Republican victory. 
 President Grant received 41,073 votes, and Mr. Greeley 37,927 ; Baxter, the 
 Republican candidate for governor, received 41,681 votes, and his opponent, 
 Brooks, 38,415. The other Republican candidates for state office received 
 majorities not materially different from those of the President and governor. 
 There were four counties from which no returns were made or counted. In 
 these counties the Democrats were in the majority. There were irregulari 
 ties in the registration. The registrars had failed or neglected to perform 
 their duties, and in most cases where this was the case there was no election 
 held. Much complaint was made, and on the 2oth of December, 1872, one 
 of the Senators from that state, Mr. Rice, offered a resolution in the Senate 
 of the United States for the appointment of a committee to proceed to Little 
 Rock and investigate all matters growing out of the election. 
 
 Mr. Rice had supported Mr. Greeley's candidacy. He said, in support 
 of his resolution, that the names of nearly thirty thousand registered voters 
 had been arbitrarily, and without notice, stricken off the registration-books ; 
 
 34 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and that as many as fifteen thousand votes had been counted that had never 
 been cast. Notwithstanding all this, when the returns came to be made 
 up, they showed, he said, that the Democrats had a clear majority of about 
 three thousand ; and, to avoid these returns as originally made out, certain 
 counties and precincts were thrown out, and other falsifications of returns 
 made ; so that there was a majority of about three thousand made out the 
 other way. Mr. Clayton, the colleague of Mr. Rice, contented himself with 
 a bantering reply . He made a general but not a specific denial. The resolu 
 tion was not acted on, the majority in the Senate being averse to the pro 
 posed investigation. 
 
 But a revolution of politics caused the Republicans, a year or two after 
 ward, to see the matter in a different light. By a not singular turn of 
 affairs in the history of reconstruction, the parties to the controversy changed 
 sides ; or, at least, changed their relations to the dominant party in Congress. 
 Baxter became identified in interest with the Democrats, while Brooks went 
 over to the Administration, which met him half way. The general assem 
 bly counted the votes for governor, and declared Baxter elected on January 
 19. In April, Brooks petitioned that body to be allowed to contest the 
 election, but his application was voted down by sixty-three to nine. 
 
 Mr. Brooks then made an application to the circuit court for an injunc 
 tion to restrain Baxter from exercising the office of governor. This was de 
 nied. He next applied to the supreme court for a writ of quo ivarranto. 
 This was denied. It was denied on the ground that the determination of 
 the question was vested by the constitution exclusively in the general as 
 sembly, and that no state court had jurisdiction. 
 
 Finally, Brooks brought suit against Baxter in the circuit court of 
 Pulaski County, under section 525 of the civil code, anterior to the constitu 
 tion of 1868. This section provided that an action at law might be instituted 
 against any person who usurped an office or franchise to which he was not 
 entitled by law ; and that the action might be brought either by the state or 
 by the party entitled to the office or franchise. In his petition Brooks claimed 
 that he had received more than 45 ,000 votes, while Baxter had received less 
 than 30,000. He asked that Baxter should be ousted, and that he, Brooks, 
 should be awarded $2,000 for salary. 
 
 Mr. Berry, who claimed to have been elected auditor on the same ticket 
 with Mr. Brooks, made the same kind of demand. The case against Baxter 
 was pushed through rapidly. It precluded a similar recourse on his part ; 
 and the Pulaski court decided against him, on a demurrer to the jurisdiction. 
 
 Brooks had his plans arranged. With a sufficient force of men, he took 
 possession, in the absence of Baxter, of the governor's office, including the 
 public records and the great seal. This happened on the i5th of April, 
 1874. Governor Baxter, on learning these facts, took up his quarters at St. 
 John's College, in another part of the town. Both governors, on the same 
 
THE BROOKS AND BAXTER CONTEST. 539 
 
 day, sent dispatches to President Grant. Brooks announced his installation 
 as governor by the judgment of a court. He asked that the commanding 
 officer at the arsenal be instructed to deliver to him the arms in his custody 
 belonging to the state, or to hold them subject to his, Brooks's, order. No 
 allusion was made to the rugged road by which he had reached the executive 
 chair. Baxter, in his dispatch to the President, briefly recounted the facts of 
 the seizure of the office by his rival. He described them as revolutionary. 
 He stated his purpose to take measures immediately to resume possession of 
 the state property, and to maintain his authority. He expressed the hope 
 that the matter might be settled without bloodshed. He requested the Pres 
 ident to authorize the officer in command at the United States arsenal to sus 
 tain him. 
 
 The application of Brooks to be put in possession of the state arms was 
 rejected, on the ground that his claim of right to the office of governor had 
 not been finally decided by the courts of the state. Baxter was informed 
 by a telegram from Attorney-General Williams, and by authority of the 
 President, that his call for aid was not made in conformity with the Con 
 stitution and laws of the United States, and that, as the controversy related 
 to the right to hold a state office, its adjudication belonged to the state courts. 
 
 Each party proceeded to raise military forces. War threatened. In this 
 undertaking Mr. Baxter seems to have been the more successful. He was 
 soon strong enough to besiege his rival in the state house, and several col 
 lisions occurred, not without bloodshed. After the interchange of several 
 dispatches between the President or Attorney-General and the rival claimants 
 of the governor's office, the President proposed a compromise. It was that 
 the two should issue simultaneous proclamations for the assembling of the 
 legislature, at the same place, on the same day. The President suggested to 
 Brooks that in this way his friends whom he claimed to be elected to the 
 legislature could be brought into that body. As the legislature had already 
 been organized by the friends of Baxter, this proposition was manifestly 
 favorable to his claims. But, strange to say, while Brooks promptly ac 
 cepted it, Baxter declined it, on the ground that it would be an admission of 
 Brooks's right of contest. Besides, Baxter had already issued a call for 
 a special session of the assembly. As soon as that body met, it repeated its 
 former decision, that Baxter was the duly-elected governor. This point hav 
 ing been decided, President Grant issued a proclamation, dated May 15, 1874. 
 It recognized Baxter as governor. It characterized the Brooks movement as 
 a combination on the part of " certain turbulent and disorderly persons" to 
 resist with force and arms the authority of Elisha Baxter, the executive of 
 Arkansas ; and commanded them to disperse and retire peaceably to their 
 several abodes, and to submit themselves to the lawfully constituted author 
 ities of the state. 
 
 This executive mandate, of course, put an end to the controversy. But, 
 
540 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 somehow, during its continuance Baxter had become reconciled with the 
 white race, or the Democratic element, while the sympathy of the opposite 
 party had been transferred to Brooks. The change was not without its 
 influence upon the mind of President Grant, as will presently be shown. 
 
 The same legislature which settled the gubernatorial controversy to the 
 satisfaction of the President passed an act providing for the call of a consti 
 tutional convention. This convention assembled on the I4th of July ; 80,- 
 259 votes having been cast in favor of it, and only 8,607 against it. It was 
 composed of ninety-one delegates. Radical changes were made in the con 
 stitution of 1868. All the changes favored "a larger liberty." All the old 
 proscriptive clauses were swept away. It was provided that the judicial and 
 other state officers should be elected by the people instead of being appointed 
 by the governor. That official is said to have had more official patronage 
 than any other state governor. Many other changes were made, but no right 
 of the colored race was abridged. 
 
 The new constitution was ratified on the I3th of October, 1874, by a vote 
 of 78,697 for it, to 24,807 against it. This immense majority in its favor 
 shows that the people had no sympathy with the proscriptive policy of the 
 Northern adventurers, nor with their scheme for prolonging their hold on 
 power by conferring the appointments to office on the governor. The leg 
 islature and state officers were chosen on the same day. The nomination for 
 the governorship was offered to Baxter by the Democratic convention. This 
 shows that he had, with great good sense, gone to that party. But he de 
 clined ; and Mr. Augustus H. Garland was nominated and elected governor. 
 He lives to illustrate his fitness as the great friend of popular government and 
 legal interpretations. 
 
 At the nominating convention held by the Republicans on the I5th of 
 September, they adopted a long address. They declared the acts of the con 
 stitutional convention null and void. Had it not been called by a man called 
 Baxter, who was not governor ? Had he not been ousted from that office by 
 the decision of the Pulaski County court? They asserted that Brooks was 
 governor, and that all Baxter's official acts were illegal. 
 
 The singular turn of affairs in Arkansas by which the leaders of the two 
 parties were found to have exchanged positions, and by which the parties 
 themselves changed positions, had its effect on President Grant. It caused 
 him also to change his course. In a message to the Senate, dated Feb. 8, 
 1875, less than nine months from the date of his proclamation denouncing 
 Brooks and his supporters as ''turbulent and disorderly," he expressed the 
 opinion that Brooks had been lawfully elected governor in 1872, and had been 
 since that time unlawfully deprived of his office ; that the constitution of 
 1868 had been overthrown, the new constitution adopted, and the new state 
 government established by violence, intimidation, and revolutionary proceed 
 ings ; and that, if these proceedings were allowed to stand, the rights of mi- 
 
ARKANSAS EXILES AND GHOSTS. 541 
 
 norities in all the states would be practically ignored. He submitted whether 
 such a dangerous precedent should be recognized by Congress. He asked 
 that Congress should take definite action in the matter. Congress took its 
 best step toward regeneration then and there. Judge Poland was its expo 
 nent. Let it be known that Baxter was the radical Republican candidate for 
 governor in 1872, while Brooks was the Greeley-Republican candidate, with 
 the Democrats as his chief supporters ; that a Republican legislature counted 
 the vote in January, 1873 ; that it declared their candidate, Baxter, elected by 
 a majority of between three and four thousand votes ; that the same assem 
 bly rejected, by a vote of sixty-three to nine, Brooks's petition for leave to 
 contest the possession of the office ; that the supreme court of the state re 
 fused to hear his case ; and that President Grant had pronounced Baxter to 
 be the lawfully elected governor. And yet President Grant sent this mes 
 sage to Congress in February, 1875, Brooks having in the meantime joined 
 the Republicans and Baxter having coalesced with the Democrats : 
 
 " There can be no doubt that Brooks was defrauded of his right to 
 the office of governor. But the Republican legislature which ' counted 
 him out ' had under the constitution the exclusive right to count the vote and 
 declare the result. Redress can only come from the people at the next elec 
 tion." 
 
 But Brooks in the meantime had drifted into the ranks of his enemies. 
 
 Notwithstanding General Grant's potentiality then and there, his appeal 
 to Congress to intervene in behalf of Brooks and of the old constitution was 
 without effect. The House of Representatives had appointed a committee 
 to investigate the affairs of Arkansas. That committee made majority and 
 minority reports on the 6th of February. The majority report, made by the 
 chairman, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, was to the effect that the government 
 of Arkansas was proceeding peaceably and prosperously, and that there was 
 nothing in the history of the adoption of the new constitution that called 
 upon Congress or any department of the government to step in and wipe it 
 out. Mr. Poland, a grand tribune of the states and of the people, in a 
 speech advocating the adoption of the majority report, reminded his political 
 friends that Brooks, with the emphasis of honesty and the courage of an 
 honest soul, that man who now so commended himself to them, had been 
 the candidate of the Democrats and of the Greeley Republicans. He re 
 minded them that the fraud upon him had been carried out by the regular 
 Republican organization, at whose head stood Senator Powell Clayton, with 
 Chief Justice McClure, sometimes designated by the unprofessional name 
 of "Poker Jack," next in command. 
 
 Referring to a figure of speech used in the discussion by Mr. Coburn, of 
 Indiana, who said that "the lawful and exiled governor of Arkansas had been 
 stalking like a ghost in their midst for the whole winter," Judge Poland re- 
 
542 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 marked that the " ghosts " who marched by his side were the very men 
 who had defrauded him out of his election, who had cheated him in every 
 possible way, who had stuffed ballot-boxes, had figured with the returns, 
 and who had kept out the votes of three whole counties, and of forty or fifty 
 townships in other counties. 
 
 No further action was taken in the matter either by Congress or the 
 national executive, and the government of Arkansas was left to itself, un 
 troubled by Federal interference. 
 
 The majority report of the "joint select committee on the condition of 
 affairs in the late insurrectionary states," made the I9th of February, 1872, 
 states that the debt of Arkansas was, in 1860, $4,036,952 ; in 1865, exclu 
 sive of the debt incurred in the rebellion, which was repudiated, $4,527,- 
 879; in 1868, $4,820,630; and on the i4th of November, 1871, $5,361,265, 
 with u contingent liabilities" for railroads amounting to $6,512,694, and with 
 "prospective contingent liabilities" amounting to $7,877,306. 
 
 The minority report states the debt at the same date as follows : 
 
 Bonded and funded debt, $5,051,265 
 
 Floating debt, . . . 190,000 
 
 Due for interest, ........ 120,000 
 
 Amounts awarded to railroads, ...... 11,400,000 
 
 Levee bonds, . . 3,000,000 
 
 Total, $19,761,265 
 
 The enormous increase of the taxes, state and county, was not sufficient 
 to satisfy the rapacity of the adventurers. 
 
 There are so many ways of stating the amount of the public debt, as the 
 debt proper and the debt contingent, that it is difficult to arrive at any 
 clear notion of it, except that the debt of Arkansas was greatly increased. 
 Besides, there was the expenditure of an immense revenue during the Re 
 publican or carpet-bag rule, and there was nothing in the way of public im 
 provements left to show for the expenditure. 
 
CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION IN THE FIFTH MILITARY DISTRICT. 
 
 LOUISIANA GENERAL SHERIDAN'S REMOVAL OF STATE OFFICIALS HIS QUAR 
 REL WITH, AND REMOVAL OF, GOVERNOR WELLS THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER 
 AS TO REGISTRATION DISREGARDED RESULTS OF REGISTRATION FORTY 
 THOUSAND WHITES EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE REMOVAL AND APPOINT 
 MENT OF NEW ORLEANS ALDERMEN AND OTHER OFFICERS GENERAL 
 SHERIDAN SUCCEEDED BY GENERAL HANCOCK -HIS SPECIAL ORDER ON 
 ASSUMING COMMAND RE-INSTATEMENT OF STATE OFFICIALS -MEETING 
 OF THE STATE CONVENTION THE NEW CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE 
 PEOPLE GENERAL HANCOCK'S REMOVAL OF OFFICIALS NOT SUSTAINED BY 
 GENERAL GRANT GENERAL HANCOCK RELIEVED AT HIS OWN REQUEST 
 THE DISFRANCHISING CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION THE PRESIDENTIAL 
 ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, 1868 -IMMENSE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES EX 
 PLANATION OF THE FACTS THE NEGROES TERRORIZED AND LARGE NUM 
 BERS OF THEM KILLED THE LEGISLATURE OF 1869 GOVERNOR WAR- 
 MOTH'S MESSAGE MEASURES OF SOCIAL EQUALITY AND OF PUBLIC PLUN 
 DERLOW OPINION OF THE MEMBERS LOBBYING AND BRIBING BY THE 
 "BEST PEOPLE" THE STATE AUDITOR IMPEACHED THE ELECTION OF NO 
 VEMBER, 1870 THE REPUBLICANS TRIUMPHANT REPEAL OF THE DISFRAN 
 CHISING CLAUSE QUARREL BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN FACTIONS MOVE 
 MENTS AND COUNTER -MOVEMENTS CHARACTER OF GOVERNOR WAR- 
 MOTH HIS EXPOSURE OF LEGISLATIVE PROFLIGACY MUTUAL CHARGES 
 OF KNAVERY BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS HOW THEY ALL EN 
 RICHED THEMSELVES THE FALL ELECTION OF 1872 TWO RETURNING 
 BOARDS DECIDING THE RESULTS DIFFERENTLY RIVAL LEGISLATURES 
 WARMOTH IMPEACHED -PINCHBACK ASSUMES THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, 
 AND IS SUSTAINED BY PRESIDENT GRANT THE PACKARD LEGISLATURE, 
 AND ITS METHODS THE McENERY LEGISLATURE ORGANIZED AND SUS 
 TAINEDTWO GOVERNORS KELLOGG AND McENERY INAUGURATED 
 SENATE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY McENERY SUSTAINED BY THE PEOPLE 
 
 ARREST OF THE McENERY LEGISLATURE MILITARY RECOGNITION OF 
 THE KELLOGG GOVERNMENT McENERY GIVES UP THE FIGHT SANGUIN 
 ARY CONFLICTS IN THE PARISHES THE COUSHATTA MASSACRE UPRISING 
 IN NEW ORLEANS AGAINST THE KELLOGG GOVERNMENT PROCLAMATION 
 BY THE PRESIDENT KELLOGG'S GOVERNMENT RE-ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 MILITARY COMPROMISE EFFECTED BY A HOUSE COMMITTEE FINANCIAL 
 STATEMENT TEXAS GENERAL SHERIDAN'S REPORT OF THE BAD CON 
 DITION OF AFFAIRS - GENERAL GRIFFIN'S ORDER REMOVAL OF THE 
 GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS GENERAL SHERIDAN'S REPORT 
 
 HIS REFLECTIONS ON PRESIDENT JOHNSON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON 
 VENTION STATISTICS OF CRIME THE CONSTITUTIONS OF 1868 AND 1876 
 GENERAL REYNOLDS CO-OPERATING WITH THE RADICALS FINANCIAL 
 STATEMENT. 
 
 GENERAL Philip Sheridan was appointed commander of the 
 Fifth military district, composed of the states of Louisiana and 
 Texas. In his order assuming command, he announced that the 
 existing state and municipal governments of Louisiana and Texas 
 were provisional only, but that no removals from office would be made unless 
 the incumbents should fail to carry out the provisions of the reconstruction 
 law, or impede " reorganization." 
 
544 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Among the first acts of General Sheridan as commander of the Fifth dis 
 trict were the removals of Judge E. A. Abell, of the criminal court of New 
 Orleans, Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of the State of Louisiana, 
 and John T. Monroe, Mayor of the city of New Orleans. These removals 
 were made on the 29th of March, 1867. The ground stated for Judge 
 Abell's removal was that he had, for nine months previous to July 30, 1866, 
 been educating a large portion of the community to the perpetration of the 
 outrages which were committed on that day, by almost promising that there 
 should be no prosecution in his court against the offenders in case such an 
 event occurred. The reason given for the removal of Attorney-General 
 Herron was that, instead of indicting the rioters he indicted the victims, and 
 was therefore a suspected coadjutor of Judge Abell in bringing on the mas 
 sacre. As to Mayor Monroe, the reason given was that he controlled the 
 element engaged in the riot, and felt secure in the support of the attorney- 
 general who would not prosecute the guilty, and of the judge who advised 
 the grand jury to find the innocent guilty and let the murderers go free. 
 
 The registration was ordered to commence on the ist of May and to be 
 completed on the 3Oth of June. General Sheridan stated in a dispatch to 
 General Grant, that he anticipated no trouble in the work, and that the people 
 generally would register. He said that he had in no way sought to mould 
 the public mind to an acceptance or non-acceptance of the law, but had in 
 formed the people that the law would be enforced and the reorganization ac 
 complished ; and that he thought his course was not unacceptable to a majoi*- 
 ity of the people in the state. He said that, in appointing registrars through 
 out the state, he had invariably selected two citizens residents of the parish, 
 and one ex-army officer from the city of New Orleans. This gave him, he 
 said, a check on each board by having a tried and true man as chairman. 
 He added that he had the boards supervised by intelligent army officers. He 
 intimated that the Attorney-General of the United States should not hamper 
 him too much, as no one could conceive or estimate, at so great a distance, 
 the precautions necessary to be taken in the existing condition of society 
 there. 
 
 The legislature of Louisiana, at the session of i866-'67, had appropriated 
 $4,000,000 in state bonds for repairing the levees. The disbursement of this 
 money gave rise to a quarrel between the governor, James Madison Wells, 
 and the legislature. General Sheridan settled the controversy somewhat 
 after the fashion of the monkey in the fable, when the cats quarreled over the 
 cheese. Both governor and legislature were dismissed, and the money was 
 placed in the hands of a board of commissioners selected by the commander 
 of the Fifth military district. This board was appointed by him on the 3d of 
 May. On the 3d of June, General Sheridan issued a special order em 
 bodying a dispatch from Secretary Stanton which directed the suspension of 
 proceedings on the part of the board. The same special order contained 
 
GENERAL SHERIDAN'S OPINION OF GOVERNOR WELLS. 545 
 
 the following clause: "His Excellency, the Governor of Louisiana, J. 
 Madison Wells, having made himself an impediment to the faithful execution 
 of the act of Congress of March 2, 1867, by directly and indirectly impeding 
 the general in command in the execution of the law, is hereby removed from 
 the office of governor of Louisiana, and Mr. Thomas J. Durant is appointed 
 thereto. Mr. Durant will be obeyed and respected accordingly.'* 
 
 Mr. Durant declined this appointment, and Benjamin F. Flanders was 
 appointed in his stead. 
 
 Governor Wells resisted the order of dismissal as well as he could, but 
 succumbed to the following mandate, dated New Orleans, June 7, and ad 
 dressed to Mr. J. Madison Wells, ex-Governor of Louisiana : " Sir, Gen 
 eral Flanders has just informed me that he made an official demand on you 
 for the records of the office which you have hitherto held as governor of 
 Louisiana, and that you have declined to turn them over to him, disputing 
 the right to remove from office by me, which right you have acknowledged 
 and urged on me up to the time of your removal. I therefore send Brevet 
 Brig. -Gen. James W. Forsyth, of my staff, to notify you that he is sent by 
 me to eject you from the governor's room forcibly, unless you consider this 
 notification as equivalent to ejection." 
 
 Governor Wells denied in a statement to the President the charges made 
 against him by General Sheridan, as well as his right to make the removal, 
 and in his turn charged the general with being actuated by spite and malice. 
 It is needless to say that Wells surrendered to this peremptory summons, 
 and that Flanders assumed the duties of the office. 
 
 In a dispatch to Secretary Stanton of June 3d General Sheridan says : 
 " I say, unequivocally, that Governor Wells is a political trickster and a dis 
 honest man. I have seen him myself, when I first came to this command, 
 turn out all the Union men who had supported the government, and put in 
 their stead rebel soldiers, some of whom had not yet doffed their gray uni 
 form. I have seen him again, during the July riot of 1866, skulk away 
 where I could not find him to give him a guard, instead of coming out as a 
 manly representative of the state and joining those who are preserving the 
 peace. I have watched him since, and his conduct has been as sinuous as 
 the mark left in the dust by the movement of a snake." 
 
 In a letter to General Grant on the same subject General Sheridan said 
 that he had found it necessary to remove Governor Wells, who had embar 
 rassed him very much by his subterfuge and political chicanery ; that this 
 necessary act would be approved by every class and shade of political opin 
 ion, and that Wells had not a friend who was an honest man. In another 
 letter he gave it as his opinion that, by the removal of Wells and the ap 
 pointment of Flanders, the back-bone of the trouble had been broken. 
 
 On the 2ist of June, Adjutant-General Townsend sent a dispatch to 
 the commander of the Fifth district, directing him not to close the registra- 
 
546 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 tion in Louisiana before the ist of August. An announcement had been 
 made that it would be closed at the end of June. General Sheridan, in 
 a dispatch to General Grant, entered a sort of protest against this order, 
 and against the Attorney-General's interpretation of the law, stating that it 
 was practically opening a broad, macadamized road for perjury and fraud 
 to travel on. He added: "I regret that I should have to differ with the 
 President, but it must be recollected that I have been ordered to execute a 
 law to which the President has been in bitter antagonism." Still, he said 
 he would extend the time at once if the President's order were peremptory. 
 It may be added that this deference to the authority of the President, reluc 
 tant though it was, and not without a protest against the necessity of 
 obedience, preceded the passage of the supplementary bill which stripped 
 the President of his constitutional rights as the chief executive of the Union, 
 and conferred them, in the premises, upon the General of the army. That 
 act bears date July 19, and besides directly limiting to these officers author 
 ity to interpret the acts, it declares "that no district commander or member 
 of the board of registration, or any of the officers or appointees acting under 
 them, shall be bound in his action by any opinion of any civil officer of the 
 United States." 
 
 General Sheridan informed General Grant on the 28th of June that the 
 Adjutant-General had sent him the opinion of the Attorney-General, constru 
 ing the Reconstruction acts ; but he expressed a doubt as to whether he must 
 regard that as mandatory, as coming from the President. General Grant 
 replied as follows : " Enforce your own construction of the military bill until 
 ordered to do otherwise. The opinion of the Attorney-General has not been 
 distributed to the district commanders in language or manner entitling it to 
 the form of an order, nor can I suppose that the President intended it to have 
 such force." 
 
 The numerous classes which were excluded from registration by the mili 
 tary construction of the law, and which included justices of the peace, clerks 
 of courts and their deputies, sheriffs and their deputies, constables and their 
 deputies, tax collectors, assessors, coroners, police jurors, auctioneers, all 
 who had served on the police force, members of the board of health, and 
 others too numerous to mention, notwithstanding that they had been declared 
 by Mr. Stanbery, the Attorney-General, to be entitled to that privilege, were 
 thus ruled out. The books of registration were kept open, however, until 
 the 3ist of July. The result of the registration shows how rigorously the 
 military idea was carried into effect. The two races in Louisiana were 
 about equal in numbers; but of the 127,639 who were registered, only 
 47,732 were white, while 82,907 were colored. 
 
 An election was held on the 27th and 28th of September, to decide 
 whether a convention should be called to amend the constitution, and the re 
 sult was that there were 75,083 votes cast for a convention, and only 4,006 
 
GENERAL HANCOCK AT NEW ORLEANS. 547 
 
 against it. Comparing the white registration with the census, it appears 
 that some forty thousand whites must have been excluded from the right 
 of suffrage. 
 
 On the i st of August, General Sheridan removed twenty-two New Or 
 leans aldermen and appointed others in their stead, assigning as his reasons 
 for the removal, the disturbed condition of affairs to which they had brought 
 the city, and the efforts made by them to impede the execution of the act of 
 Congress. During the same month, the city treasurer, the chief of police, 
 and the city attorney were removed for like reasons, and others were ap 
 pointed in their stead. In the parishes, justices, sheriffs, and other officers 
 were removed on specific charges of screening murderers, or allowing them 
 to escape from prison. 
 
 On the 1 7th of August, the President issued an order relieving General 
 Sheridan from the command of the Fifth military district, and directing 
 that Gen. George H. Thomas should succeed him. But it being repre 
 sented to the President that General Thomas's health was infirm, and that the 
 climate would not agree with him, Gen. Winfield S. Hancock was assigned 
 to the command of the Fifth district. During the interim, General Sheri 
 dan having been sent to Fort Leavenworth in command of the Department of 
 Missouri, General Griffin, commander of the sub-district of Texas, was ap 
 pointed temporary commander of the Fifth military district. He, however, 
 died of yellow fever, and was succeeded by Maj.-Gen. Joseph A. Mower. 
 
 It having been represented to General Mower that political organizations, 
 composed mostly of negroes, were in the practice of assembling in armed 
 bands under military leaders, greatly to the annoyance of peaceful people, 
 that officer issued a general order that such practices should be discon 
 tinued. He also removed the lieutenant-governor, the secretary of state, the 
 treasurer, the auditor of public accounts, and many other officers, as "im 
 pediments to reconstruction," and appointed others in their places. The 
 order on that subject was issued on the 2ist of November, 1867, but was 
 suspended by order of General Grant. 
 
 General Hancock arrived in New Orleans on the 28th of November, 
 1867, and on the next day announced his assumption of the command of 
 the Fifth district, in a special order. The second paragraph of this order 
 reads as follows : 
 
 " The general commanding is gratified to learn that peace and quiet reign 
 in this department, and it will be his purpose to preserve this condition of 
 things. As a means to this great end he regards the maintenance of the civil 
 authorities in the faithful execution of the laws as the most efficient under 
 existing circumstances. In war it is indispensable to repel force by force, 
 and to overthrow and destroy opposition to lawful authority ; but when in 
 surrectionary force has been overthrown, peace established, and the civil 
 authorities are ready and willing to perform their duties, the military power 
 
548 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 should cease to lead, and the civil administration resume its natural and 
 rightful dominion. Solemnly impressed with these views, the general an 
 nounces that the great principles of American liberty still are the lawful 
 inheritance of this people, and ever should be. The right of trial by jury, 
 the habeas corpus, the liberty of the press, the freedom of speech, and the 
 natural rights of persons and the rights of property must be preserved. 
 Free institutions, while they are essential to the prosperity and happiness of 
 the people, always furnish the strongest inducements to peace and order. 
 Crimes and offenses committed in this district must be referred to the con 
 sideration and judgment of the regular civil authorities, and these tribunals 
 will be supported in their lawful jurisdiction. Should there be violations of 
 existing laws which are not inquired into by the civil magistrates, or should 
 failures in the administration of justice by the courts be complained of, the 
 cases will be reported to these headquarters, when such orders will be made 
 as may be deemed necessary. While the general thus indicates his purpose 
 to respect the liberties of the people, he wishes all to understand that armed 
 insurrections or forcible resistance to the laws will be instantly suppressed 
 by arms." 
 
 The principal departure of General Hancock from the policy pursued by 
 his predecessors related to the organization of juries. General Sheridan had 
 issued an order requiring the state authorities to make no distinction as to 
 race or color in the organization of juries. General Hancock superseded 
 this order by one remanding the subject to the state authorities and the civil 
 courts, and in order to avoid the annoyance of frequent applications to him 
 for his intervention in private suits and controversies, he issued an order de 
 claring that "the administration of civil justice appertains to the regular 
 courts. The rights of litigants do not depend on the views of the general. 
 They are to be adjudged and settled according to the laws. Arbitrary power, 
 such as he has been urged to assume, has no existence here. It is not found 
 in the laws of Louisiana or Texas. It cannot be derived from any act or acts 
 of Congress. It is restrained by the Constitution." General Hancock rein 
 stated several of the state officers who had been removed by General Mower, 
 and that officer was himself relieved from his command in the district. 
 
 The state convention met on the 23d of November, 1867, and at the end 
 of a month had completed a draft of a constitution, which was adopted 
 March 2, 1868. A tax on property of one mill per centum was authorized 
 for the purpose of paying the members and defraying the expenses of the 
 convention. The delegates to the convention were nearly all Republicans, 
 and about half of them, colored. The proceedings of the convention as 
 published convey no information in regard to the party relations of mem 
 bers, except what may be inferred from their votes and remarks ; but it is 
 said that twenty colored men voted for and twenty against the disfranchising 
 clause. The vote in the convention upon the adoption of the constitution as 
 
GENERAL HANCOCK REMOVES MUNICIPAL OFFICERS 549 
 
 a whole was yeas 7 1 ? nays 6. Several delegates signed under protest, 
 among them a colored man, Thomas W. Martin, of Jefferson Parish, who 
 objected to the prescriptive article. The constitution was ratified by the 
 people on the I7th and i8th of August, by a vote of 66,152 for and 48,729 
 against, the majority being 17,413. 
 
 Mild and liberal as had been the administration of General Hancock, he 
 found it necessary to remove certain officials, and in this he was not sustained 
 by General Grant. William Baker, the street commissioner, was removed 
 on charges of malfeasance in office, after an investigation ; and Arthur Gus- 
 tinel, recorder for the second district, was removed in consequence of a de 
 cision of the supreme court declaring him ineligible. The city council im 
 mediately adopted a resolution ordering an election of a recorder, notwith 
 standing that it was reminded of General Sheridan's order forbidding elec 
 tions not specially authorized by the commanding general. In consequence 
 of this action of the council, General Hancock immediately removed all the 
 members who had voted for the measure. There were nine of them, seven 
 being colored, and two white. He telegraphed the facts to General Grant, 
 who replied, directing General Hancock to suspend his orders of removal, 
 and to report the facts more fully. General Hancock, in his answer, in 
 sisted that all essential facts were furnished in the dispatch, and that he re 
 garded what he had done as essential to the maintenance of the authority 
 and dignity of his office ; and he intimated a wish to be recalled unless he 
 were sustained. But the result was that an order came from the general- 
 in-chief directing that the council be restored ; and, later on, the street com 
 missioner was reinstated. General Hancock thereupon asked to be relieved 
 from his command. He was accordingly relieved, and was succeeded by 
 Gen. J. J. Reynolds on the i8th of March, who in a few days was suc 
 ceeded by Brevet Maj.-Gen. R. C. Buchanan. There can be no doubt that 
 this interposition from headquarters in favor of the municipal officials was 
 due to their political character and complexion. The time had passed by 
 w r hen black men had no rights which white men were bound to respect ; 
 and the reverse rule seemed to be coming into use. 
 
 In general terms the new constitution conferred the right of suffrage on 
 all male persons twenty-one years old, native and naturalized, except those 
 specially excepted. These were (as stated in Article XCIX.) , all persons con 
 victed of treason, forgery, bribery, or other crime punishable by imprison 
 ment in the penitentiary, and persons under interdiction ; persons who were 
 estopped from claiming the right of suffrage by having abjured their alle 
 giance to the United States Government or by having notoriously levied war 
 against it, or by having adhered to its enemies ; those who had held office, 
 civil or military, for one year or more under the Confederacy ; those who 
 had registered themselves as enemies of the United States ; those who had 
 acted as leaders of guerrilla bands during the late rebellion ; those who, in 
 
550 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the advocacy of treason, had written or published newspaper articles or 
 preached sermons during the late rebellion ; and those who had voted for 
 and signed an ordinance of secession in any state. No person included in 
 these exceptions should either vote or hold office until he had relieved 
 himself by voluntarily writing and signing a certificate containing an ac 
 knowledgment that the late rebellion was morally and politically wrong, 
 and that he regretted any aid and comfort he had given it. No person, 
 however, who, prior to the ist of January, 1868, had favored the execution 
 of the Reconstruction acts, and had openly assisted the loyal men of the 
 state in their efforts to restore Louisiana to her position in the Union, was to 
 be held included among those disfranchised classes. 
 
 Pending the work of reconstruction, the state revenue fell far short of 
 the expenditures. The state auditor informed General Hancock in Decem 
 ber that, unless something were done, the wheels of government would stop, 
 and that the present indebtedness of the state was such that, under the 
 revenue laws, the debt could not be paid. The outstanding claims of the 
 treasury at the end of 1867 were $1,313,000 in excess of the receipts. In 
 view of the emergency, the general issued an order, not as rigidly respect 
 ful to the civil government (though in compliance with the wish of the gov 
 ernment) as the tone of his order or proclamation announcing his assump 
 tion of the command might have led one to expect ; but it was a case of 
 necessity, no doubt ; and to meet it he extended the force of a legislative act 
 in regard to the finances to the year 1868, although it was limited in terms to 
 the year 1867. This act of military legislation was accompanied by other 
 regulations in regard to the collection and disbursement of the revenue. 
 This order was complained of by the radicals on the ground that it was the 
 enactment by the military of laws for a down-trodden and oppressed peo 
 ple ; and a " respectful but solemn protest" to this effect was introduced in 
 the convention in the form of resolutions, but it was' laid on the table. 
 Another ground of opposition was that the order was in the interest of the 
 obnoxious state legislature which was known to be " hostile to a loyal recon 
 struction of the government." The State of Louisiana was re-admitted to 
 representation by the act of Congress of June 22, 1868, upon the same con 
 ditions as those imposed in respect to the states of North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Alabama, and Florida. 
 
 The vote at the Presidential and congressional elections in Louisiana in 
 November, 1868, presents quite a contrast to that at the ratification of the 
 constitution and the election of state officers in April. In the state election 
 in April, the Republicans had it all their own way, as has been stated. The 
 constitution was ratified by a majority which is differently stated at from 
 12,000 to 17,000. Henry Clay Warmoth, Republican, was elected gov 
 ernor by above 26,000, over Talliaferro, Democrat. The legislature consisted 
 of twenty Republican senators to sixteen Democrats, and fifty-six Republi- 
 
THE DEMOCRATS CARRY THE STATE. 551 
 
 can members of the house to forty-five Democrats there being on joint 
 ballot seventy-six Republicans and sixty-one Democrats. This is the state 
 ment of the American Annual Encyclopaedia. The Tribune Almanac 
 makes the Republican majority much greater viz.: twenty-four senators 
 and seventy-five representatives, or ninety-nine on joint ballot, against twelve 
 Democratic senators and twenty-six representatives, or thirty-eight on joint 
 ballot. But in November, the Democrats swept the state by overwhelming 
 majorities, notwithstanding the candidacy of General Grant. He was beaten 
 by Mr. Seymour, by a majority of 15,278 in a total vote of 71,100, according 
 to the report of the state board of canvassers ; but as this statement is based 
 on the rejection of returns from sixteen parishes, it is far short of the whole 
 truth. The Tribune Almanac gives unofficial returns from these parishes, 
 and presents a total of 113,388 votes for President, of which General Grant 
 received 33,263, and Mr. Seymour 80,225, showing a Democratic majority 
 of 46, 95 2. 
 
 These apparently sudden revolutions in public sentiment which swept over 
 the South first in one direction and then in another, like the cyclones that 
 from time to time devastate the western country, were peculiar to the era of 
 reconstruction, and they indicate the degree of pressure, for the time, of the 
 heavy hand of the military authority. 
 
 It has been stated that the returning board threw out the returns of the 
 votes in several parishes ; and there seems to have been good reason therefor. 
 For instance, in the Parish of Bienville, where the colored population was 
 5,047 and the white 5,589, there was but one vote cast for General Grant, 
 against 1,385 cast for Seymour. In Bosier Parish, where the colored pop 
 ulation was 9,17 an d the white 3,505, Grant got but one vote, and Seymour 
 1,635. I n Caddo Parish, where the colored population was 15,799 an< ^ tne 
 white 5,913, Grant got but one vote and Seymour 2,895. In De Soto Par 
 ish, with a colored population of 9,855, St. Laundry Parish, with a colored 
 population of 11,694, and several other parishes with large negro popu 
 lations, Grant received no votes at all. In the twenty-four parishes of the 
 state, with an aggregate colored population of 182,169 and an aggregate 
 white population of 253,982, General Grant got but 3,701 votes, while Mr. 
 Seymour got 58,373. And yet the fact is indisputable that fully nine- 
 teen-twentieths of the colored men were unequivocally and earnestly in 
 favor of Grant, and that the whites were for Seymour in about the same 
 proportion. The strange results here set forth are partially explained in 
 the report of a committee of the House of Representatives constituted to 
 investigate the condition of the South. The report says : 
 
 4 'The testimony shows that over two thousand persons were killed, 
 wounded, and otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to 
 the Presidential election in November, 1872 ; that half the state was overrun 
 by violence ; and that midnight raids, secret murders, and open riot kept 
 
552 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the people in constant terror until the Republicans surrendered all claims. 
 But the most remarkable case is that of St. Laundry, a planting 
 parish on the river Teche. Here the Republicans had a registered majority 
 of 1,071 votes. In the spring of 1868 they carried the parish by 678. In 
 the fall they gave Grant no vote, not one, while the Democrats cast 4,787, 
 the full vote of the parish, for Seymour and Blair. Here occurred one of the 
 bloodiest riots on record, in which the Ku-Klux killed and wounded over two 
 hundred Republicans, hunting and chasing them for two days and nights 
 through fields and swamps. Thirteen captives were taken from the jail and 
 shot. A pile of twenty-five dead bodies was found half-buried in the woods. 
 Having conquered the Republicans and killed and driven off the white 
 leaders, the Ku-Klux captured the masses, marked them with badges of red 
 flannel, enrolled them in clubs, led them to the polls, made them vote the 
 Democratic ticket, and then gave them certificates of the fact." 
 
 It is probable that the statement is a good deal exaggerated, especially as 
 to the number killed ; but the failure of the negroes to vote can be explained 
 only on the theory that a reign of terror existed. The heavy majorities of 
 the Republicans in the spring of 1868 were due to two causes : first, to the 
 relatively small number of the white people who were allowed to register ; 
 and, secondly, to the presence of United States troops. The withdrawal of 
 the troops and the cessation of martial law revealed the latent superiority of 
 the whites. It then became apparent that the government which Congress 
 had set up a government carried on by the colored people and supported 
 by the bayonet could not stand when the bayonet was withdrawn. The 
 enormous Democratic vote in the Presidential and congressional elections in 
 November showed either that thousands of unregistered men were allowed 
 to vote, or that the negroes were drafted into the service of the Democratic 
 party and compelled to vote against their wishes. 
 
 The report of the House Committee of Elections in the contested election 
 case of Hunt vs. Sheldon, gives an explanation of the falling off in the Re 
 publican vote. It tells of the social ostracism of the few white Republicans 
 in the state ; the threat of -withdrawing employment from the Republican 
 negroes; and the operations of the "Knights of the White Camellia," an 
 armed and oath-bound society which embraced nearly all the Democrats in 
 Louisiana, and which General Rousseau, who commanded the department, 
 pronounced too formidable for his command to cope with, advising the Re 
 publican leaders, therefore, to abandon the campaign. It tells how Democratic 
 clubs were formed into which colored men were urgently invited to enter, 
 with the promise of receiving "protection papers," which would bring pro 
 tection, lands, security, and peace ; and how Democratic barbecues were 
 held, at which food and drink were bountifully provided and public questions 
 discussed by men of both colors, and where active young Democrats played 
 the part of waiters, serving the colored people in preference to the whites. 
 
DIPLOMATS & STATES M EN , 
 
CORRUPTION IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE. 553 
 
 This was, to say the least, a blending of the suamter in modo with the^/br- 
 titer in re. It was, according to this report, only when these coercive and 
 seductive methods failed to win over the colored men that the rioting and 
 murdering began. It is due to Governor Warmoth to say that he attributed 
 his inability to preserve the peace to the act of Congress which prohibited 
 the organization of the militia. But nothing is more probable than that an 
 exercise of the authority which Congress unconstitutionally stripped him of 
 would have only aggravated the evil, for his reliance must have been on the 
 colored men, and to arm that class for the purpose of keeping the whites in 
 order would have provoked sanguinary conflicts in which the governor and 
 his sable troops would have been badly worsted. 
 
 The legislature met at the beginning of the year 1869. Governor War- 
 moth's message to it was very conciliatory, expressing the hope that the 
 storms of the past had died away forever. A social equality bill was passed, 
 requiring all hotels and places of public entertainment and amusement to 
 admit all persons, without regard to race or color. Also a school bill, which 
 required that all schools, of whatever grade, depending on the public for sup 
 port, should be open to all pupils, of whatever race. The legislature, at the 
 same session, chartered two companies which were denounced as corrupt 
 monopolies the Ship Canal Company and the Slaughter House Company. 
 
 At the following session of the legislature so many financial schemes 
 were introduced that a public meeting was held in New Orleans, in Jan 
 uary, 1870, to protest against them. It was stated that the measures in ques 
 tion were certain to increase the burdens of the people, and to depreciate the 
 bonds and ruin the credit of the state; that the city debt was $17,000,000, 
 and the state debt $28,000,000, and that the latter would, if the schemes on 
 foot were carried through the legislature, be increased to $54,000,000. 
 The co-operation of Governor Warmoth was solicited, in efforts to arrest 
 these corrupt schemes. His reply was to the effect that a great many mem 
 bers of the legislature were ignorant and easily influenced by lobbyists, and 
 that the men of standing in the community ought to assist him in restrain 
 ing them from running into the excesses complained of. He also reminded 
 the property-holders and capitalists who took part in the public meeting that 
 many of the bills which the legislature was charged with passing corruptly 
 were for the aggrandizement of individuals and corporations representing 
 their " very best people." Their bank presidents and the best people of 
 New Orleans -were, he said, " crowding the lobbies of the legislature, con 
 tinually whispering into these men's ears, bribes." How was the state to be 
 defended, he asked, against the interposition of these people who were 
 potent in their influence in the community. It is apparent that Governor 
 Warmoth understood the term "best people "to be synonymous with the 
 term " richest people." He instanced the case of the five-million bond bill 
 (to take up the city notes) which he had vetoed, which had been passed in 
 85 
 
554 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the house over his veto, through the lobbying and bribes of all the prominent 
 brokers of the city, and which had been only defeated in the senate through 
 his exposure of the fact that an order for $50,000 had been laid, as a bribe, 
 on the desk of his own secretary. He also said that another senator of New 
 Orleans had offered him a bribe of $50,000 and a share of profits for his 
 signature to the Nicolson Pavement bill. 
 
 Grave charges of corruption were made against Governor Warmoth 
 himself; but in all these transactions he appears on the side of an honest 
 administration of state affairs. A bitter quarrel arose between him and the 
 state auditor, G. M. Wickliffe, whom he accused of extortion and corrup 
 tion. Fourteen indictments were found against Wickliffe, and the governor 
 suspended him. This proceeding, however, was not sanctioned by the 
 courts, and Wickliffe was temporarily restored to office. The governor 
 then laid the charges against Wickliffe before the house of representatives, by 
 which body he was impeached. He was tried before the senate as a high 
 court of impeachment in 1870, and was convicted. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats gave a cordial invitation 
 to the colored people to co-operate with them on a liberal declaration of 
 principles, the election in November, 1870, resulted in a solid Republican 
 triumph. The candidates for auditor and treasurer had majorities of about 
 twenty-five thousand ; and the entire delegation to Congress was Republican. 
 General Grant was President ; and none but registered Democratic votes 
 could be polled. Besides, no attempt at intimidation was made. The name 
 of President Grant was sufficient to repress all irregular methods of election 
 eering on the part of the Democrats. At the same election, the people rati 
 fied two important amendments to the state constitution. One was the re 
 peal of the ninety-ninth article, which disfranchised a large class of citizens. 
 The other was a limitation of the state debt to $25,000,000. The repeal of 
 the prescriptive clause gave the right of suffrage to all male citizens twenty- 
 one years of age. Governor Warmoth, who had recommended the abroga 
 tion of that clause, congratulated the legislature and people upon its being 
 expunged from the constitution. 
 
 The Republicans, however, quarreled among themselves ; and the fac 
 tions soon became more embittered against each other than against their com 
 mon enemy, the Democrats. This quarrel led to a most extraordinary con 
 dition of things, in which Governor Warmoth and his friends were arrayed 
 against the leading Federal officials : namely, Packard, the United States 
 marshal, Casey, the collector of the port (a brother-in-law of President 
 Grant), Lowell, the postmaster, and two deputy custom-house officers, 
 named Herwig and Carter. There was a struggle for the control of the Re 
 publican state convention ; but the Federal office-holders carried the day by 
 having the convention meet in the United States court room, in the custom 
 house, which was guarded by United States troops, and by some hundreds 
 
BAYONETS IN THE UNITED STATES COURT ROOM. 555 
 
 of deputy United States marshals. Warmoth went there, in company with 
 ninety -five other delegates, his adherents, and found, he said, "the main 
 entrance and the gates closed, barred and bolted, and guarded by a large 
 force of armed men, colored and white, mostly employes in the custom house 
 and letter-carriers of the post-office, called deputy United States marshals.*' 
 On the second floor of the building in which the court room was situated 
 they were " confronted by a line of United States troops armed with muskets 
 with bayonets fixed some one hundred and ten men in all." They were 
 refused admission to the room ; and so Warmoth and his fellow-delegates 
 retired, and held a convention of their own. 
 
 There was also a struggle over the office of president of the senate the 
 lieutenant-governor, Dunn, a colored man, having died in November, 1871. 
 The governor, a few days after Dunn's death, summoned the senators to meet 
 in extra session on the 6th of December, for the purpose of electing a pre 
 siding officer. A majority of the senators were of the governor's party, 
 while a majority of the house belonged to the custom-house faction, and 
 meditated an impeachment of Warmoth. As, in case of the governor's re 
 moval, the president of the senate would succeed him in the executive office, 
 it was important to secure that office ; and Warmoth managed, not without 
 suspicion of purchasing at least one vote, to have his candidate, Pinchback, 
 a colored man, chosen. A proceeding in the sixth circuit court revealed the 
 fact that a tin box purporting to contain $15,000, had been deposited in the 
 Louisiana Savings Bank, with a written agreement that the money was to be 
 delivered to a certain Senator Lewis, in consideration of his voting for Pinch- 
 back. Lewis was, however, cheated out of his reward, the contents of the 
 box having been delivered, without his knowledge, to one Dr. Southworth, 
 another political adventurer of that era. There is little doubt that Governor 
 Warmoth was cognizant of and a party to the bribery, as -well as being a 
 party to the further baseness of defrauding Lewis of the bribe. 
 
 A further bone of contention between the two factions was the speaker- 
 ship of the house. George W. Carter, an officer in the custom house, had 
 been elected speaker at the session preceding that which opened on the ist 
 of January, 1872. On the second day of this latter session a resolution of 
 confidence in him was passed by a vote of forty-nine to forty-five. But the 
 next day the house refused to approve the journal, by a vote of forty-nine to 
 forty-six. This was a test vote, and showed that the Carter party was in a 
 minority. Great confusion followed. A motion to declare the speaker's 
 chair vacant was made and declared out of order. Carter and his friends 
 saw that they were in a minority ; and Carter, it is asserted by the governor's 
 friends, promised that, if the house would adjourn, he would resign the next 
 day. The house did adjourn ; but, instead of Carter resigning, at noon the 
 next day the governor, lieutenant-governor, four senators, and eighteen 
 members of the house, all opponents of the custom-house faction, were 
 
556 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 arrested by United States deputy marshals, on writs issued by United States 
 Commissioner Woolfley, who had been a clerk under Marshal Packard, on 
 a charge of conspiracy to resist the execution of the laws of the United 
 States. They were soon, however, released on bail. This proceeding, per 
 fectly outrageous in its character, accomplished its purpose for the moment. 
 The Warmoth members of the house were thrown into temporary confusion, 
 and nearly all of them left the hall their withdrawal leaving the house 
 without a quorum. On the fourth day, with only fifty-one members present 
 (claimed to be less than a quorum) , the Carter party in a most summary 
 manner unseated seven of the Warmoth men, giving their places to anti- 
 Warmoth men. The Carterites were thus once more placed in the majority. 
 As to the senate, it was the purpose of Packard, Casey, and their friends to 
 prevent a quorum appearing ; and so fifteen of the senators who belonged to 
 that faction were secreted in the custom house for some time, and were then 
 placed on board the United States revenue cutter, Wilderness, where they 
 were kept from Monday night till the following Friday, being furnished with 
 provisions, wine, and whiskey. 
 
 The legislature having, in this condition of things, adjourned over, War- 
 moth immediately, without giving notice to his enemies, issued a call for his 
 legislature to meet the same day at 4.30 o'clock. The call, or proclamation, 
 was kept a profound secret ; and the legislature, Warmoth's portion of it, 
 was in session before Carter's followers were made aware of it. This pro 
 cedure was, of course, wholly illegal ; but it was a less flagrant outrage upon 
 constitutional liberty than the other faction had been guilty of. There being 
 no quorum in the senate, the Warmoth senators adjourned. In the house, 
 the Warmoth men mustered sixty-five members, a constitutional majority, 
 and they proceeded at once to undo the work of the Carter-Packard faction. 
 The office of speaker was declared vacant, and O. H. Brewster was elected 
 to fill the vacancy. Carter was voted out of the speakership by a unanimous 
 vote, and was then expelled from the house by a vote of forty-nine to five. 
 The house then adjourned until the next day. 
 
 In the meantime, a large number of policemen were appointed to guard 
 the Mechanics' Institute, which was used as the state capitol, and to protect 
 the governor and party. The police were heavily armed. Carter attempted 
 to enter the building, but the police, acting under orders, excluded him. He 
 and his friends then attempted to organize as a house in another hall ; but, 
 failing to obtain a quorum, most of his friends joined the majority in the 
 Mechanics' Institute. 
 
 Pending these anarchical proceedings, the administration at Washington, 
 in deference to public sentiment, was constrained to order the commander of 
 the Wilderness to "unload" to borrow the expressive phrase of General 
 Grant, used by him on another occasion. The cutter was accordingly 
 brought to the city, and the recusant senators disembarked. They, how- 
 
THE CUSTOM-HOUSE FACTION DEFEATED. 557 
 
 ever, refused to join the senate while there was an armed force around the 
 capitol. Hatred of Warmoth gave them the sympathy of the people of New 
 Orleans ; and on the 2oth, Carter was emboldened to issue a proclamation 
 declaring his intention to take forcible possession of the state capitol, and 
 inviting the citizens to join him. He accordingly raised several thousand 
 men and took the field for the purpose of executing his threat ; but the inter 
 position of General Emory, the United States military commander, who had 
 received orders from Washington to prevent a conflict, put a stop to the 
 enterprise. 
 
 Under these depressing influences the spirit of the custom-house faction 
 gave way, and the standard of rebellion against the state government was 
 abandoned. On the same day, January 22, which was marked by the defeat 
 or abandonment of Carter's military venture, the absent senators joined 
 those of the Warmoth faction ; and when it was declared, by a vote of 
 seventeen to sixteen, that the election of Pinchback in December, 1871, at 
 the extra session of the senate was legal and valid, some of the followers of 
 Carter belonging to the house of representatives also joined that body, 
 thus establishing an ample quorum, with a large Warmoth majority. The 
 expulsion of Carter and the election of Brewster as speaker were promptly 
 confirmed. 
 
 These extraordinary and exciting events, marking and growing out of the 
 struggle between two reckless factions for the control of the state government 
 and for the opportunities of plunder which such control could give, are set 
 forth in great detail in the testimony taken by a select committee of the Fed 
 eral House of Representatives, appointed under a resolution of the i5th of 
 January, 1872, " to inquire into the origin and character of the difficulties 
 which have arisen between the government and the officials of the State of 
 Louisiana and the United States officials in said state." The committee con 
 sisted of Glenni W. Scofield, of Pennsylvania, George W. McCrary, of Wis 
 consin, H. Boardman Smith, of New-York, R. Milton Speer, of Georgia, 
 and Stevenson Archer, of Maryland. The two first-named members con 
 curred in making a report indicating that the parties to the controversy were 
 actuated by none but honorable motives, and that their violations of law were 
 merely the offspring of excessive zeal for liberty. They did not even hint 
 that the Federal officials involved in the attempt to overthrow the state gov 
 ernment deserved rebuke, if not removal ; and they recommended no action 
 on the part of Congress. Mr. H. Boardman Smith made a more elaborate 
 report, directed principally to the vindication of the wisdom of Congress in 
 passing the Reconstruction acts, and to the defense of the course pursued by 
 the custom-house faction. But the report made by the two Democratic 
 members of the committee, Messrs. Speer and Archer, was a fair and thor 
 ough analysis of the occurrences ; and it is chiefly from it that the foregoing 
 summary has been made up. It concluded thus : " The committee has no 
 
55$ THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 power to relieve the people of Louisiana. Under a fair and honest election 
 they will relieve themselves." 
 
 Warmoth was thoroughly unscrupulous, and still it is difficult to avoid 
 a degree of sympathy with him in his struggle with the United States offi 
 cials, whose equally unscrupulous and dishonorable experience was winked 
 at and seconded by the national Administration. They were allowed to 
 employ the United States Army in supporting one wing of the Republican 
 party to defraud another of its equal rights in the convention ; and the same 
 favored faction was allowed to use the custom house and the revenue cutter 
 for the execution of their unlawful schemes. Worst of all, this faction, 
 headed by United States officers, by Packard, the United States marshal, by 
 Casey, the collector of the customs, and by Lowell, the postmaster of New 
 Orleans, was countenanced, and therefore aided and abetted, by the Admin 
 istration at Washington in the treasonable act of arresting the governor of 
 Louisiana. 
 
 The state constitution and acts passed by the legislature had conferred 
 upon Warmoth, as governor, arbitrary power in the regulation of elections. 
 It was he who appointed the registrars and poll-keepers, and was authorized 
 to prohibit citizens from challenging voters. The constitution gave to regis 
 tered voters the right to vote in any parish or in any part of a parish in the 
 state, after a residence of ten days ; and the effect of exemption from chal 
 lenge was, therefore, equivalent to allowing anybody to vote who was willing 
 to swear that he was a citizen of the state. Such voters could vote at as 
 many places also as they could reach in the course of the two or more days 
 during which the election continued. It is a well-known fact, that during 
 periods of high political excitement there are many vicious characters in 
 every community who are little scrupulous in the observance of oaths restric 
 tive of suffrage. It is equally true that demagogues have little difficulty in 
 persuading the illiterate and inconsiderate that it is their duty to vote as often 
 as possible in support of what they are taught to believe a good cause. 
 When laws become lawless contrivances to defeat the ends of justice, it is 
 not surprising that the people resort to lawless expedients for securing their 
 rights. 
 
 Warmoth, who was responsible for much of the lavish expenditure of 
 the government, was still ambitious of being thought a reformer, while his 
 opponents in the party, equally anxious to throw off the responsibility for 
 plundering the people, joined the Democratic outcry against him. In his 
 message of Jan. i, 1872, he exposed a degree of legislative profligacy at 
 the preceding session of sixty days, which exceeds anything in the annals 
 of American state legislation, unless it may have been rivaled or surpassed 
 by the carpet-baggers and field-hands of South Carolina, who have been so 
 graphically described by Mr. Pike, in his Prostrate State. The Louisiana 
 law-givers, in the brief period named, managed to expend in salaries, mile- 
 
ENORMOUS LEGISLATIVE EXPENSES. 559 
 
 age, printing, stationery, and other comforts, the sum of $958,956. Gov 
 ernor Warmoth, in his message, comments very freely upon this extrava 
 gance, and speculates upon the ways in which the money went. He says 
 that the expenses of the general assembly for salary for the sixty days' session, 
 and for mileage, even at the enormous rate of twenty cents per mile each 
 way, could not have been more than $100,000 ; and that the legitimate con 
 tingent expenses of both houses ought not to have exceeded $25,000. The 
 excess, $830,956, was squandered, he said, in the payment of extra mileage, 
 of fictitious per diem of salaries of an enormous corps of useless clerks, and 
 of imaginary expenses of committees authorized to sit during the vacation 
 and to travel throughout the state and into Texas, and in a hundred different 
 ways. The enrollment committee of the house had over eighty clerks, 
 most of whom were under pay during the whole session at eight dollars 
 per day, while there were only one hundred and twenty bills passed, and 
 while eight or ten clerks could have performed the whole work of the com 
 mittee. 
 
 A comparison of the legislative expenses for 1872 with those of former 
 years will illustrate the growth of corruption as a result of reconstruction. 
 In 1857 tne legislative expenditure was $100,000 ; in 1858, $85,000, and in 
 1859 an d 1860, $100,000 each. In 1861, which was a year of revolution and 
 extraordinary expenditure, the cost of legislation was $175,000. In 1864 it 
 was $75,000; in 1865, $225,000; in 1866, $170,000, and in 1867, 
 $200,000. In 1868 it leaped up to $250,000 ; in 1869, to $380,000 ; in 1870, 
 to $593,000; in 1871, to $647,000, and in 1872, to $958,956. But this 
 climax of legislative knavery cannot be fully appreciated except in associa 
 tion with the other fact that it was achieved by the party which claimed to 
 be inspired by high moral ideas and by the most disinterested love of uni 
 versal liberty, and whose special mission it was to elevate and educate the 
 down-trodden negro race. 
 
 Governor Warmoth obtained an injunction restraining the auditor from 
 the payment of the outstanding legislative warrants, on the ground that the 
 vouchers on which they had been issued were fraudulent. An auditor was 
 appointed by the court to investigate the matter, and the result was the dis 
 covery that, in many cases, the original amounts of the warrants had been 
 fraudulently increased. The warrants issued in excess of the appropriations 
 were ascertained to amount to about $240,000. Warrants amounting to 
 $40,000 had been issued to committees and their clerks for mileage and ex 
 penses in traveling to and from distant places, when their journals showed 
 that they had not been absent from the city. It was also shown that a reg 
 ular system of forgery had been practiced by brokers dealing in these war 
 rants. The figures written by the warrant clerk had been changed to larger 
 ones. The names of the officers whose duty it was to sign warrants had 
 
560 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 also been forged in many cases. It seems that none of the guilty parties 
 were brought to justice. 
 
 The mutual charges made by Warmoth and Carter, the leaders of the 
 two factions into which the Republicans of Louisiana were divided, \vill 
 serve to illustrate the political morality of the times. Carter charged that 
 Warmoth had come to Louisiana poor, and that he had made a "big fortune" 
 and created a "big debt" for the state. Warmoth retorted that Carter 
 had supported all the bills making large appropriations of state bonds, and 
 that he got his quid pro quo in each and every case. The governor made 
 similar charges against Charles W. Lowell and S. B. Packard, and against 
 James B. Casey, of whom Warmoth said : " My friend Jim Casey is a clever 
 fellow. He hasn't sense enough to be a bad fellow. A bad fellow must 
 have some character. He hasn't any." Carter, the leader of the opposition 
 to Warmoth, was equally free in the use of epithets. He said in a speech 
 in February, 1872 : " Louisiana is afflicted with worse laws and worse 
 administrators thereof than can be found in ten states of the Union. Henry 
 Clay Warmoth is the Boss Tweed of Louisiana, except that that amiable 
 villain, with all his infamies, is a gentleman and a saint compared with the 
 unscrupulous despot who fills the executive chair of this state." 
 
 It can scarcely be thought necessary to give details of the bribery and cor 
 ruption of which the testimony taken by investigating committees affords 
 super-abundant proof. Indeed, there is so much of it that one hardly knows 
 where to begin or where to leave off the recital. Warmoth seems to have 
 " covered his tracks," as the phrase is, better than others. He went to New 
 Orleans penniless at the close of the war. He was a native of Illinois, en 
 tered the volunteer service in Missouri, and was dismissed by General Grant, 
 on a charge of circulating exaggerated accounts of the Union losses at Vicks- 
 burg ; but, this charge proving to be groundless, he was restored by Mr. 
 Lincoln. He was in Texas for a short time, where he was indicted for em 
 bezzlement and appropriating government cotton ; but, no prosecutor ap 
 pearing, he was discharged. This was before he located in New Orleans, 
 where he was elected to Congress under President Johnson's reconstruction 
 policy. It is said that the voters at the election each contributed half a dollar 
 to pay his expenses to Washington, which fact would imply that he had not 
 been very successful in cotton speculations in Texas. When the committee 
 reported in 1872, Warmoth was estimated to be worth from half a million to 
 a million dollars. He testified that he had made more than $100,000 the 
 first year. Casey, Packard, Carter, Lowell, Herwig, and all the prominent 
 leaders were interested in procuring contracts or charters by which the state 
 or the city was to be robbed and themselves enriched ; and these corrupt 
 advantages were procured by bribery. Lowell, the postmaster of New 
 Orleans, was speaker of the state house of representatives in 1868, and voted 
 for most of the obnoxious measures. 
 
CARPET-BAGGERS' MONOPOLY OF OFFICES. 561 
 
 Senator Ray, a prominent supporter of the custom-house faction, got 
 through an appropriation for a railroad from Vicksburg to Monroe amount 
 ing to $546,000, and he received $70,000 for revising and codifying the laws. 
 He was deeply interested in the Louisiana Levee Company, was its champion 
 in the senate, and called the previous question by which discussion was cut 
 off. When the senate adjourned, he became president of the company, with 
 a salary of $10,000 per annum. The act of incorporation authorized the 
 building of fifteen million cubic yards of levees at the enormous price of 
 sixty cents per cubic yard. Herwig, Casey's deputy, was also a senator ; 
 for it was a cardinal principle with carpet-baggers in all the reconstructed 
 states to monopolize at least two offices. Herwig was interested in the " act 
 to incorporate the New Orleans Shed Company," which occupied the levee 
 front from Common to Poydras streets, and was invested with power to im 
 pose a tariff on commerce, like the Algerine pirates on the Barbary coast, or 
 the noble German pirates on the Rhine. Casey, the collector, was also inter 
 ested in this piratical scheme ; but Mr. H. Boardman Smith, in his elaborate 
 apology for the custom-house faction, put in the extenuating circumstances 
 that some of the most " respectable and distinguished Democratic leaders of 
 the state " were implicated in the same scheme. The fact that Casey had 
 such ' ' distinguished and respectable " Democratic confederates in the scheme 
 of levying these contributions upon commerce, exonerated him from re 
 proach in the estimation of Mr. Congressman Smith. 
 
 Carter was an apostatizing preacher, and ex-Confederate colonel, who, 
 as a last resort, turned loyal patriot and became the leader of the anti-War- 
 moth faction in the assembly. He also had an interest in the Louisiana 
 Levee Company, which was given him, according to Warmoth, in consider 
 ation of the services which he rendered to the bill as speaker. He also en 
 joyed as a sinecure the attorneyship of the New Orleans, Mobile and Texas 
 Railroad Company, at a salary of $10,000 per annum. Warmoth says that 
 the contract for his employment was made with Carter by the company after 
 he had kept in his pocket for thirty or sixty days a bill which had passed the 
 legislature almost unanimously, providing for subscription to two millions 
 and a half of its stock in lieu of indorsement of its second mortgage bonds ; 
 and that immediately after this contract was made, by which he became the 
 attorney of the company, the bill was signed by him. Carter was also the 
 paid attorney of the New Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern Railroad 
 Company, receiving $5,000 per annum. 
 
 Packard, the governor stated, caused to be prepared and introduced in 
 the legislature the Nicolson Pavement bill, which would have cost about 
 one and a quarter million of dollars. The Democratic members of the com 
 mittee, Speer and Archer, stated that Casey was already proved to have 
 been interested in, and the holder of, a corruption fund of $18,000, being 
 part of a $50,000 fund raised by himself and others to bribe the legislature to 
 pass a bill in which he was named as an incorporator. 
 
562 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Such were the tried and trusted friends and supporters in Louisiana of 
 President Grant's administration. 
 
 At the general elections in November, 1872, for President, congressmen, 
 legislature, and state officers, Pinchback, the colored lieutenant-governor, 
 deserted Warmoth and formed a coalition or fusion with the custom-house 
 faction. The election took place on the 4th of November, the day previous 
 to the elections in the other states, and resulted in victory for each party, ac- 
 eording to the decisions made by the two returning boards. According to 
 the count of the Warmoth returning board, Greeley received 66,467 votes, 
 and Grant 59,975- According to the custom-house or Kellogg board, 
 Greeley received 57,029 votes, and Grant 715663. McEnery, the Demo 
 cratic or liberal candidate for governor, according to the custom-house 
 count, received only 54,079 votes, while Kellogg received 7 2 ?89O. But 
 according to the Warmoth returning board, McEnery had a majority of 
 7,000. The custom-house board gave seats in the senate to twenty-eight 
 Republicans and eight Democrats, or Fusionists, and gave seats in the house 
 to seventy-seven Republicans and thirty-two Fusionists. 
 
 The Fusionists claimed that they had elected a majority of the legisla 
 ture, and that body met in the city hall ; the Mechanics' Institute, which was 
 the temporary state capitol, being occupied by General Emory in the inter 
 est of Packard, Casey, and Kellogg. The Fusionist legislature petitioned 
 the President to withdraw the military force which had taken possession of 
 the state capitol for the purpose of awing and restraining the action of the 
 governor, but the President refused to grant their petition. In other words, 
 he assumed the responsibility for the overthrow of the state government by 
 his subordinates. 
 
 The Packard legislature met in the capitol on the 9th of December, 
 1872, although the ist of January was the day fixed in the constitution. 
 Pinchback, the president of the senate, claimed to hold over in that capa 
 city. The house, Lowell the postmaster presiding as speaker, immediately 
 proceeded to impeach Governor Warmoth for " high crimes and misdemean 
 ors," and thereupon Pinchback assumed the office of governor. Judge 
 Elmore, one of the state judges, issued a writ forbidding Pinchback to take 
 charge of the executive office ; but a dispatch from United States Attorney- 
 General Williams assured Pinchback that his authority was recognized by 
 President Grant, and that the state would be protected from disorder and 
 violence. It was not the habit of President Grant to wait upon " the law's 
 delay," or upon the slow deliberations of courts and legislatures, when an 
 order from headquarters or a rescript from the White House could dispose 
 of the matter in a moment. Mr. Ogden, the attorney-general of the state, 
 and Mr. McEnery, who claimed that he had been elected governor and held 
 Governor Warmoth's certificate to that effect, petitioned President Grant to 
 suspend his decision in the premises until the facts could be laid before him ; 
 but no attention was paid to their request. 
 
PROTEST OF THE TAX-PAYERS. 563 
 
 A meeting of the people the property-holders and tax-payers ap 
 pointed a delegation of one hundred of their number to proceed to Washing 
 ton and lay their grievances before the President. This was on the loth of 
 December, 1872. Mr. McEnery telegraphed to the President, asking him to 
 delay the recognition of either government until that committee could reach 
 Washington and lay the case before him and Congress. To his request he 
 received a reply, signed by Attorney-General Williams, in these words : 
 " Your visit with one hundred citizens will be unavailing so far as the Presi 
 dent is concerned. His decision is made and will not be changed, and the 
 sooner it is acquiesced in, the sooner good order and peace will be restored." 
 
 The custom-house returning board had no official returns of the election, 
 and had substituted therefor as the basis of its action, rumors and unauthen- 
 ticated documents. It had counted as so many votes the affidavits of all per 
 sons, real or pretended, who declared that they had been wrongfully denied 
 the privilege of registration. A government thus set up by fraud, by Presi 
 dent Grant's civil officials, President Grant upheld by United States soldiers. 
 The legislature was worthy of its origin. Of the 140 members of the two 
 houses, say the citizens' committee, sixty-eight were of African descent, 
 most of whom were totally illiterate ; and from day to day during the session 
 members were expelled or unseated, their places being given to contestants, 
 until few of the Democratic opposition were left. 
 
 A public meeting of the tax-payers, irrespective of party, was held in 
 New Orleans on the 3d of January, to express opposition to the Pinchback 
 government, and to support that of McEnery. A committee which was ap 
 pointed by the meeting issued an address calling upon the people of the city 
 and state to sustain the legislature (meaning that returned by the Warmoth 
 board) which was about to meet, by giving it their moral support. Pinch- 
 back issued a proclamation declaring that Governor Kellogg would be in 
 augurated, and that the Republican legislature would meet at the appointed 
 time, but that "no pretended governor and no pretended general assembly" 
 should convene and disturb the public peace. 
 
 Pinchback had reason to count on national aid in carrying out this declara 
 tion ; for the President, only three weeks before, had given him the assur 
 ance that his government was recognized and would be sustained. But he 
 was doomed to disappointment. The McEnery legislature was quietly 
 organized, being surrounded and protected by the United States troops that 
 were called out to preserve the peace between the rival parties without 
 showing favor to either. The people also turned out in large force to de 
 fend the Democratic legislature ; but, as Pinchback made no effort to enforce 
 his proclamation, they returned quietly to their homes. It is improbable 
 that General Emory would have failed to sustain Pinchback and to repress 
 the McEnery party if he had not received instructions to that effect ; and 
 it is to be inferred, therefore, that President Grant found it necessary, or 
 
564 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 prudent, to abandon his decision announced in the letter of Attorney-General 
 Williams. 
 
 On the 1 4th of January, the two governors were inaugurated amid great 
 excitement, Kellogg at the state capitol and McEnery at Lafayette Square. 
 The Metropolitan police and the United States troops were called out for the 
 preservation of peace and order. 
 
 On the same day, January i4th, the United States Senate adopted a reso 
 lution of inquiry into the condition of affairs in Louisiana, with instructions 
 to report whether there were any existing state government there. The con 
 clusion arrived at by the committee was that, unless the election were held 
 to be absolutely void for frauds, McEnery and his associates in state offices, 
 and the persons certified as members of the legislature by the De Feriet or 
 Warmoth board, ought to be recognized as the legal government of the 
 state ; and that there seemed to be no escape from the alternative, that 
 the McEnery government must be recognized by Congress, or that Congress 
 must provide for a re-election. And the committee argued that under the 
 clause of the Constitution which provides that the United States shall guar 
 antee to every state a republican form of government, the power to order a 
 new election existed in Congress. A bill to that effect was accordingly in 
 troduced, but it failed to become a law ; and affairs in Louisiana were al 
 lowed to drift as they might, under the government of Kellogg and the legis 
 lature manufactured by the custom-house, or Pinchback, returning board. 
 
 Encouraged by the failure of Congress to pass an act authorizing a new 
 election, President Grant returned to his first love, which was the custom 
 house governor and legislature. This government had enacted rigid law^s 
 for the collection of the taxes, more than two millions of which were said to 
 be in arrears, and the militia was to be called out to aid the tax-gatherers. 
 On the other hand, McEnery and his legislature were far from surrendering 
 their pretensions, and on the i5th of February he issued a proclamation for 
 bidding the payment of taxes to the Kellogg faction, and on the 2^th he 
 issued another proclamation ordering an enrollment of the militia. These 
 movements of the Democratic governor were backed up by a mass-meeting 
 held in New Orleans on the ist of March. The whites had a large ma 
 jority in that city, possessing nearly all its wealth and intelligence, so that 
 the Kellogg movement could not have been maintained a single day but for 
 the support received from Federal bayonets. This mass-meeting adopted 
 resolutions sustaining McEnery and calling on the President to withdraw the 
 troops, or else to re-establish martial law r . 
 
 On the 6th of March, an effort was made by the people to seize the 
 police stations, which was attended with considerable bloodshed, and was 
 defeated by the Metropolitan police. McEnery disavowed this act of the 
 mob as premature and unauthorized. This failure, however, emboldened 
 the Kellogg party to retaliate by the capture, on the same day, of Odd Fel- 
 
NEGRO REVOLT AGAINST THE KELLOGG GOVERNMENT. 565 
 
 lows Hall, in which the McEnery legislature sat, and by the arrest of the 
 members, who were marched out between files of soldiers, and taken to the 
 guard-house. 
 
 McEnery appealed to General Emory, the commander of the Department 
 of the Gulf, asking him whether or not this action of the Metropolitan police 
 force met with his countenance and approval, and whether the United States 
 forces under his command would support the armed occupation of Odd Fel 
 lows Hall. To this General Emory replied that the seizure had been made 
 without his knowledge and without conference with him ; but he inclosed 
 a copy of a telegram received by him from Washington making it his duty 
 to prevent any violence against the state government of Louisiana, which 
 was that represented by Kellogg. He added that if the seizure of Odd Fel 
 lows Hall was the act of Governor Kellogg and of the government of the 
 State of Louisiana, and if any violence were used to interfere with that act, 
 he should most assuredly consider it his instructions to prevent any such 
 violent interference. This correspondence was followed by the issue of an 
 address to the people by McEnery, and by the temporary abandonment on 
 his part of all effort to assert his authority. 
 
 But the establishment of the Kellogg government did not bring peace to 
 the state. A revolt of the negroes in Grand Parish against the Kellogg gov 
 ernment took place in the spring of the year 1873. The negroes captured 
 the town of Colfax, which they held from the ist to the I3th of April, killing 
 in the meantime two colored men who refused to join them. At length a 
 sheriff appointed by Kellogg raised a posse of 1 25 white men and besieged 
 the negroes, 300 strong, in the court house, which they had fortified. The 
 negroes consented to a parley, but shot two of the attacking party who were 
 sent to them under a flag of truce. The court house was then fired, and 
 many of the negroes were shot and killed while attempting to escape. A 
 state of lawlessness existed in other parishes, originating in the attempt of 
 Kellogg to enforce the collection of taxes, which were in arrears to the 
 amount of $2,331,000. In his appeal to the commanding general for the 
 assistance of the troops, he represented that the local authorities were utterly 
 unable to keep the peace. The President issued a proclamation commanding 
 the insurgents to disperse and return to their homes ; and Mr. McEnery, in 
 view of the hopelessness of the unequal contest, issued an address advising 
 his friends to abstain from resisting the Federal Government. 
 
 But the most shocking instance of lawlessness and violence took place in 
 Red River Parish, near the town of Coushatta. Kellogg's account of it is, 
 that about the 28th of August, 1874, a body of persons belonging to a semi- 
 military organization known as the White League of Louisiana, assembled 
 in Coushatta for the purpose of compelling, by force of arms, the state offi 
 cers of that parish to resign their positions. These officers, he says, were 
 men of good character, most of them largely interested in planting and mer- 
 
566 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 cantile pursuits, the only objection to them being that they were of Republi 
 can principles. The sheriff of the parish summoned a posse comitatus of citi 
 zens, white and colored, to assist him in protecting these officers. This posse, 
 consisting of sixty-five men, was overruled by a superior force assembled from 
 the adjacent parishes, and finally they surrendered themselves prisoners with 
 the explicit guarantee that their lives would be spared, if the more prominent 
 Republicans would agree to leave the parish, and if those holding office 
 would resign their positions. These stipulations were complied with on 
 the part of the Republican officials, who were then locked in jail for the 
 night. These persons were Homer G. Twitchell, planter and tax-collector 
 of Red River Parish, and deputy United States postmaster at Coushatta ; 
 Robert A. Deweese, supervisor of registration, De Soto Parish ; Clark Hol 
 land, merchant and supervisor of registration, Red River Parish ; W. T. 
 Howell, parish attorney and United States counsel ; Frank S. Edgerton, 
 sheriff of Red River Parish, and M. E. Willis, merchant and justice of the 
 peace. On the following morning, Sunday, the 3oth of August, these per 
 sons were bound together, two and two, and conducted by an armed guard 
 to the McFarland plantation, just across the parish line, where they were set 
 upon and deliberately murdered in cold blood. Their bodies were buried 
 where they fell, without inquest or any formality whatever. 
 
 The Democratic or Southern account of this shocking massacre is to the 
 effect that a band of negroes had shot at a white man and then resisted an 
 attempt to arrest them ; that one of the white men who was of the party was 
 shot and killed by the negroes ; that the next day Homer Twitchell and two 
 negroes were charged with having killed two white men ; that this caused 
 the whites to turn out in force and capture the persons before named. It is 
 also alleged that these persons were, by their own request, started to Shreve- 
 port under a guard of seventeen men, and that they were intercepted and 
 shot by a band of unknown men, the six negroes being set at liberty. There 
 can be no doubt, however, about the main facts, which may be set down as 
 among the horrible consequences which ought to have been anticipated as 
 likely to result from the attempt to govern a free people by a pack of 
 knavish adventurers from abroad, under the patronage of the Federal Gov 
 ernment and sustained by Federal bayonets. 
 
 The utter weakness and inability of the Kellogg government to maintain 
 its assumed authority was shown on the i4th of September, 1874. A mass 
 meeting was held that day at the Clay statue, in Canal Street, New Orleans, 
 for the purpose of protesting against the Kellogg administration, and 
 especially against a seizure of arms that had been recently made. This 
 meeting adopted resolutions calling on Kellogg to abdicate, and appointing 
 a committee to wait upon him and present the request of the people. This 
 committee called at the executive office for the purpose of laying the resolu 
 tions before the governor, but did not obtain an interview with him. It 
 
THE MILITIA AND POLICE ENCOUNTER EACH OTHER. 567 
 
 received an answer, however, through one of the governor's staff declining 
 to receive any communication from the committee, on the ground of there 
 being several large bodies of armed men in different parts of the city, whose 
 presence was a menace to the government ; but saying that, should the peo 
 ple assemble peaceably without menace, he would deem it one of his high 
 est duties to receive any communication from them or to entertain any peti 
 tion addressed to the government. The committee in reply denied that 
 there were any armed men in the city to their knowledge. They declared 
 that they had come on a mission of peace, and that if the governor acceded 
 to their proposition of abdication, the people of Louisiana would be pacified, 
 and violence and bloodshed prevented. 
 
 When the report of the committee was made to the public meeting, it was 
 followed by an appeal to arms with the avowed purpose of driving Kellogg 
 from power. Mr. McEnery was absent from the city, and Mr. Penn, who 
 had run on the same ticket with him for lieutenant-governor, stepped forward 
 as the acting governor and issued a proclamation calling out the militia, 
 " without regard to color or previous condition." Mr. Frederick Ogden was 
 appointed " provisional general of the Louisiana state militia," and was 
 ordered to assume command at once and organize the militia into com 
 panies, regiments, and battalions. By three o'clock of the same day a large 
 number of armed men had mustered at the rendezvous on Poydras Street. 
 Here they fortified themselves by barricading all the neighboring streets. 
 There were very few United States troops in New Orleans at that time, 
 and Governor Kellogg's chief reliance was the Metropolitan police force, 
 which was well-armed, had some artillery, and was commanded by Generals 
 Longstreet and Badger. About four o'clock the opposing forces encountered 
 each other on Canal Street, near the river, and after a brief but bloody strug 
 gle, the police were completely routed with a loss of fourteen killed and be 
 tween twenty and forty wounded. The loss of the insurgents was twelve 
 killed and thirteen wounded, several of the latter mortally. Next morning 
 the police laid down their arms and the state house was surrendered to the 
 militia under Ogden. Kellogg took refuge in the custom house, while the 
 whole property of the state and city was taken possession of by the insur 
 gents. So the revolution was complete. The coup d'etat was executed 
 with a skill worthy of Frenchmen. The armory and arsenals, the police 
 stations, and fire-alarm telegraphs, with the whole machinery of the state 
 and city governments, fell into the hands of the acting governor, Penn, and 
 if it had not been for the intervention of the President, the government of 
 Kellogg and his legislature would have gone down forever without leaving a 
 ripple on the surface. 
 
 Mr. Penn sent a dispatch to President Grant, briefly informing him of 
 what had been done and the reasons for it, and declaring the unswerving 
 loyalty of the people. All he asked for was that the President should 
 
568 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 " withhold any aid or protection from our enemies and the enemies of 
 republican rights and of the peace and liberty of the people." 
 
 Kellogg also sent on his version of the affair to the President, who re 
 sponded promptly and energetically in a proclamation dated September 15, 
 in which he commanded the "turbulent and disorderly persons" to dis 
 perse and retire peacefully to their respective homes within five days, and to 
 submit themselves thereafter to the laws and constituted authorities of the 
 state. 
 
 Thus were the people, of Louisiana again put under the yoke which 
 Senators Carpenter, Logan, Alcorn, and Anthony declared to have been 
 originally imposed by fraud and violence the violence being furnished by 
 President Grant. The President made good his proclamation by sending 
 troops and men-of-war to New Orleans to enforce it. General Emory was 
 instructed to take possession of the state property and turn it over to Kel 
 logg ; to maintain the peace ; and, under no circumstances, to recognize 
 Penn's government. 
 
 On the 1 7th, the latter surrendered, under protest, to General Emory, 
 who, instead of placing Kellogg in control of affairs, appointed Colonel 
 Brooke military governor of New Orleans. This act was disapproved by the 
 President. But it turned out that Kellogg was in no hurry to resume the 
 functions of an office the duties of which he was conscious of being unable 
 to execute without the support of Federal bayonets. General Emory ex 
 plained to President Grant that he had " placed Governor Brooke in command 
 of the city as well as in command of the troops. Otherwise there would 
 have been anarchy. Governor Kellogg," he said, " did not call, and has not 
 yet called, on me for support to re-establish the state government. His chief 
 of police was shot down, and the next in command also ; and the whole force 
 utterly dispersed and hidden away out of sight. For one of them to stand on 
 his beat would have been certain destruction, and even now the state author 
 ities represented by Governor Kellogg have asked to defer taking charge for 
 the present." 
 
 It was a humiliating confession of incapacity to govern, when the head of 
 the state feared to take the reins in hand, although supported by the United 
 States army and navy. But Kellogg' s experience had taught him to regard 
 the part of puppet even as a dangerous and undesirable distinction, and it was 
 not until the I9th that he was encouraged to emerge from his hiding-place in 
 the custom house under the panoply of the United States flag, by the assur 
 ance from General Emory that he would be furnished the necessary military 
 support to re-establish the state government. 
 
 The city was policed by the military during these days of restoration to 
 carpet-bag rule ; and when the city police had been reorganized and had re 
 sumed their duties, they were still for a time protected, as General Emory 
 stated, by troops stationed at various points. 
 
EFFORTS TO DIVIDE THE COLORED VOTE. 569 
 
 The results of the election in November, 1874, are so well and clearly 
 stated by the sub-committee of the United States House of Representatives, 
 of which Mr. Hoar was chairman, that nothing better can be done than to 
 present its conclusions, and its reasons for them. This sub-committee, com 
 posed of Messrs. Charles Foster, of Ohio, Wm. Walter Phelps, of New Jersey, 
 and Clarkson N. Potter, of New-York, two Republicans and one Democrat, 
 spent eight days in New Orleans in taking testimony. They agreed in their 
 report on the subject. This fact, that three highly intelligent men, repre 
 senting the two great parties, after thorough investigation, arrived at a 
 common conclusion, furnishes the best evidence of its correctness. They 
 examined ninety-five witnesses and collected a large amount of documentary 
 evidence. They expressed themselves constrained to declare that the action 
 of the returning board, on the whole, was arbitrary, unjust, and- illegal, 
 and that that arbitrary, unjust, and illegal action alone prevented the return 
 of a majority of conservative members to the lower house. 
 
 As illustrative of the character of the Kellogg administration, and show 
 ing that it was made up of unprincipled adventurers whose sole business in 
 Louisiana was to enrich themselves by robbing the people, they state that no 
 witnesses had succeeded in naming, in any rural parish, five white Republi 
 cans who supported the Kellogg government who were not themselves office 
 holders or related to or employed by office-holders. They state that in New 
 Orleans, houses and stores were to be had for the taxes ; that in Natchitoches 
 Parish the taxation reached about eight per centum on the assessed value of 
 the property ; that in many parishes all the white Republicans and all the 
 office-holders belonged to a single family ; and that the securities of the state 
 had fallen in two years from seventy or eighty per centum to twenty-five, and 
 of the city of New Orleans from eighty or ninety per centum to thirty or 
 forty the fall in bank shares, railroad shares, and stock of cities and other 
 corporations being in a corresponding degree. The committee accounts, to 
 some extent, for the Republican defeat in the following statement : 
 
 "But the reduction of wages, the non-fulfillment of personal or political 
 pledges, the malfeasance of home and local officials, disputes among the 
 leading colored persons in other localities, the loss and embezzlement in 
 some cases of the school funds, and the failure of the Freedmen's Bank 
 all combined to divide the views of the colored voters during the late cam 
 paign. An effort was accordingly made by the conservatives to acquire a 
 part of the negro vote. With that view, it was sought in many quarters to 
 propitiate them." 
 
 Another committee of Congress was sent down to New Orleans, com 
 posed of Messrs. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, William A. Wheeler, 
 of New- York, William P. Frye, of Maine, and Samuel S. Marshall, of Illi 
 nois, the last named being the only Democrat. The object of this com 
 mittee was to effect a compromise between the parties. This was accom- 
 
 36 
 
570 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 plished on the basis of allowing Kellogg to retain the office of governor, 
 while the Democratic members who were elected in Rapides, Iberia, and 
 the other parishes which had been rejected by the returning board, were 
 allowed to take their seats in the legislature. This gave a decided majority 
 to the Democrats or conservatives the native whites who paid the taxes, 
 and who had been the victims of Republican robbery. This class has ever 
 since retained the ascendency in the control of the state affairs. The dis- 
 . graceful scramble and compromise of two years later, over the Presidential 
 question, in which the Republicans were "counted in" upon the national 
 elections, and " counted out" upon the state election, must be relegated to 
 the province of general history. 
 
 The public debt and " liabilities" of Louisiana, at different periods, have 
 been as follows the " liabilities " being on account of indorsement of rail 
 road bonds, or legislative agreements to lend the state bonds to railroads : 
 
 Jan. i, 1861, $10,099,074 
 
 Jan. i, 1868, ... 14,347,051 
 
 June i, 1870, . . .... 41,194,473 
 
 Excess of expenditures over receipts up to 1871, . . 9>3455733 
 
 Jan. i, 1873, . . . 45,183,907 
 
 The contingent liabilities in 1873 amounted to $21,090,500, but the bonds 
 had not been issued, and a constitutional amendment of 1874 prohibited their 
 issue. On the 1st of January, 1875, the bonds and floating debt amounted 
 to $23,336,660. 
 
 The grand debates before the people from the close of the war until the 
 election of Samuel J. Tilden, and especially about the time when Andrew 
 Johnson was in collision with the Republican Senators and congressmen, 
 raised high and far above all others the question of the restoration of all the 
 states lately in insurrection to their complete Federal relations. Was it not 
 Henry Ward Beecher who gave, in one pregnant sentence, the philosophy 
 of that contest? "Our theory of government," said he, "has no place for 
 a state except in the Union." In his opinion it is justly taken for granted 
 that the duties and responsibilities of a state in Federal relations tend to 
 its political health, and to that of the whole nation. Territories had been 
 brought in with haste, even before the fulfillment of prescribed conditions, 
 as though it were dangerous to leave them outside of the great body politic. 
 Mr. Beecher believed that if the Senators and Representatives from Tennes 
 see had been admitted at once on the assembling of Congress, and if, in suc 
 cession, as qualified, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Vir 
 ginia had been reinstated, the public mind of the South would have been far 
 more healthy than it was in 1866, and that states lingering on probation to 
 the last would have been under a more salutary influence than though a dozen 
 
THE TRUE SPHERE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 571 
 
 armies had watched over them. Was not this true philosophy? Did not 
 this minister of grace advise a healthful regimen in the progress of restora 
 tion? Was not the opposite of his thought improgressive ? Did it not op 
 erate to exclude great masses of the people, unsettled before and growing 
 more irritable ? Did it not substitute military for local government ? Was 
 not the government at Washington called upon to interfere in one and an 
 other difficulty ? Was not the method of interposition which was pursued in 
 1866, and for many years afterwards was it not, as shown by events, pur 
 sued inaptly and sometimes with great injustice? Did not this eminent 
 sage speak more wisely, and from a higher than a mere political plane, when 
 he said that our government was adapted to its own proper functions, that it 
 was in its nature utterly devoid of those habits of iniquity which belong to a 
 centralized government, and that it was in accord with the essential quality 
 of freedom to remit authority in local affairs to the states ? 
 
 He spoke with discernment when he said that the Federal Government 
 was unfit to exercise minor police and local government, and would inevita 
 bly blunder in the attempt. Indignantly he asked whether the Nation was to 
 remain dismembered to serve the ends of parties? He was not afraid, at 
 the beginning of our last decade, to admit that the power, even if it should 
 pass into the hands of a party made up of Southern men, and of the hitherto 
 dishonored and misled Democracy of the North, could not be used just as 
 they pleased ; for the war had changed not alone institutions but ideas. The 
 whole country had advanced. Public sentiment had been exalted far beyond 
 what it had been at any former period. A new party would, like a river, of 
 necessity find a course determined by the existing slopes and forms of the 
 continent. 
 
 Therefore, with wonder, and shame, and scorn he heard the fear expressed 
 by a few that the South, i'f once more in adjustment with the Federal Gov 
 ernment, would rule the Nation. Was not the North rich? Never so rich. 
 The South poor ? Never so poor. Was not the population of the North 
 double that of the South ? Was not the industry of the North in diversity, 
 in forwardness and productiveness, and in all the machinery and education 
 required for manufactures, half a century in advance of the South? Were 
 there not churches in the North crowning every hill, and schools swarming 
 in every neighborhood ? The South had but scattering lights at long dis 
 tances, like light-houses twinkling along the edge of a continent of darkness. 
 
 In the presence of such a contrast, he exclaimed, " How mean and 
 craven is the fear that the South will rule the policy of the land ! " Conced 
 ing that the South would have a most important restraining influence, he 
 saw with clearness that if it should rise at once to the control of the govern 
 ment it would be because of refusal by the North, demoralized by prosperity 
 and besotted by groveling interests, to discharge its share of political duty. 
 
57 2 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 In such case, he said, the South would not only control the government, but 
 ought to control it. This was prophecy. Since it was made, a new evangel 
 has appeared upon the very mountain-tops and in the valleys of our land. 
 We are united. The great chasm which the rebellion made has been nearly 
 filled up. It grows narrower. There no longer arise out of it the dread 
 spectres and threatening shapes which these pictures of reconstruction in the 
 preceding chapters have portrayed. 
 
 At length, and after the long night of reconstruction affliction, there rose 
 a day-star in the hearts of the prostrate states. Then came serene day itself, 
 and as its luminary turned toward its setting, its gleams of comfort upon the 
 Southern land fell cool and sweet, the shadows lengthened, pointing to the 
 dawn which 1884 gave. 
 
 The condition of affairs in Texas at the beginning of the year 1867 was 
 as bad as possible, if the reports of the army officers may be relied on. 
 General Sheridan, as commander of the Department of the Gulf, in his 
 report to General Grant, dated New Orleans, Jan. 25, 1867, stated that the 
 condition of the freedmen and Union men in remote parts of Texas was truly 
 horrible ; and that the freedmen were shot and Union men were persecuted 
 if they had the temerity to express their opinions. General Grant trans 
 mitted this report to the Secretary of War. He recommended that martial 
 law be declared. He deplored its necessity. 
 
 The financial affairs of the state were not, however, badly managed. 
 The revenue collected during eleven and one-half months, beginning Aug. 
 14, 1866, and ending July 3 1 , 1867, was $626,518. The expenditures dur 
 ing the same period were $625,151. 
 
 It has been stated that Texas was a part of the Fifth military district. Of 
 this district General Sheridan was the commander. His headquarters were 
 at New Orleans. Gen. Charles Griffin was placed in command of the sub- 
 district of Texas. His headquarters were at Galveston. On the i5th of 
 April, 1867, General Griffin issued an order announcing that, under the acts 
 of Congress of March 2d and March 23d, he was required to protect all per 
 sons in their rights of person and property ; to suppress insurrection, dis 
 order and violence ; and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of 
 the public peace and other criminals. Jurisdiction of offenses, he said, 
 might be taken by the local civil authorities, but where it was evident that 
 the tribunals would not impartially try cases brought before them, the imme 
 diate military commander was to arrest, or cause to be arrested, the offenders 
 and criminals, hold them in confinement, and present their cases in writing 
 to headquarters, with a view to have the parties brought before, and tried by, 
 a military commission. 
 
 General Griffin also announced that he was empowered to fill vacancies in 
 
SHERIDAN AND HANCOCK IN TEXAS. 573 
 
 executive offices, and that no elections would be allowed under the existing 
 government of the state. In June, the policemen of Galveston were removed. 
 The general sent a list of twenty-five names to the mayor, with authority to 
 select his policemen from it. Five of the persons named were colored. As 
 an officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, the commander of the district issued an 
 order in July declaring that accounts against freedmen would not be allowed 
 to constitute a lien upon their portion of the crop. This must be regarded 
 as a legislative order. General Griffin thus assumed the office of law-giver 
 as well as the executive and judicial offices. The wisdom of this military 
 enactment, however, may well be doubted. The effect of it must have been 
 to make the planters hesitate about giving credit to their employes, even for 
 necessaries. The position of a state judge under this military supervision 
 was not an enviable one. He had taken an oath to hear and determine 
 causes in conformity with the laws of the state, while he was required by the 
 military commander to conform his rulings to the recent acts of Congress, or 
 the military understanding of those acts. 
 
 On the 3oth of July, General Sheridan issued an order removing J. W. 
 Throckmorton as governor of Texas. Governor Throckmorton had been a 
 severely tried Union man. He was and is among the manliest of men; 
 but he was an impediment to the foolish reconstruction of the state. Elisha 
 M. Pease was appointed in his place. Soon afterwards Edward Dougherty, 
 judge of the twelfth judicial district, was removed, and Edward Basse ap 
 pointed in his place. The charge against Dougherty was that he denied the 
 supremacy of the laws of Congress. He said that he would not obey them 
 when they conflicted with the laws of Texas. This was the old nullification 
 idea. His refusal ought to have been based on the unconstitutionality of the 
 laws. These removals were followed by others, including the comptroller, 
 the treasurer, the attorney-general, and the commissioner of the state general 
 land office. 
 
 General Sheridan was himself removed from the command of the Fifth 
 district on the 29th of August. Then General Hancock was appointed to 
 succeed him. This was a grand and patriotic relief. It is beyond praise. 
 In his report of operations while in command of the district, General Sher 
 idan had said that the difficult situation in which he had been placed had 
 been rendered still more difficult by the apparently open sympathy of the 
 President with the functionaries who had been removed. He added: "I 
 have been charged by the highest authority of the Nation with being tyran 
 nical and a partisan ; and I am not afraid to say, when such charges are made 
 against me, that I feel in my heart they are untruthful." These were bold 
 words for an army officer to utter about the President of the United States. 
 The gallant army officer had Congress at his back ; and he had as much 
 effrontery in civil affairs as of well-won fame in military conduct. General 
 Hancock had also military fame, but he had had a different civil education. 
 
574 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The registration of voters under the Reconstruction act resulted in giving 
 59,633 white voters and 49,497 colored voters. The conservatives had in 
 their state convention advised by resolution, that all white men who were 
 qualified should register and vote against a convention. Their great object 
 was to defeat negro suffrage. In this hope they were disappointed. Of the 
 54,388 votes that were polled on the question of calling a convention, 43, 141 
 were for it, and only 11,246 against it. The convention consisted of ninety 
 members, of whom nine were colored. About the same number of whites 
 were Democrats, all the others being Republicans. But the Republicans 
 were soon divided into conservatives and radicals. Andrew J. Hamilton, 
 President Johnson's provisional governor, was at the head of the conserva 
 tives. His brother, Morgan Hamilton, was at the head of the radicals. 
 E. J. Davis was elected president of the convention. Provisional Governor 
 Pease volunteered a message to the convention, suggesting certain features 
 of the proposed constitution. Among these was a declaration that the act of 
 secession was void ab initio. One would naturally suppose that this sug 
 gestion would have been adopted almost without debate in a body composed 
 of eighty Republicans and only ten secession Democrats ; but yet, after a 
 protracted discussion, it was rejected. In the North Carolina convention of 
 1865, which was held under old Whig auspices, and without there being a 
 Republican in the body, this identical declaration that the act of secession 
 was void ab initio was adopted as an ordinance, and it was ratified by a 
 popular majority of over twenty thousand. But the old Whigs of North 
 Carolina had been schooled for generations in the principles of the Consti 
 tution. The neophyte Republicans of Texas were only whitewashed, or 
 blackwashed, secessionists, who were willing to take on any color for the 
 sake of office. 
 
 Governor Pease also called the attention of the convention to the preva 
 lence of crime in the state. He declared that it was never before so formid 
 able. He stated that organized bands of lawless men were committing mur 
 ders and violations of law, and were disturbing the peace of the country. The 
 convention appointed a special committee to investigate the subject. That 
 committee made a unanimous report. It stated its information, which had 
 been obtained from the records of the state department and of the Freed- 
 men's Bureau, as well as from the sworn statements of individuals. Exclud 
 ing from its statistics cases of assault with intent to kill, rapes, robberies, 
 whippings of freedmen, and other outrages, and confining its inquiries to 
 homicides committed between the close of the war and the ist of June, 1868, 
 the frightful summary was : Total number of whites killed, 470 ; total number 
 of freedmen killed, 429 ; number of persons killed whose race was un 
 known, forty; making a grand total of 939 homicides. There were 460 
 whites and 373 freedmen, total 833, killed by whites, and ten whites and 
 
TEXAS ASSERTS HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 575 
 
 forty-eight freedmen, total fifty-eight, killed by freedmen ; and forty-eight 
 killed by parties whose race was unknown. 
 
 In view of the fact that eighty of the ninety members composing the con 
 vention were Republicans, the following statement of the committee must 
 be regarded as extraordinary : " There is absolute freedom of speech in very 
 few localities in Texas. Union men dare not generally avow their political 
 convictions. In many places they can hold public meetings only when sup 
 ported by troops or armed men ; and in many others they dare not hold them 
 at all. The dominant rebel element will not tolerate free discussion." It 
 must be regarded as remarkable that an oppressed and brow-beaten party, to 
 whom free discussion was not allowed, could yet carry the election by ten to 
 one against their oppressors ! There were ten thousand more whites than 
 colored men registered. Under such circumstances, one would naturally have 
 expected the whites, or Democrats, to defeat the convention project. At 
 the same time, they could have elected a majority of the delegates. They 
 had resolved, in their state convention, to accomplish this result ; but, in 
 spite of the terrorism which they are said to have exercised, they polled only 
 about one-fourth as many votes against the convention as were polled for it, 
 and they elected only nine delegates out of the ninety. 
 
 The constitution adopted by the convention in December, 1868, was lib 
 eral. It made suffrage universal. It contained no prescriptive clause on ac 
 count of secession and rebellion. In the clauses providing for general edu 
 cation there was no requirement that the two races should attend the same 
 schools, but, on the contrary, the legislature was authorized to establish a 
 complete system of education adapted to the circumstances and wants of the 
 people of the state. The Bill of Rights repudiated nullification and seces 
 sion as heresies. It declared the Constitution of the United States to be the 
 supreme law of the land. It also recognized the equality of all persons be 
 fore the law. It forbade the importation of persons under the name of 
 coolies. It declared that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should 
 ever exist in the state. 
 
 The state constitution which was subsequently adopted in 1876, substituted 
 for these clauses the following : " Texas is a free and independent state, sub 
 ject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of 
 our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the pre 
 servation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the states." 
 The clauses in the constitution of 1868 which asserted the equality of all men 
 before the law and declared that slavery should never exist in the state, were 
 rejected or thrust out of the new constitution. It is true that the fight of 
 suffrage was secured to all, and that the rights of citizens were affirmed in 
 general terms, and therefore were logically assured to all citizens. But it is 
 also true that slavery was not recognized in any of the constitutions of the. 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 original thirteen states. Texas, as a member of the American Union, cannot 
 re-establish slavery, but there is nothing in the state constitution to prevent 
 her doing so if ante-bellum precedents are to be followed. 
 
 The constitution of 1868 was adopted on the 3oth of November, 1869, by 
 a vote of 72,395 for it, and of only 4,928 against it. At the same election 
 Edmund J. Davis, the radical Republican candidate, was elected governor 
 over Andrew J. Hamilton, the conservative Republican candidate, by a ma 
 jority of 783 in a total vote of 79,338. The Democratic candidate for the 
 governorship, Mr. Stewart, received only 445 votes. The legislature was 
 Republican in both branches seventeen radicals and thirteen conservatives 
 in the senate, and fifty radicals and forty conservatives in the house. 
 
 The radical wing of the Republican party made strenuous efforts to ac 
 complish the disfranchisement of a large portion of the whites, but in this 
 they were defeated by the conservative wing of the party. Gen. J. J. Rey 
 nolds, the commander of the district, gave his hearty co-operation to the 
 radicals, and, laying aside the character of an impartial military commander 
 or governor, and departing from his simple duty, which was to preserve the 
 peace and order of society while the people were engaged in framing a con 
 stitution, he became an active partisan and the leader of the most ultra of the 
 two Republican factions. On September 4, 1869, he wrote a long letter to 
 General Grant, giving his ideas upon the political situation in Texas. In 
 this letter he arraigns Mr. A. J. Hamilton on the charge of having conspired 
 with the Democrats to defeat the radical wing of the party. He states many 
 facts as conclusive proof of the charge. Among the very unpopular schemes 
 of the radicals was the division of the state. This found few friends. 
 
 When it is considered that the whites, nearly all of them anti-Republicans, 
 constituted a large majority of the voters, and that the Republicans were 
 nearly equally divided into two factions, it must be regarded as remarkable 
 that the radical wing of the Republicans should have won the day in the 
 elections. Such a strange result can only be explained by the fact that the 
 military commander, with the army and President Grant at his back, gave 
 his powerful support to the triumphant faction. 
 
 Although under the new constitution, all male citizens over twenty-one 
 years of age, excepting idiots, the insane, and convicted felons, were declared 
 to be voters, all the classes that were excluded by act of Congress from 
 voting for delegates to the convention were also excluded by order of General 
 Reynolds from voting for governor, state officials, legislature, and congress 
 men. By this fraudulent arrangement nearly thirty thousand Texans were 
 denied their constitutional rights. There was, therefore, no valid election. 
 The person claiming to be elected governor w r as not the governor. The 
 pretended legislature was not a legislature. The pretended congressmen 
 were not entitled to seats in the House of Representatives. 
 
TEXAS ADMITTED TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. 577 
 
 The legislature thus chosen met on the 3d of February, 1870. It elected 
 J. W. Flanagan, radical Republican, to fill the term in the United States 
 Senate which would expire on the 3d of March, 1875. Mr. Flanagan is 
 noted as an outspoken spoilsman. It elected Morgan C. Hamilton for the 
 full senatorial term, to commence March 4, 1871. But the next session of 
 the same body, which met at the beginning of the year 1871, proceeded to 
 hold another election to fill the full senatorial term, on the ground that the 
 election of M. C. Hamilton at the former session was illegal that not being 
 the session next preceding the vacancy, which the act of Congress required. 
 This constitutional after-thought, as the result showed, proceeded from the 
 headquarters of the Fifth military district. Gen. J. J. Reynolds, who had 
 given such material assistance to the radical faction both in Washington and 
 in Texas, was chosen in place of Hamilton ; but the United States Senate 
 rejected his claim. It seated Hamilton. 
 
 The state was re-admitted to representation in Congress on the 3Oth of 
 March, 1870, by the act of Congress approved on that day, upon the same 
 terms as those prescribed for the states of Virginia and Mississippi. 
 
 The following statement in regard to the public debt of Texas is taken 
 from the Poland report of 1872 : In 1860, there was no public debt ; in 
 1861, the debt was $328,866; the Confederate debt was $362,866; in 
 1871, October ist, it was $454,887; the floating debt was $917,878; and 
 the prospective liabilities were $11,500,000. 
 
 According to the minority report of the same committee, quoting the 
 comptroller's report, the debt was not less than three millions. The debt 
 and liabilities were stated at seventeen millions. The taxation imposed in 
 1871 was stated by the tax-payers' convention at $5,361,000. In 1875, the 
 bonded and floating debt was stated on ofBcial authority to be $4,721,914, 
 besides claims on the state, of doubtful validity, amounting to $829,687. 
 As the Democrats, or white people, of Texas had at that time, 1872, come 
 permanently into power, the work of reconstruction in that state may be 
 considered as having then come to an end. 
 
CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON. 
 
 SPRING OF 1865 - SURRENDER AT APPOMATTOX SECOND INAUGURATION OF 
 PRESIDENT LINCOLN SCENE IN FORD'S THEATRE THE ASSASSINATION 
 JOHNSON'S ACCESSION PRELIMINARIES TO IMPEACHMENT GROUNDS FOR 
 THE IMPEACHMENT MAJORITY REPORT OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - PRE 
 TEXTS FOR IMPEACHMENT DISMISSAL OF ST ANTON - ALLEGED CONSPIR 
 ACY BETWEEN GEN. LORENZO THOMAS AND THE PRESIDENT IS "SWING 
 ING ROUND THE CIRCLE" A MISDEMEANOR? THE SENATE AS A COURT 
 INSTANCES OF IMPEACHMENT SPLENDID ARRAY OF COUNSEL ATTORNEY- 
 GENERAL STANBERY THE EXCITEMENT AND VOTE-MINOR HISTORY OF THE 
 TRIAL DOUBTFUL SENATORS MR. WARDEN'S RECITAL SENATOR GRIMES 
 AND PRESIDENT JOHNSON MEET WITH REVERDY JOHNSON-SENATOR HEN 
 DERSON'S DOUBTFUL VOTE THE AUTHOR'S PART DAY BREAKS FOR THE. 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 IT is two o'clock in the afternoon of Palm Sunday on the 9th of April, 
 1865, that the two great generals of the respective armies which have 
 been confronting each other for four years meet in the parlor of William 
 McLean, at Appomattox Court House. General Grant proposes in 
 the form of a military note the terms of surrender. They are discussed and 
 settled. General Lee returns a formal answer. The rolls of officers and 
 men are to be made in duplicate. The officers are to give their parole not 
 to take up arms against the government of the United States until properly 
 exchanged. Each company or regimental commander is to sign a like parole 
 for the men of his command. The arms and property are to be parked 
 and stacked, and transferred to the officers appointed to receive them. The 
 side-arms of the officers, and their private horses and baggage are not em 
 braced in this stipulation. The surrender is made. Then the men return 
 home. They are not to be disturbed by the United States authorities so 
 long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they reside. 
 
 A pathetic account is given by an eye-witness of the farewell between 
 General Lee and the weather-beaten officers whom he had commanded 
 through the long and weary years of the war. As to the silent, poignant 
 
JEFFERSON DAVIS' ARREST AND RELEASE. 579 
 
 parting of these veterans, the statements cannot be exaggerated. It was be-, 
 yond all description beautiful, touching, sympathetic, and chivalric. Much 
 apocryphal writing has been published, however, about the capture of ex- 
 President Davis with a few friends, near the village of Erwinsville, by Gen 
 eral Wilson's cavalry on the loth of May. Much discussion also was had at 
 the time about his imprisonment in Fortress Monroe. There he was kept 
 in confinement until May, 1867. We know what followed. He was. taken 
 from this bastile to be tried on the charge of treason. Such men as Charles 
 O'Conor and Horace Greeley were willing to be his bondsmen and his ad 
 visors. For a year and a half the cause remained upon the docket. It was 
 finally dismissed. 
 
 The Presidential election of 1864 was a foregone conclusion ; not because 
 the Democratic candidates, General McClellan and George H. Pendleton* 
 were not representatives of the best thought of the peace-loving Union 
 devotees ; but because the Confederacy was on the eve of a collapse. The 
 downfall of the Confederacy was presaged. Mr. Lincoln was chosen for 
 a second term. Andrew Johnson was elected in the place of Hannibal 
 Hamlin. The political agitation through the country, however, did not cease. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1865, President Lincoln was again inaugurated. 
 The Confederacy did collapse within a month. After the evacuation of 
 Richmond, the President visits that city. He does his best with the authori 
 ties for reconciliation. He returns to Washington. On the evening of the 
 1 4th of April, 1865, he attends Ford's Theatre, on Tenth Street in Wash 
 ington, with his wife and a party of friends. The play is drawing toward 
 the fifth act, when an actor named John Wilkes Booth dashes into the Presi 
 dent's box, levels a pistol at his head, and shoots him through the brain. 
 The assassin then leaps from the box to the stage, and escapes. The Presi 
 dent lingers until the next morning, when he dies. This atrocious murder 
 cannot be reckoned simply as a homicide. It is almost equivalent to the 
 homicide of a great people. It causes consternation and despair. In the 
 conspiracy by which the President was killed, Lewis Payne (or Powell) 
 was particeps criminis. He bursts into the bed-chamber of the great Sec 
 retary of State, William H. Seward. He springs upon the couch of the 
 sick man like a tiger thirsting for blood. He stabs him almost unto death, 
 and escapes. We know the result of the trials which followed, the fate 
 of Payne and his fellow-conspirators, David E. Herold and George A. Atze- 
 rodt, and others inculpated, and the terrible fate which overtook Mrs. Mary 
 E. Surratt. It was at her house that the plot was alleged to have been 
 formed. She had no plea against the panic no plan offered her escape. 
 Others besides herself were sentenced, in the fury which ensued, without 
 much deliberation. 
 
 Thus passed away this prudent, clement, and great President. The 
 difficulties of the South were magnified. The voice of lamentation which 
 
580 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 went up in behalf of the dead President, as his body was borne throughoui 
 the country, was mingled with execrations, loud and long, against the wai 
 and the Southern people. 
 
 Under these circumstances the Presidential office was a most difficull 
 trust when Andrew Johnson succeeded to power. A Southern man, witt 
 intense views and invincible will, he soon finds that he cannot act in har 
 mony with the extremes of the Republican party. His vetoes and the long 
 conflict end in his utter alienation from the party which elected him. Elec 
 tions turn on his "policies." The questions of amnesty and reconstruction 
 which had been uppermost in the American mind from Lincoln's death on 
 the I5th of April, have already been discussed. The moderation of Lincoln 
 had no practical revival until 1876; or until the final composition by the 
 election of Grover Cleveland in 1884. These last two decades constitute a 
 cycle which encompasses the greatest events known to human history, in 
 cluding every form of crime and tragedy which has marked the calendars of 
 mankind. 
 
 Conspicuous for its dramatic interest is the impeachment trial of Andrew 
 Johnson. His trial is a scene for the best pencil of art ; his acquittal an 
 occasion for the loudest huzzas of honest patriotism. 
 
 Andrew Johnson became the Republican candidate for the office of Vice- 
 President in 1864. This was partly in deference to the honored custom of 
 selecting the two highest officers of the nation from different sections of the 
 country. His courageous and aggressive opposition to secession and its 
 consequences had commended him to the cordial support of Northern men. 
 He belonged to that insurgent Alleghany range which did not bow to South 
 Carolina. He would never have been thought of in connection with that 
 high office, but for the sterling characteristics exhibited by him as a defiant 
 Democrat in Congress, and as an equally determined provisional governor of 
 Tennessee. At his accession to the office of President upon the death of Mr. 
 Lincoln, Mr. Johnson's mind was imbued with a sentiment of rancor 
 toward the secession leaders. In this respect, he differed widely from his 
 predecessor. Mr. Lincoln's kindly nature was averse to harsh measures. 
 His cool judgment inclined him in favor of a generous policy. 
 
 But while Mr. Johnson was at that time unrelenting, and while he de 
 clared that " treason must be made odious," he had never been in harmony 
 with the ultra-Republicans in their extreme views. He differed from them 
 radically upon the two great questions of restoring the seceded states to 
 their relations in the Union, and of determining the proper status of the 
 colored race in the body-politic. On these essential questions he took issue 
 with the Republicans. It cannot be said that, in the course he pursued, he 
 was inconsistent, or treacherous to principle. Prior to the Presidential elec 
 tion in 1864, the Republicans had never, as a party, decided that the state 
 constitutions must be renovated further than by the recognition of emancipa- 
 
THE REASON FOR JOHNSON'S IMPEACHMENT. 581 
 
 tion, the abrogation of the slave-codes, the repudiation of all debts, whether 
 Confederate, state, or municipal, which had been contracted in aid of rebel 
 lion, and the renunciation of the right of a state to secede from the Union. 
 Even Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the house, who would have confis 
 cated the property of the whole slave-holding -class, hesitated long before 
 urging the enfranchisement of the negroes. He saw that if that measure 
 were enforced upon the South, consistency would require its adoption in 
 Pennsylvania. The Fourteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1866, 
 refrained from enfranchising the negroes. It did not require the seceded 
 states to enfranchise them, as a condition of restoration. 
 
 The Republicans quarreled with President Johnson, therefore, not be 
 cause he could be justly charged with political apostasy, but because he 
 failed to keep step with the party in its march on the road of extreme radi 
 calism. That party had an overwhelming majority in both branches of 
 Congress. Its leaders were intolerant of opposition. They determined to 
 get rid of the President. 
 
 A resolution was accordingly adopted on the 7th of March, 1867, author 
 izing the Judiciary committee " to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew 
 Johnson, Vice-President of the United States, discharging the present duties 
 of the office of President of the United States." 
 
 The committee were to report whether the said Andrew Johnson had 
 been guilty of acts which were designed or calculated to corrupt and over 
 throw the government, and whether he alone, or conspiring with others, had 
 been guilty of acts which are denominated crimes and misdemeanors by the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Several months were spent by the committee in examining witnesses and 
 collecting testimony. At the next session of Congress, in December, 1867, 
 a majority report and two minority reports were made. That of the major 
 ity was signed by George S. Boutwell, Francis Thomas, Thomas Williams, 
 William Lawrence, and John C. Churchill, Republicans. They reported in 
 favor of the impeachment of the President, mainly because of his attempts to 
 reconstruct the seceded states without calling on Congress to originate the 
 process. There were other grounds of impeachment urged ; but this was 
 the principal one upon which the majority of the committee relied. 
 
 Messrs. James F. Wilson, of Iowa, and Frederick E. Woodbridge, of 
 Vermont, were on the committee. They were Republicans. They took 
 issue with the majority. At the close of an exhaustive examination of the 
 facts and of the law, they concluded that the case presented no such high 
 crimes and misdemeanors as called for " the interposition of the Constitu 
 tional power of the House." These gentlemen, however, condemned the 
 course pursued by the President. 
 
 Messrs. Samuel S. Marshall, of, Illinois, and Charles A. Eldridge, of 
 Wisconsin, Democrats, of the committee, concurred in the legal conclusions 
 
582 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 of Messrs. Wilson and Woodbridge, but took issue with them in regard to 
 the character of the President's measures. They defended his general course 
 of action. 
 
 It is a singular fact, that in the articles of impeachment finally adopted by 
 the House of Representatives, the gravest of the charges contained in the 
 majority report of the Judiciary committee were passed over in silence. 
 Indeed, only one of the several minor charges reported by that committee 
 as grounds of impeachment found a place in the articles on which the Presi 
 dent was arraigned. That committee had incubated for a year. The testi 
 mony collected, and the reports, made a volume of above twelve hundred 
 pages. It might have been burned as stubble. It was utterly worthless. 
 
 But the Republican majority of the House was not to be balked so easily. 
 It had its stern purposes. One of these was to get rid of Andrew Johnson as 
 President of the United States and to put Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, the 
 then President pro tempore of the Senate, in his place. They accordingly 
 made terrible inquisition, in every sinister way, to find new grounds for im 
 peachment. Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War, furnished the pretext. 
 He had been appointed in 1862, by Mr. Lincoln. He had been invited, or 
 permitted, to hold over by Mr. Johnson. He was now in sympathy with 
 the extremest wing of the Republicans, although at the beginning of the civil 
 commotion he was a secessionist in theory and in feeling. He now availed 
 himself of the terms of the Tenure of Office act, to disregard the wishes and 
 the mandates of the President. He assumed, in fact, the prerogatires which 
 the Constitution reposes in the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the 
 Army. An act was passed on March 2, 1867, in derogation of the Constitu 
 tion, for the purpose of stripping President Johnson of his rightful authority. 
 The purpose of the act was to deprive the President of the power to remove 
 civil officers without the consent of the Senate. The President, neverthe 
 less, on Aug. 5, 1867, sent a written message to Mr. Stanton, requesting his 
 resignation. The latter, contrary to every precedent, declined compliance. 
 The President then suspended him. He appointed General Grant, the Com 
 mander of the Army, as Secretary ad interim. Stanton had no alternative 
 but submission. But when Congress met, in December, the Senate refused 
 to sanction the suspension. 
 
 This action of the Senate left the President the alternative of tolerating a 
 man in his Cabinet who utterly and defiantly disregarded his wishes, or of ex 
 ercising his undoubted prerogative of removal, which Congress had attempted 
 to take from him. He chose the latter course, and on the 2ist of February, 
 1868, he dismissed the recalcitrant secretary, and appointed Adjutant-General 
 Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary ad interim. 
 
 These events furnished the majority of the House of Representatives with 
 what they regarded as valid grounds of impeachment. They had passed an 
 unconstitutional statute. The President had disregarded it. On the 24th of 
 
IMPEACHMENT- PRECEDENTS. 583 
 
 February, 1868, James M. Ashley, of Ohio, a member of that body, pre 
 sented eleven articles of impeachment, for high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 The foregoing facts connected with the suspension and removal of Stanton, 
 and the appointment of Adjutant-General Thomas as Secretary ad interim, 
 constituted the warp and woof of nine of the eleven articles, and a part of 
 one other. Among the charges was that of a conspiracy between the Presi 
 dent and General Thomas. It is surprising that the astute authors of the 
 articles failed to perceive that the same charge of conspiracy was equally ap 
 plicable to General Grant, who had served as ad interim Secretary under 
 like appointment. The tenth and eleventh articles founded charges of mis 
 demeanor upon certain extracts, which they recited from out-of-door speeches 
 made by the President to the people of Washington, Cleveland, and St. 
 Louis. The country well remembers Mr. Johnson's escapade in 1867, in 
 company with his Cabinet. It was known as " swinging round the circle." 
 It was while on that somewhat extraordinary " Progress " that he indulged in 
 some wretched rhetoric at the expense of the majorities in the two houses of 
 Congress. The speeches were doubtless in questionable taste. They may 
 have been unbecoming a Chief Magistrate of the United States,, but the 
 historian does not style them high crimes and misdemeanors. These ill- 
 tempered speeches of the President constituted the only link between the long 
 array of impeachable offenses set forth by the Judiciary committee in De 
 cember, 1867, and the eleven articles sent up by the House two months later. 
 The House was searching for a pretext. They found one. The Spanish 
 maxim has it " If you want to kill your dog, say he eats iron." There 
 was no lack of excuses for this trial. 
 
 The House having resolved to impeach the President of high crimes and 
 misdemeanors at any rate, the fact was communicated to the Senate. The 
 latter body at once began preparations for the momentous duty. It was 
 necessary, pending the trial, for the Senate to lay aside its legislative func 
 tions, and to resolve itself into a court of justice, after the manner of the 
 House of Lords in England when a peer is to be tried for any offense. In 
 that country peers of the realm are only triable by the House of Lords, 
 whether for treason or other crimes. In this country, the Senate of the 
 United States, and also the senates of the several states, are vested with ju 
 dicial authority for the trial of cases of treason, malfeasance, and misfeasance 
 of the higher officials. 
 
 Only four or five impeachment cases have thus far been brought before 
 the United States Senate sitting as a court of justice. The first was that of 
 a Senator from Tennessee, William Blount, in the year 1797. A very sus 
 picious letter from him to an Indian agent in East Tennessee fell into the 
 hands of the government. It was communicated to Congress by the Presi 
 dent, John Adams. It clearly indicated that an intrigue was on foot, in 
 which Blount, in conspiracy with agents of the British Government, was en- 
 
584 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 deavoring to alienate the Indians from their allegiance to this country. His 
 latent purposes were never fully developed, but the correspondence leaves no 
 doubt that he was engaged in a base and unpatriotic, if not treasonable con 
 spiracy. The charge was : Conspiracy with Great Britain to wrest Florida 
 and Louisiana from Spain. He was impeached by the House, July 17, 1797. 
 The Senate made preparations for his trial. He was first suspended, or 
 u sequestered," as the phrase was, and required to give security for his ap 
 pearance before the impeachment court. But before the case was determined 
 the Senate expelled him. Subsequently, on the nth of February, 1799, the 
 senatorial court decided that a Senator is not an officer of the government, 
 and therefore not impeachable. This first experiment of converting one 
 branch of Congress into a grand jury and the other into a court of justice 
 was found to be an immensely tedious and expensive business. 
 
 The second case of impeachment was that of United States District 
 Judge Pickering, of New Hampshire. In 1804, he was impeached on charges 
 of corruptly releasing a vessel without requiring a bond. The vessel had 
 been seized for smuggling. He was also accused of drunkenness, and the 
 use of indecent language while on the bench. These offenses were commit 
 ted in 1802. The articles were four in number, and he was convicted on 
 each of them in March, 1804, and removed from office. 
 
 The next case of impeachment was that of Judge Samuel Chase. He 
 was a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was a signer 
 of the Declaration of Independence. He represented his native State of 
 Maryland. He was a Revolutionary patriot of the most radical and deter 
 mined character. But in the division of the people into parties, he be 
 came a Federalist, as pronounced and aggressive as he had been as a Whig 
 in the struggle with Great Britain. He sat on the trial, in the Circuit Court 
 of Pennsylvania, of one Fries, charged with treason in the whiskey rebellion, 
 and of Callender, a Republican or Democratic editor, indicted under the 
 sedition act. The latter was charged with having libeled President Adams. 
 Judge Chase allowed himself to be betrayed, as was alleged, into the use of 
 violent language while conducting these trials. His conduct w r as unbecoming 
 the bench. John Randolph, of Roanoke, in 1804, then a member of the 
 House, introduced resolutions of impeachment. They were adopted. Ran 
 dolph became chairman of the managing committee. He was associated with 
 able lawyers members of the House. Judge Chase was an able jurist. 
 He employed some of the most eminent members of the bar as his counsel. 
 Robert Goodloe Harper, of Baltimore, was his leading counsel. 
 
 The trial ran through many weeks. The arguments were elaborate and 
 able. They were published, with the testimony, in two volumes. The 
 respondent was acquitted. On five of the eight articles, a majority of the 
 court voted not guilty. 
 
 Judge Peck, of the United States District Court of Missouri, was im- 
 
THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS. 585 
 
 peached in the year 1826, on charges similar to those in the case of Judge 
 Samuel Chase. The case was one of great and general interest in those 
 " piping times of peace." It happened also that some of the most eminent 
 names in the history of the country were connected with the trial. William 
 Wirt was of his counsel. Daniel Webster, John M. Clayton, Edward Liv 
 ingston, George R. Poindexter, Felix Grundy, Hugh Lawson White, and 
 John Forsyth, as Senators, sat as judges. Mr. Benton, though a Senator, 
 was called as a witness, and therefore could not sit as a judge. The 
 respondent was acquitted by a vote of twenty-two to twenty-one. 
 
 In 1862, the United States District Judge of Tennessee, West W. Hum 
 phreys, was impeached for advocating secession in a public speech at Nash 
 ville, Dec. 29, 1860 ; for openly supporting and advocating the Tennessee 
 ordinance of secession ; for giving aid in organizing armed rebellion ; for con 
 spiracy with Jefferson Davis ; for neglecting and refusing to hold the United 
 States District Court; and for acting as a Confederate judge, and as such, 
 sentencing men to banishment and imprisonment, confiscating property of 
 loyal owners, and especially, the property of "one Andrew Johnson ; " and 
 arresting and imprisoning " one William G. Brownlow." He was convicted 
 on each of these charges except that of confiscating Johnson's property. He 
 was not present at the trial; it was somewhat of a jiasco, as a grave per 
 formance. It was the first trial of the kind which the writer had seen. 
 
 But by far the most celebrated case which this country has witnessed, was 
 that of President Johnson. It could not result in shedding the President's 
 blood. It could not eventuate in decapitation, as in the cases of Charles I. 
 and Louis XVI. ; but no event in the history of the Republic, unless it be a 
 great rebellion, can be compared in importance to the removal of the chief 
 magistrate of such a nation by impeachment. The impeachment resolution 
 was adopted by the House on Monday, Feb. 24, 1868. On the following 
 Monday, March 3, the articles of impeachment were agreed upon. On 
 Wednesday, the 5th, they were presented to the Senate by the managers, 
 Messrs. John A. Bingham, of Ohio ; George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts ; 
 James F. Wilson, of Iowa ; John A. Logan, of Illinois ; Thomas Williams, 
 of Pennsylvania ; Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts ; and Thaddeus 
 Stevens, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Bingham, the chairman, read the articles. 
 
 Each of these names is well known. Judge Bingham, of Ohio, was a 
 member of Congress of rare elocution. He lacked the reasoning faculty, but 
 he could, as Thaddeus Stevens used to say in his sarcastic way, appeal to the 
 4 'gathered wisdom of a thousand years," in his references to Anglo-Saxon 
 privilege and prerogative with more frequency than any orator known in the 
 history of that race. He has been Minister to Japan since he left Congress. 
 The remark is constantly made about him, that he never lied once during the 
 Credit Mobilier investigations, but rather gloried in his frank admissions, 
 and hence that he is without reproach. Governor Boutwell has a keen, care- 
 37 
 
586 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ful, analytic mind. His life in low estate began, but he rose by his intrinsic 
 virtue and energy to the highest position in the grandest convocation of polit 
 ical scientists which this country has ever seen. The writer means the 
 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1850, which contained such men 
 as Governor Briggs, Rufus Choate, George S. Hilliard, Benjamin F. Hal- 
 lett, Benjamin F. Butler, Chief Justice Shaw, Marcus Morton, and others 
 equally great and gifted. But, for the consummation of their work, after 
 their magnificent discussions and wise determinations, the convention 
 named George S. Boutwell. He crowned the work by an industry that was 
 incessant and with a code that was superb. 
 
 One of the other managers of this impeachment was the present Senator 
 from Iowa, James F. Wilson. He survives as a man of indefatigable and 
 admirable legal ability. He is as fresh in vital force as when he argued 
 these questions so fatefully pregnant to our land. Another manager was 
 Thomas Williams, of Pittsburgh, a lawyer of the ancient kind, who would 
 have been selected as a chief solicitor to the Crown, had he lived under royal 
 auspices when great crimes were committed and defenses were needed. He 
 was acquainted with all the precedents. Of Generals Logan and Butler, and 
 of Thaddeus Stevens it is not necessary to speak. Their appearance was a 
 sign that no omission would be made in the presentation of the case in all its 
 salient and vindictive features. 
 
 The Senate adopted rules of proceeding and practice, twenty-four in 
 number, for the government of the court. But when that august body con- 
 Vened on Friday, the 5th of March, Chief Justice Chase, whose office it was 
 to preside, suggested that it was appropriate for the court to adopt its own 
 rules ; and thereupon the Senators, acting in their judicial capacity, formally 
 adopted the rules which they had agreed upon when acting in their legisla 
 tive capacity. Each .Senator, as well as the Chief Justice, was required to 
 swear, or affirm, that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeach 
 ment of Andrew Johnson, he would do impartial justice, according to the 
 Constitution and the laws. Mr. Justice Nelson, of the Supreme Court, first 
 administered the oath to the Chief Justice, after which the latter administered 
 the same oath to each of the Senators, except Mr. Wade, of Ohio, whose 
 right to sit on the case was challenged. Subsequently, however, for some 
 reason, the challenge was withdrawn, and Mr. Wade, who would have been 
 made President by the conviction of Mr. Johnson, voted with the majority, 
 uniformly, upon preliminary questions, and finally upon the articles. On the 
 latter his vote was that the respondent was guilty. 
 
 The court thus constituted sat, of course, in the Senate Chamber. It was 
 opened by proclamation of the sergeant-at-arms in the usual manner, 'on the 
 i3th of March. That officer was directed by the Chief Justice to command 
 perfect silence. The galleries were crowded to suffocation with spectators. 
 Not a seat was left vacant, nor a foot of standing-room. The managers on 
 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL STANBERY. 587 
 
 one side, and the counsel for the respondent, Messrs. Henry Stanbery, Ben 
 jamin R. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts, and Thomas A. 
 R. Nelson, on the other, were assigned seats around the clerk's desk. 
 These gentlemen had qualities equal to those of the managers. Of Judge 
 Nelson, of Tennessee, it is unnecessary to speak, except to say that he was 
 the least in experience before the Senate. Unexpectedly to some, but not to 
 the writer, William S. Groesbeck, of Ohio, who was not at first in the case, 
 was the most successful in presenting, with enormous vehemence of logic 
 and eloquence, the defense of the impeached President. This might not 
 have been said, had Mr. Henry Stanbery been in his usual health. Nor 
 could this have been said, had not Judge Jeremiah S. Black retired from the 
 case on an unfortunate dispute about a guano island, which involved the 
 learned judge and the President in an infragrant disputation. Nor can it 
 hardly be said, in comparison with the exhaustive forensic effort of the pres 
 ent Senator from New- York, William M. Evarts. Besides, for clear state 
 ment with pure diction, Benjamin R. Curtis, of Boston, bears a palm rarely 
 awarded to an advocate in any forum. Such an association of legal learning 
 and extraordinary graces of eloquence was not summoned for ordinary 
 efforts. A French author has said that in the eulogy of the dead, and in de 
 fense of great criminals, the greatest marvels of oratory have been exhibited. 
 But Andrew Johnson was neither dead nor culpable. His trial, neverthe 
 less, was a superlative opportunity for the advocate. 
 
 First among these advocates was Mr. Stanbery. Take him all in all, 
 as advocate and statesman, as a chivalric gentleman and as a man of 
 surpassing beauty of person and emphasis of presence, he has had no peer 
 in our American forum for three decades. Is this too partial? Perhaps. 
 This gentleman was born in New- York on the 2oth of February, 1803. 
 His father, Jonas Stanbery, was a physician of social and professional stand 
 ing, who, with his family, emigrated to Ohio in 1814, and settled at Zanes- 
 ville, where the author of this book was born. Indeed, it may be said, with 
 reserve and in extenuation, that Mr. Stanbery " stood up " with the author's 
 parents at their marriage. Hence these partialities. In the year 1815, at 
 the early age of twelve, Henry Stanbery was placed at Washington College, 
 Pennsylvania. There he passed through its curriculum, and graduated in 
 the fall of 1819. Having determined on the legal profession, he entered 
 on the study of law in the office of Ebenezer Granger, of Zanesville. 
 The death of his instructor occurring shortly after, he continued his studies 
 under the supervision of Charles B. Goddard, of the same place, a gentle 
 man no less distinguished for his professional and social standing. The 
 exclusion of candidates for practice under the age of twenty-one rendered 
 it necessary that he should remain a student for nearly five years. In the 
 spring of 1824, having attained the statutory period, he visited the supreme 
 court, then in session in Gallipolis, and by it was admitted to practice. 
 
588 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Here he attracted the attention of the late Thomas Ewing, of Lancas 
 ter. Then commenced that friendly association and professional competi 
 tion, which were ended only by death. In his person Mr. Stanbery was 
 remarkably handsome and attractive. His height was nearly or quite six 
 feet. His form was symmetrical. His carriage was erect. His head, cov 
 ered with dark silken hair, was stately poised upon slightly drooping shoul 
 ders. He moved with an air of dignity and grace. He commanded atten 
 tion wherever he appeared. His voice was rich and resonant. His elocution 
 was rapid. His utterance was pleasing. His emphasis and gesture were 
 appropriate. A more magnificent presence never graced a court nor adorned 
 a public rostrum. For many years Mr. Stanbery kept aloof from office, ex 
 cept that of attorney-general of Ohio. He was called by Andrew Johnson 
 to the same position in a Federal way. No mind was ever better furnished 
 for the law, and no career was ever more splendidly finished. He survived 
 nearly all of his contemporaries. Perhaps his noblest fame was won when 
 he defended his chief in this forum of the Senate. 
 
 The commanding presence of Chief Justice Chase made the scene in the 
 Senate one worthy of Olympus, where Jove was known in the councils of 
 the gods by " his great mien and power imperial." What an array of great 
 talents is here ! In what a great transaction ! They are engaged in the pros 
 ecution and the defense of the chief magistrate of the great Republic of the 
 New World ! The interest increases. The brilliant assemblage of ladies 
 and gentlemen in the galleries, including the diplomatic corps and their 
 families, presents an imposing spectacle, such as is rarely or never seen in 
 the lifetime of a generation. 
 
 The business begins ! A preliminary question of importance is to be 
 settled. It is as to the time which shall be given the respondent to plead, 
 Mr. Evarts, on the part of his counsel, moves an allowance of forty days. 
 In the case of Judge Chase, it is shown that thirty-two days were allowed ,, 
 although there were but eight articles. In that of Judge Peck, although 
 there was but one article, fifteen days were allowed. Mr. Bingham states, on 
 the part of the managers, that the eighth rule requires the respondent to plead 
 immediately on entering his appearance, in person or by his attorneys ; 
 otherwise, the case to proceed as upon the general issue. The managers 
 think that the rule means precisely what it says, and that, appearance having 
 been entered and no answer filed, the trial should proceed forthwith. It is 
 finally determined to give the President ten days in which to enter his 
 answers to the articles. These proceedings take place on the i3th. On the 
 23d, the counsel for the President enter answers to the several charges. All 
 of these radiate, however, from the two centres above named, that is to 
 say : the removal of Secretary Stanton, and the intemperate speeches made 
 by the President while on his " stumping" tour. 
 
 The replication to the answers is filed by the managers on the follow- 
 
STANBERY'S DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT. 589 
 
 ing day. Then the counsel for the respondent renew their application for 
 longer time in which to prepare for the trial. They ask for thirty days ; but, 
 after debate, only five days additional are allowed. 
 
 On the 30th of March, Mr. Butler opens the case on behalf of the 
 managers. He sets forth the grounds on which a conviction is urged. 
 Witnesses are then examined. Elaborate documentary evidence is intro 
 duced. The trial, with varying prospects, runs through the month of April 
 and into the middle of May. 
 
 It is not possible to portray the kaleidoscopic phases of this trial ; nor to 
 transcribe the speeches and their effect, which were made for and against the 
 impeachment. The most remarkable speech was made by Mr. Groesbeck ; 
 but altogether the appearance and phrases of Mr. Stanbery were the most 
 impressive and emphatic. He had resigned the office of Attorney-General 
 to take part in the trial. It was his last public appearance. The company 
 was worthy of such an associate. No such assemblage of legal talent, no 
 such exalted official personage, no such gravity of criminal charge, had 
 ever before given incident and interest to the history of the Republic. 
 
 No one appreciated the gravity of the occasion more than did this friend 
 of the President. He was familiar with every step. He was advised of the 
 motives which prompted it, and had carefully investigated the legal proposi 
 tions involved. He had seen the conflict between the executive and legisla 
 tive departments of the government. He was not unprepared for the result. 
 He was feeble in health, but strong in the consciousness of right. In that 
 august assemblage of peers, when he rose to speak he was the cynosure of 
 all eyes. Every ear listened to catch the faintest murmur of his finely-mod 
 ulated \K)ice. 
 
 After an apology for his frail health, his voice rose and lapsed with mu 
 sical cadence. With a weird meaning and abstracted manner he tells the 
 Senators that unseen and friendly hands seem to support him ; that voices in 
 audible to all others, he hears, or seems to hear. They are whispering words 
 of consolation, of hope, of confidence. They say, or seem to say : " Feeble 
 champion of the Right ! Hold not back ! A single pebble from the brook 
 is enough in the sling.'* Then he states the facts and argues the law. He 
 then rises to his grandest height in his peroration. 
 
 "Listen for a moment," said he, " to one who, perhaps, understands 
 Andrew Johnson better than most of you ; for his opportunities have been 
 greater. When, nearly two years ago, he called me from the pursuits of pro 
 fessional life to take a seat in his Cabinet, I answered the call under a sense 
 of public duty. I came here almost a stranger to him and to every member of 
 his Cabinet, except Mr. Stanton. We had been friends for many years. 
 Senators, need I tell you that all my tendencies are conservative? You, Mr. 
 Chief Justice, who have known me for a third of a century, can bear me 
 ^witness. Law, not Arms, is my profession. From the moment that I was 
 
590 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 honored with a seat in the Cabinet of Mr. Johnson, not a step was taken that 
 did not come under my observation ; not a word was said that escaped my 
 attention. I regarded him closely in Cabinet, and in still more private and 
 confidential conversation. I saw him often tempted with bad advice. I 
 knew that evil counselors were more than once around him. I observed 
 him with the most intense anxiety. But never in word or deed, in thought, 
 in action, did I discover in that man anything but loyalty to the Constitution 
 and the laws. He stood firm as a rock against all temptations to abuse his 
 own powers, or to exercise those which were not conferred upon him. 
 Steadfast and self-reliant in the midst of all difficulty, when dangers threat 
 ened, when temptations were strong, he looked only to the Constitution of 
 his country and to the people. 
 
 u Yes, Senators, I have seen that man tried, as few have been tried. I 
 have seen his confidence abused ; I have seen him endure day after day pro 
 vocations such as few men have ever been called upon to meet. No man 
 could have met them with more sublime patience. Sooner or later, how 
 ever, I knew the explosion must come. And when it did come, my only 
 wonder was, that it had been so long delayed. Yes, Senators, with all 
 his faults the President has been more sinned against than sinning. Fear 
 not then to acquit him. The Constitution of the country is as safe in his 
 hands from violence as it was in the hands of Washington. But if, Senators, 
 you condemn him, if you strip him of the robes of his office, if you degrade 
 him to the utmost stretch of your power, mark the prophecy! The strong 
 arms of the people will be about him. They will find a way to raise him 
 from any depths to which you may consign him, and we shall live to see 
 him redeemed, and to hear the majestic voice of the people, 4 Well done, 
 faithful servant ; you shall have your reward ! ' 
 
 " But if, Senators, as I cannot believe, but has been boldly said with 
 almost official sanction, your votes have been canvassed, and the doom of 
 the President is sealed, then let the judgment not be pronounced in this Sen 
 ate Chamber ; not here, where our Camillus, in the hour of our greatest peril, 
 single-handed met and baffled the enemies of the Republic ; not here, where 
 he stood faithful among the faithless ; not here, where he fought the good 
 fight for the Union and the Constitution ; not in this chamber, whose walls 
 echo with that clarion voice that, in the days of our greatest danger, carried 
 hope and comfort to many a desponding heart, strong as an army with ban 
 ners ! No, not here ! Seek out, rather, the darkest and gloomiest chamber 
 in the subterranean recesses of this Capitol, where the cheerful light of day 
 never enters ! There erect the altar and immolate the victim !" 
 
 The effect of this remarkable speech before a sedate tribunal like that 
 Senatorial court was unique. The fortunes of the arraigned President 
 had been varying with each figure of rhetoric, and each gleam of sunshine. 
 
 At last the vote is taken. It is taken on the eleventh article first of all. 
 
THE PRESIDENT " NOT GUILTY." 591 
 
 This is done by way of testing the strength of the impeachers, or possibly 
 in deference to the Scripture maxim that the last shall be first. The article 
 is read, whereupon the Chief Justice says: " Call the roll!" The chief 
 clerk calls the name of Mr. Anthony. Mr. Anthony rises in his place. 
 The Chief Justice : "Mr. Senator Anthony, how say you? Is the respond 
 ent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of 
 a high misdemeanor, as charged in this article?" 
 
 Mr. ANTHONY. " Guilty ! " 
 
 Each Senator, as his name is called, is interrogated in this form. Each 
 rises to make answer. The Chief Justice offers to excuse Messrs. Howard, 
 of Michigan, and Grimes, of Iowa, who are in feeble health. They are 
 barely able to be present. It is an effort for them to rise when giving their 
 votes. But each in turn is called. They prefer to rise, Mr. Grimes not 
 without the assistance of friends. 
 
 The Senators who voted " Guilty" were: Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, 
 Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ed 
 munds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of 
 Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, 
 Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, 
 Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates 35. 
 
 The Senators who voted "Not guilty " were : Messrs. Bayard, Buckalew, 
 Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Fowler, Grimes, Henderson, Hendricks, 
 Johnson, McCreery, Norton, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Saulsbury, 
 Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Vickers 19. 
 
 A vote of two-thirds being necessary, under the Constitution, to convict 
 on impeachment, the eleventh article fails to be adopted. The majority 
 thereupon adjourn the court until the 26th of the month. Then a vote is 
 taken on the adoption of the second article. The result is precisely the 
 same as with the eleventh. The third article is then voted on, with pre 
 cisely the same result ; when, on motion of Mr. Williams, the court adjourns 
 sine die. 
 
 Thus ended the most momentous trial of our time. On one vote depended 
 this stupendous verdict. 
 
 There are some matters connected with this remarkable trial and its re 
 sult, not known of record. They are known to those who were intimate 
 with President Johnson ; among others to Reverdy Johnson, to Col. William 
 G. Moore, his private secretary, to William W. Warden, a trusted friend, 
 and, we may add, to the writer hereof. The confidence of the President 
 was evidenced by the tender to the author of an appointment as Minister to 
 Austria. What is said herein of the minor history of the impeachment has, 
 therefore, this sanction. 
 
 There were conferences between friends of the President at the ' ' Johnson 
 
592 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Annex," which should be printed. Some memory of these conferences, as 
 well as of interviews with leading Republicans, should be preserved. 
 
 From the date of the formal inception of the impeachment scheme to the 
 date of the verdict, one of these gentlemen, Mr. Warden, was constantly 
 interrogated by the Senators and Representatives who had ceased to visit the 
 Executive Mansion, concerning President Johnson's sentiments and purposes. 
 They wondered how he looked at the proceedings. " Of these things I 
 faithfully and promptly informed him," says Mr. Warden, u in our evenings 
 together. When we met at night no matter how frequently we may have met 
 during the preceding day Mr. Johnson opened up with : ' Well, what are 
 the signs of the zodiac to-day ? ' Thereupon I would proceed to inform him 
 what the main features in the leading newspapers contained always truth 
 fully relating what was said of him personally or relative to his policy, 
 sometimes reading aloud portions, and never failing to let him have oppor 
 tunity for forming his own estimate of the prevalent opinions, in favor of or 
 against him. Then I proceeded to relate the occurrences of the day in 
 Congress. As, briefly, for example : ' Mr. Bingham and General Butler 
 had a fierce debate in' the House to-day ; Butler charged that Bingham had 
 been guilty of a legal murder in the trial of the assassins of President Lin 
 coln.' Then I gave the occurrences in the Senate. In this manner I im 
 parted my information of all kinds, and as the impeachment trial progressed, 
 and especially when nearing the end, I informed him that, besides the clamor 
 of the radical Republican press for a verdict of guilty and the eviction of 
 Mr. Johnson from the White House, the House managers had been openly 
 predicting dire calamity to the country as the result of an acquittal of the 
 President, primarily because a verdict of ' not guilty ' would encourage Mr. 
 Johnson to ' do rash things ' ; i go on in his excesses ' ; ' encourage the ex- 
 rebels ' ; and further, that these alarmists in the Senate had begun to 
 threaten 4 with infamy ' any Senator who should vote ' not guilty' ; and that 
 secretly, in their talks among themselves, the radical Republican Senators 
 were endeavoring to * frighten off ' the so-called ' doubtful ' Republican 
 Senators, who, it was then believed, would vote for acquittal. 
 
 44 Senator Reverdy Johnson," said Mr. Warden to the writer, " had 
 made an arrangement with me whereby I was to meet him at his home the 
 Johnson Annex to the Arlington Hotel every evening at eight o'clock, and 
 there talk over the affairs of the day. In those conversations he told me of 
 the utterances of the radical Senators. As the partisan feeling in the Senate 
 became somewhat fierce, Senator Johnson became apprehensive that one or 
 other of three of the < doubtful ' Republican Senators might be driven to vote 
 4 guilty ' ; and the Senator informed me that these ' doubtful ' members had 
 said to him that it was unfortunate that there was no means practicable by 
 which they could have ' assurances from President Johnson that he did not 
 intend any rash act,' in case of a verdict of acquittal. Senator Johnson 
 
CONFERENCE AT THE ARLINGTON HOTEL. 593 
 
 asked the Senators what they would suggest for relief from their perturba 
 tion. They replied : ' Let him [the President] get himself heard publicly 
 in some form, denying such intention.' Senator Johnson told these Senators 
 that President Johnson, even if inclined to such course, was in no position 
 to be heard publicly on this subject, except by his counsel in course of their 
 arguments, and that assurances from that source would not be received as 
 binding. 
 
 " Thereupon Senator Grimes one of the best of the radical Republican 
 Senators, and who finally voted ' not guilty* calls Senator Johnson aside 
 upon the floor of the Senate. A brief, earnest interview is held. It is con 
 fidentially agreed that if it could 4 so happen ' that President Johnson and 
 Senator Grimes should meet, casually, or in a social way, the subject would 
 be discussed informally, so that President Johnson might respond in his own 
 way to the assertions that he would do rash acts, and encourage rebels." 
 
 Senator Johnson suggested to Mr. Warden that at his next meeting with 
 the President it would be advisable to let the latter know how the matter 
 was affecting the doubtful Senators. Mr. Warden cautiously approached the 
 President with an invitation from Senator Johnson to make the latter a brief 
 visit at about nine o'clock on the following night. Meanwhile, Senator John 
 son invited Senator Grimes, who lived " around the corner on I Street," 
 to spend the evening. Owing to the peculiar nature of the President, it 
 proved to be most difficult to bring about this desired meeting. However, 
 the visit was made. Senators Grimes and Johnson are seated in the drawing- 
 room of the latter' s house. They pleasantly chat about trifles, until Presi 
 dent Johnson arrives. He is accompanied by Col. Robert Morrow, of the 
 President's executive household, and Mr. Warden. The greeting is exceed 
 ingly cordial. 
 
 After some rambling talk, relating to former days which these Senators 
 had spent together, interlarded with some fun and humor, Senator Johnson, 
 at the conclusion of an amusing anecdote he had been telling, cleverly 
 broaches the subject that had brought the party together. In a short time, 
 there is a candid interchange of sentiments ; during which President John 
 son becomes quite excited when expressing his indignation at the assertions 
 of the alarmists in the Senate. He exclaims: "They have no warrant 
 whatever, in anything I have said or done for believing that the President 
 intends to do any act which is not in strict conformity with the Constitution 
 and laws." He becomes eloquent as he proceeds. He convinces all pres 
 ent that he heartily and Jbonestly means what he says. 
 
 Senator Grimes has frequently said, in defense of his vote for acquittal, 
 that, for himself, he never believed President Johnson intended to do wrong, 
 as alleged by the alarmists ; but, that even if he had been doubtful before this 
 meeting, he would have come away with full confidence in the President's 
 patriotism and law-abiding intentions. 
 
594 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The party remained together an hour. They separated much gratified^ 
 Upon the following day, Senator Grimes, in a confidential, seemingly casual 
 chat with the three doubtful Senators, inspires confidence. Without telling 
 them upon what authority he acts, he says to them solemnly: " You may 
 rely implicitly upon this : I know Johnson's purposes in the event of ac 
 quittal. You need not fear his behavior will cause you to regret your vote, 
 whichever way you may cast it. He does not dread, personally, a verdict of 
 guilty. He believes such a verdict would be disastrous to the Republic, and 
 hence prays for acquittal. But he has no thought of wrong or rash doings." 
 
 The proceedings of the trial were about closing, when the writer, then 
 out of Congress and practicing law in New-York City, received a telegram 
 from Mr. Charles W. Wooley. It required the author's presence at Wash 
 ington. It gave him some mysterious reason. He arrived at Willard's 
 and was informed by Mr. Wooley that it was suggested that John B. Hen 
 derson, then a Republican Senator from Missouri, was one of the doubtful 
 Senators, and as it was understood that the Senator and the author were old 
 friends, the telegram was sent. It was true that the friendship existed. They 
 had been Douglas Democrats in stormy times together. The friendly rela 
 tion yet exists. General Henderson is a man of great affectionateness and 
 absolute probity. But his nature is mellowed with a geniality which is 
 a leading trait in the nobility of the man. He is not a bitter partisan, 
 although he presided over the National Convention that nominated Mr. 
 Blaine in 1884. 
 
 It was then thought that the writer could influence this Senator. Whether 
 he could or not, or did or not, he called on him to make the best impres 
 sion possible on behalf of "acquittal." A public meeting had just been 
 held at St. Louis, to instruct the Senator to vote " guilty." His sense of jus 
 tice had been affronted by this. In this mood the writer found him. He 
 seemed to want advice and counsel. It was not long before the writer 
 was requested by the Senator to pen and send a telegram to the president 
 and officers of that impudent St. Louis meeting. It substantially read : *' I 
 am a judge in the impeachment case. You have no right to instruct me in 
 such affairs. As I am an honest man I will obey my conscience, and not 
 your will. I shall vote ' not guilty.' " 
 
 And he did so vote. A copy of that telegram the writer took to the 
 White House at midnight. He found the President gloomy. His fate de 
 pended on one vote nay, on this one Missouri vote. Grimes and Ross 
 were sure, but Henderson was not. The telegram was read to the Presi 
 dent. A festivity was improvised on the good news ; and the morning 
 dawned with roseate hues for all interested in the righteousness of the Presi 
 dent's acquittal, and the certainty of the vindication of a President, than 
 whom no man was ever more vilipended without justifiable cause. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 AMNESTY. 
 
 THE VICISSITUDES OF THIS QUESTION CARRIED ONCE IN THE HOUSE 
 COLORED VOTES FOR IT GENERAL BUTLER'S BILL OF GRACE WITHOUT 
 GRACE, AND PUNITORY PARDON MILITARY REPRESSION AND CIVIL OP 
 PRESSIONRANCOR CHERISHED HOPES OF RECONCILIATION MOCKED 
 SPURIOUS SPIRIT OF AMNESTY MR. GREELEY'S NOMINATION ITS CAUSES 
 MR. LINCOLN'S PURPOSE OF MERCY MR. ELAINE'S ACTION THE PAGAN 
 POLICIES OF REPUBLICANS EXECUTIVE PARDONS AND THE AMNESTY OF 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 AMONG the first bills introduced for amnesty was one the author 
 offered in Congress as early as 1869. In fact he generally had 
 charge of matters of a kindred nature. His object in congressional 
 service was, since war could not be alleviated of its cruelties, to 
 mitigate, in so far as it could be done, the prescriptive tendency which kept 
 our people separated by a great chasm. In moments of unimpassioned 
 patriotism the House indicated its preferences in the same direction. It may 
 be said here that this bill came within two votes of passing the House of 
 Representatives when it required a two-thirds vote. That majority included 
 some colored members. In 1870, Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, then a member 
 from Massachusetts, introduced his bill for a general grace, amnesty, and 
 oblivion. It was copied from an old English statute about the Scotch Re 
 bellion. The writer characterized it from his seat as a bill for pains and 
 penalties, with a meagre element of mercy ; yet it was a step toward amnesty. 
 It was grace which was grudged, amnesty which was exceptive, and ob 
 livion brimful of memories. It was most ungracious grace. It was punitory 
 pardon ; it was a rushing and turbulent lethe. The author pleaded for 
 mercy on the old and fraternal plan, and against eternizing proscription. 
 
 Another bill appeared in Congress as late as 1875, to prevent the sub 
 version of state authority and to maintain the security of elections. It pro 
 vided against the invasion of states. There were sections in it which pre 
 scribed penalties of fine and imprisonment, and authorized suspension of 
 
596 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 habeas corpus. The appointment of Federal supervisors, and other measures 
 intended to inaugurate force and suppress freedom a decade after the war was 
 over, were also provided for. General Butler's bill had in it what the bill of 
 1875 had not ; it had some liberality. Five years had not lessened the hatred 
 of the Northern radical toward the Southern insurgent. General Butler's 
 bill had a strange feature in it ; oblivion for the agents and officers of the 
 United States engaged in reconstruction ! Amnesty for the conqueror ! 
 
 The history of the United States, from the close of the war until 1876, was 
 a history of military repression and civil oppression, which destroyed the 
 old divisions of power. The complex nature of our Federal and local gov 
 ernments was ignored. There was a time in our emergencies when men in 
 their extreme views cried out for imperial power. The writer never sat at 
 the feet of such tuition. Sometimes they preferred military rule, and some 
 times revolution. There were civil convulsions, as we have shown, in Lou 
 isiana and elsewhere. They were marked with blood and saturated with 
 fraud. The many South were discontented. They were willing to be 
 pinned to the Union even by an honest bayonet, held to it by the mailed 
 hand, or shackled to it by an iron gyve, rather than to be controlled by such 
 State governments as were established for many years after the war. 
 
 The aspiration for civil discipline and patriotic allegiance was chilled in 
 the South. The feeling that allegiance led to protection, and that these were 
 co-ordinate in essence and should be in practice, was forgotten. Had the 
 bugles at Appomattox sounded merely a truce ? It was hoped that the con 
 ditions of peace frankly tendered by General Grant would create a contented 
 people, and would be observed ; that all future griefs would be solaced ; 
 that magnanimity would conquer hatred ; that scorn and revenge would 
 have their anodyne, and that for uncounted decades there would be no inter 
 regnum in the serene dynasty of peace and love ; that through the bleeding 
 and distracted land, and over the scenes and graves, and over the sorrows 
 of mourning, the lethean stream would gently flow. But what did " peace'* 
 bring to the South ? Only the respite of despair. It was the sign and proof 
 of death. It was lethe, except its sleep. It was all of death with its sting 
 and without its repose. Homes were wasted ; property was confiscated and 
 destroyed ; enterprises ruined ; cities burned, and the whole country swathed 
 in destruction. But after all, it was expected that amid these immeasurable 
 calamities hates and griefs would not be perpetuated ; that the new generation 
 would not wear rancor in their hearts until their hair whitened ; that they 
 would not teach their children to perpetuate the hate of their fathers. 
 
 For ten years, the middle decade, the hopes of the patriotic were mocked. 
 What a mockery ! God had fixed his creatures in this fair land in habitations 
 bound together by the same rivers, mountains, lakes, and skies. He had 
 fixed in their hearts the ennobling principles of unity and peace. He had 
 sent to the world the divine Prince of Peace, as an exemplar and Saviour. 
 
THE CLEMENCY OF GRANT AND SHERMAN. 597 
 
 And yet, these benefactions were despised, they were turned by the passions 
 and ambitions of men to shameful mockery. The great disasters which are 
 enumerated in this history of excesses, both in reference to the war and re 
 construction, were the result of a diabolical lack of conciliation. 
 
 Even yet, as the author pens these words, complete rehabilitation has not 
 been accomplished. There are men yet living, exponents of large constituen 
 cies, who have not been restored to their citizenship. They are living under 
 our laws and Constitution. 
 
 The amnesty doled out by Congress through many years was a petty, 
 personal amnesty. It was not based on a general rule. It has never vet 
 reached a principle. Such partial legislation was more objectionable than 
 would have been a general bill with bad features. It offered a premium to 
 hypocrisy. 
 
 During and after the election of 1868, there was an opportunity for im 
 provement and liberality in the impulses and sentiment which were leading 
 to the nomination of Horace Greeley. The writer has already said that he 
 was a successful candidate for Congress against Mr. Greeley in New-York 
 City, in 1870. Two years afterwards his opponent was nominated for Chief 
 Magistrate by the Democratic convention. It was Republican discontent in 
 regard to the condition of the South that brought about this remarkable 
 result. 
 
 Grant's agreement with Lee, and Sherman's with Johnston had not been 
 fully observed. Had they been observed, the third section of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment of the Constitution, which forbade the insurgent leaders from 
 holding Federal and state offices, would never have been passed. Had there 
 been immediate representation from the South, according to General Grant's 
 recommendation, the discontents, wrongs, and troubles of the South which 
 continued so long, would not have existed. It is one of the marvels of his 
 tory, that in a country like ours, political regeneration should have been so long 
 delayed. The French, the Turks, the Germans, are better in this regard. 
 With a public opinion, led by a vigilant and generous press, leaning toward 
 measures of mercy, our course was more like the continuance of proscription 
 than its discontinuance. The great radical anti-slavery party of 1860 had not 
 the courage, wisdom, or magnanimity to pass measures of amnesty, and thus 
 secure the best prize of war ; the contentment of a brave and conquered 
 people. Even when the war was flagrant there seemed to be more generosity 
 toward the South, in some respects, than after it was over. 
 
 When Mr. Orth, of Indiana, advocated his harsh measure of penalties 
 against the innocent children of supposed guilty parents in the South, on the 
 ground that philology was progressive ; and when he urged that the Consti 
 tution, though not changed in terms, had been changed in meaning by the 
 progress of our chaotic era, he found an element of clemency in President 
 Lincoln's heart which said : " ' Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 forbid them not.' " That President vetoed the harsh bill of that Congress. 
 It was vetoed upon the speech of the author opposing it. 
 
 When the amnesty bill of General Butler came up as the best possible of 
 that day, as it was said in 1870, the writer examined it very critically. He 
 debated it fiercely in the House. Its title did not properly express its intent. 
 The title applied only to its first section. The second section was for the relief 
 from litigation of those who committed abuses in suppressing the rebellion, 
 as well as of those engaged in it. The third section contained clauses of ex 
 ception. The title for the last section should have read : " A bill for special 
 and general grace, amnesty, and oblivion of the Republican party in the de 
 struction of the old and the reconstruction of the new governments, South." 
 The bill excepted what General Butler called politicians from its favor, but 
 that made its general title a solecism. It was the play of Hamlet, not only 
 with Hamlet, but Polonius, king and queen, all but the players, left out. An 
 amnesty bill with exceptions was no amnesty. A tender of redemption to a 
 fallen world including even the chiefest of sinners, the Sauls of the re 
 bellion of sin, was not the model of this kind of legislation. The offer of 
 .grace should have copied the eternal plan. All who believed and re 
 pented, and would be saved, should have been permitted to come and par 
 take of the waters of amnesty freely. The tender would have been just as 
 kind, if they did not come. It should have been free grace, instead of an 
 act to perpetuate reprisals after surrender ; it should have been balm and 
 healing ; not the opening of wounds afresh, but the pouring of oil on the 
 wounds. The disqualifications by the test act, and the test oaths which it 
 took so long to remedy and repeal, were not removed by the letter of this 
 law nor by the spirit which inspired it. If there were any comprehensive 
 effect to be given to the executive proclamations of pardon, then that bill, 
 and others which followed it, were surely unconstitutional ; for the proclam 
 ations of pardon, according to the best authorities, as Mr. Attorney-General 
 Garland has demonstrated in a recent Opinion, covered with a veil all cul 
 pabilities. They placed those concerned in the same position as if their 
 offenses had never been committed. The spirit of qualified amnesty then 
 proposed, is the same spirit which is regnant to-day among many leading 
 Republicans. But such was not the spirit which inspired their better ele 
 ment when Horace Greeley was nominated in 1868. The wisdom or the 
 unwisdom of his nomination has been discussed. Although his election did 
 not entirely bridge over the abyss, it tended to do it. It built the piers. 
 His nomination was a protest against military rule and heathen retaliation. 
 The Democratic party, in standing by him, stood upon the ancient rock of 
 social order by which states are reconciled and people are made harmonious. 
 
 The world has been cursed with military captains like Alva in the Neth 
 erlands and Turenne in the Palatinate. These were soldiers who made 
 mercy the exception and devastation the rule. From such exasperating pol- 
 
MR. LINCOLN'S POLICY OF CHARITY. 599 
 
 icies we turn to the policy of Hoche in La Vendee, and of the first Napo 
 leon after the French Revolution. All history is full of illustrations of civil 
 conflict ending in a blessed opportunity of amnesty. Whether Christian, 
 Hebraic, or Pagan, history glorifies them. They are born of a sentiment 
 which has been honored by the best men of all ages. It was sung by 
 Ossian : " Be thou a tide of many streams against the enemies of thy coun 
 try, but as the gale that moves the grass to those who ask thine aid. My 
 sword was never stained with the blood of the vanquished, and never pierced 
 a fallen foe." It is a part of the nobility of human nature, in fact, it is the 
 highest philosophy of self-preservation, to be clement. It is not only noble, 
 but it is the highest degree of nobility. In the tournament the discomfited 
 Paladin, lowering his lance before his adversary, received a generous hand 
 to lift him up. Cicero, while Rome was racked with civil war, summed up 
 the duty of a patriot in an appeal to a new method of conquering. It was 
 to fortify the Republic with kindness. Even Charles II. was restored be 
 cause of his liberal proclamation at Breda. The best writers in our English 
 tongue, from Sir Thomas Browne, the quaint Christian, to Edmund Burke, 
 in his grand speech for conciliation with America, teach with more emphasis 
 than Tennyson's lyric, the nobility of kindness and the simplicity of faith in 
 human nature which is better than coronets. Was it not Sir Thomas 
 Browne, who said amid the passions of civil war: "Answer not on the 
 spur of fury, and be not prodigal or prodigious in revenge. Supererogate 
 not in the worst sense and overdo not the necessities of evil. Humor not 
 the injustice of revenge. Many there be, to whom a dead enemy smells 
 well ; and who find musk and amber in revenge. But the ferity of such 
 minds holds no rule in retaliations, requiring too often a head for a tooth. If 
 thou must needs have revenge on thine enemy, with a soft tongue break his 
 bones, heap coals of fire on his head, and enjoy it. To forgive your enemies 
 is a charming way of revenge, laying them at your feet and unto sorrow, 
 shame and repentance, leaving them fast your friends and solicitously inclined 
 to grateful retaliations. Common forcible ways make not an end of evil, and 
 will have hatred and malice bind them. An enemy thus reconciled is little 
 to be trusted, as wanting the foundations of love and charity, and but for a 
 time restrained by disadvantage or disability." 
 
 With this spirit enshrined in our policies, and superadded to that ineffa 
 ble grace from Galilee, from the great Teacher and exemplar, the very 
 root, bloom, and fragrance of our polity and civilization would have grown 
 immeasurably beyond all the figures of our senses or the dreams of imagina 
 tion. Could Mr. Lincoln have pursued his policy of charity, that policy 
 which he defined when he declared, that having conquered the enemy with 
 the army, we would now conquer them with magnanimity, much of disad 
 vantage and more of hatred would have been obviated in the last two decades 
 of our history. The conduct of such leading Republicans as Mr. Blaine, of 
 
600 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Maine, in the first and best impulses which led him to discountenance the 
 Force bill upon the South, and to contend for a general amnesty, might have 
 given us a wonderful effulgence of national glory. Perhaps the South itself 
 is somewhat to blame for a change in the policy of this great Republic, for it 
 is well known, and it was proved by the writer in a debate with Mr. Blaine, 
 in the House of Representatives in the early part of 1876, that Mr. Blaine 
 himself authorized the Committee on Rules, of which the author was a 
 member, to report a bill of general amnesty from that committee. He was, 
 as Speaker of the House, ex officio chairman of the committee. No excuse 
 can be rendered, or ever has been rendered, for his precipitate retreat from 
 the high ground which he then occupied. In proof of this, the record is 
 presented. Moreover, had the same distinguished gentleman voted for the 
 resolution which the writer offered, or assisted to make the vote unanimous 
 in the House of Representatives, unity might have been given to the general 
 sentiment of the country as to the purposes, objects, and situation of the 
 government as between the sections. Here are the proposed resolutions re 
 produced from the Congressional Record: 
 
 " Resolved, That the people of the United States constitute a nation in 
 the sense, to the extent, and for the purpose defined in the Federal Consti 
 tution. That the government of the United States is a Federal Union, and 
 was formed by the people of the several states in their sovereign capacity ; 
 that the rights and powers of the United States Government are defined and 
 limited by the Federal Constitution, and these rights and powers cannot be 
 enlarged or diminished except by an amendment to the Constitution. That 
 the rights of states have the same sanction of security in the Constitution as 
 the rights and powers of the Federal Government ; and that local domestic 
 government by the several states, within the limits of the Constitution, is 
 absolutely necessary for the preservation of the liberties of the citizen and 
 the continuance of a republican system of government. That the doctrine 
 that any state has the right to secede from the Union is in conflict with the 
 idea of a perpetual union, as contemplated by the Constitution, and should 
 be regarded as being forever extinguished by the result of the recent conflict.'* 
 
 The above resolutions form a compend of our republican system. They 
 were intended to smother the incipient ambition of some Republican mem 
 bers who were eager to start a debate on " States Rights," in order to call oft' 
 the attention of the Democratic majority from certain personal derelictions. 
 A Republican member from Indiana had introduced a resolution giving a 
 different interpretation to the Constitution ; whereupon the writer obtained 
 the floor to propose the above. It was carried by the convincing vote of 
 150 to 40. Many Republicans voted for it, in spite of the call of Mr. Blaine 
 to vote them down. As Mr. Blaine was then a representative man, and 
 openly aspiring to the Presidency, it is singular that he should have repu 
 diated the doctrine that local domestic government of the states within the 
 
THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 6oi 
 
 limits of the Constitution is absolutely necessary to preserve individual free 
 dom and perpetuate republican government. 
 
 As an example of the constantly recurring issues growing out of the 
 question of amnesty, it may be remarked that the pardoning power has fre 
 quently been before Congress and the courts for consideration. In fact, 
 almost while writing this chapter, an opinion of the Attorney-General in 
 relation to the appointment to a high office abroad of one who had been par 
 doned for participation in secession, and who had not received the two-thirds 
 vote for amnesty provided by the third section of the Fourteenth Amend 
 ment, is recorded. It was rendered on a question of disability to hold office. 
 Had such disability been removed by the pardon, or had the Fourteenth 
 Amendment, which was ratified after the pardon had been issued, revived 
 the disability ? But the question is still open, and is undergoing, and will 
 undergo discussion, though not as to whether it would not be wisest to 
 comply if possible with the Constitution as to amnesty, for to that all pru 
 dent men will agree. 
 
 It is an axiom of the courts that their province is to declare the law, not 
 to make it. But the reports are full of evidence that enlightened judges sel 
 dom enforce laws of extreme harshness, against the public sentiment of the 
 day, when their rigors may be escaped by construction. Many harsh crimi 
 nal laws are declared " obsolete," although they were never repealed. Pun 
 ishments that would shock the civilization of this age are prescribed in unre- 
 pealed statutes, but no court will give its sanction to them. They are 
 " obsolete." Is it against public sentiment to-day, that an ex-Confederate 
 general or senator takes a seat in Congress, or in the Cabinet or on the Bench 
 of the United States ? Is there any public sentiment that would exclude an 
 ex-Confederate soldier from participating in this government in any way? 
 Has not full and complete amnesty gone forth to the South from the people 
 of this Union ? Have not the people declared for the common brotherhood 
 of a re-united nation, with equal rights and privileges for all its citizens? If 
 by the word " obsolete" is meant in law, a statute inappropriate to the age, 
 a penalty too harsh for enforcement, then, surely, the proscriptions of the 
 Fourteenth Amendment are " obsolete." They have no place in the hearts of 
 the people ; they may be swept away as dead matter without a murmur of 
 regret. The last sentence of the third section of the Amendment might well 
 be construed by a learned and unprejudiced court, as in no way limiting the 
 well known effect of an executive pardon, but, on the contrary, as vesting 
 in Congress a power of grace for cases wherein executive clemency might be 
 refused. If this relic of our civil strife is not obsolete on the statutes, as it 
 is in public sentiment let the construction of the courts shroud its harsher 
 features with the cobwebs of their darkest alcoves. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 TEST OATHS AND PENALTIES. 
 
 THEIR OPERATION IN THE ONE-TENTH RECONSTRUCTION PLAN OF HENRY 
 WINTER DAVIS UNFAIRNESS TO UNIONISTS TEST OATHS DESTRUCTIVE 
 OF TRIAL BY JURY EFFORTS AT TEST OATH REPEAL MODIFICATION 
 PROPOSED BY THE REPUBLICANS THE AUTHOR'S BILLS POLITICAL OATHS 
 IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND THE PURITAN ATTITUDE -NOTABLE CHANGE 
 IN ENGLISH SENTIMENT AND LAW THE OBLIGATION OF AN OATH 
 OATH-TAKING AND OATH-BREAKING THE MISSOURI IRON-CLAD MISSOURI 
 PERSECUTION OF SISTERS OF CHARITY THE TEST OATH IN THE SUPREME 
 COURT THE GARLAND CASE SENATOR GARLAND'S NOBLE STAND FOR 
 THE REPEAL OF THE TEST OATHS. 
 
 IN the discussions of the various plans of reconstruction, and especially 
 that of Henry Winter Davis, on the 4th of May, 1864, the require 
 ment of a test oath in respect to uninterrupted loyalty to the general gov 
 ernment, was predominant among the measures for state rehabilitation. 
 It was an effective device for the repression rather than for the maintenance of 
 governments in the South of republican form. This proscription was enacted 
 on July 2, 1862. It should have had no force after peace came. It is 
 known as the "iron-clad " oath. It reads as follows : " I, A. B., do solemnly 
 swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the 
 United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily 
 given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged 
 in armed hostility thereto ; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor 
 attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority 
 or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States ; that I have not 
 yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power 
 or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And 
 I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, 
 I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all 
 enemies, foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
 same ; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or 
 
PROSCRIPTION OF JURORS. 603 
 
 purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
 the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." 
 
 Early in the civil war period, political test oaths became a pre-requisite in 
 all matters of public business and engagements. During the reconstruction 
 period these oaths, and especially the "iron-clad," permeated like a fatal 
 leprosy all attempts in the South to reform the codes of states and the courts 
 of justice. Long years after the war a fair jury trial was well-nigh im 
 possible in the Federal courts in that section, because of such oaths being 
 required of jurors. Before the enactment of the " iron-clad" oath, namely 
 on June 17, 1862, an act " defining additional causes of challenge and pre 
 scribing an additional oath for grand and petit jurors in the United States 
 Courts," was passed by Congress. This act established as causes of dis 
 qualification for such jurors, on which they might be challenged : First, 
 "Without duress and coercion to have taken up arms, or to have joined 
 any insurrection and rebellion, against the United States." Second, u to 
 have given, directly or indirectly, any assistance in money, arms, horses, 
 clothes, or anything whatever, to or for the use or benefit of any person or 
 persons whom the person giving such assistance knew to have joined, or to 
 be about to join, any insurrection or rebellion, or to have resisted, or to be 
 about to resist with force of arms, the execution of the laws of the United 
 States, or whom he had good ground to believe had joined, or was about 
 to join, any insurrection or rebellion, or had resisted, or was about to resist, 
 with force of arms, the execution of the laws of the United States, and to 
 have counseled and advised any person or persons to join any insurrection 
 .and rebellion, or to resist with force and arms the laws of the United States." 
 
 This act prescribed an oath or affirmation expressly negativing these dis 
 qualifications. It authorized the United States District Attorney, or his 
 assistant, to move, and the court in their discretion to require, the clerk to 
 tender that oath to each and every juror summoned to serve as such, and to 
 every talesman also. Any person declining to take the oath was to be dis 
 charged by the court from serving on the grand or petit jury, or venire, to 
 which he was summoned. 
 
 The 3d of June, 1879, found the author still appealing to Congress for 
 that relief from such tests which did not come until some years after, when 
 Judge Thurman's bill became crystallized into law. Any complete indict 
 ment of the party of reconstruction must contain this count, to-wit : it made 
 a just or fair jury trial impossible. It is one of the comprehensive remarks 
 of DeTocqueville on our institutions, that " the people gave legislative and 
 executive power, as well as franchises, to jurors." He associated public 
 freedom with the sacred right of trial by jury, and in their union he found 
 the democracy of America. Therein is the directing power of our govern 
 ment, shining through all its forms. In thus defining the "spirit of the 
 laws," he followed the eulogy of Montesquieu and the unstinted praise of 
 
604 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Coke and Blackstone upon the jury system. Alas ! for the great hiatus in 
 our history, when his unstinted eulogy was bitter irony. But we had the 
 free jury system when the philosophic Frenchman wrote his volume. 
 
 Wherever this system has been transplanted it has grown. It has rarely, 
 if ever, been given up where once planted. France got it out of the very 
 stones and bayonets of the barricades of 1830, and still holds it. The writer 
 has seen its utility exemplified even in Algiers among the indigenes. Bel 
 gium in 1830 rose in insurrection when it was interfered with ; that country 
 was severed in twain for its vindication. The jury system is both the cause 
 and proof of civilization and liberty. Indispensable to the democracy of the 
 jury-box is the removal of physical force, supple servility, and prescriptive 
 laws. Yet, to advocate a repeal of these political oaths, with a view to the 
 restitution of fair jury trials and fair voting, was long accounted disloyalty 
 by the party that prescribed such impossible tests. There was no disqualifi 
 cation so obnoxious and harmful as these oaths. They were the clumsy and 
 rotten buttresses of arbitrary power. 
 
 Shortly after the reconstruction measures began their baleful operation, 
 the author introduced a bill to eradicate the whole test oath system, not 
 merely in its application to juries, but to all offices, including that. of con 
 gressman. It provided "That the act of Congress entitled 'An Act to 
 prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,' approved on July 2, 1862, 
 and so much of the provisions of section 1 756 of the Revised Statutes of the 
 United States, and all other sections thereof, which provide for the enforce 
 ment of the provisions of said act of July 2, 1862, be, and the same are 
 hereby, repealed ; and that no person shall hereafter be required to take the 
 fOath therein prescribed as a condition precedent to the holding of any office 
 or to serving as a juror, or to the acquirement of any right under the laws 
 of the United States." 
 
 In a speech which the author made on Feb. I, 1871, on the subject of 
 "Familiar and Frequent Oath-Taking," he discussed the general question. 
 This subject was suggested by Jeremy Bentham's queries: "The oath 
 implies neither faith given nor faith received. Why, then, require it? Why 
 take it? Why this farce? Judges and legislators amuse themselves with 
 destroying it." There was then pending a bill which prescribed an oath to 
 be taken by persons who participated in the rebellion and were disqualified 
 from holding office by the Fourteenth Amendment. That bill became a law 
 on Feb. 15, 1871. It was a Republican measure. It was a partial measure, 
 intended to melt down somewhat the iron-clad oath. It relieved from taking 
 the iron-clad oath only those whose disabilities had been removed by Con 
 gress, while for those who were innocent entirely of the rebellion, strange to 
 say, that iron-clad oath remained long after in force to test their loyalty in 
 the past ! The following is the oath as modified by that bill and embraced 
 in section 1757 of the Revised Statutes : 
 
POLITICAL OATHS DESTRUCTIVE OF FREEDOM. 605 
 
 " 1, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend 
 the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic ; 
 that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ; that I take this obliga 
 tion freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that 
 I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am 
 about to enter. So help me God." 
 
 This modification extended only to the matter of qualifying for office. It 
 did not apply to a jury test, nor in many other matters under Federal juris 
 diction. Yet it was an advance toward that concession of equal rights 
 which can alone maintain free republican government. 
 
 What a mockery were these war oaths ! The history of political oaths is 
 a history of oath-breaking. They were as cheap as those proverbial of 
 the dicer or the custom-house. There is no end to subterfuges in swearing. 
 As the Spanish proverb has it : " He who made the law made also its eva 
 sion." Robert, King of France, saw men forsworn upon the relics of the 
 saints in their wagers at law. Being of a religious turn, he caused an empty 
 reliquary of crystal to be used to lessen the guilt of perjury ! Where there 
 are changes of political sovereignty, where men have to swear one day to 
 one ruler and the next day to another, what sort of sanctity can belong to 
 such affirmations ? There ought to be empty reliquaries for such oaths. It 
 is a white rose to-day, and a red to-morrow. It is the king, the assembly, 
 the consulate, the monarchy, the republic, the empire, and the republic again. 
 
 Talleyrand swore thirteen times to his allegiance, from the pontificate of 
 Clement XIII., on taking priest's orders, down through half a century of 
 revolutions, ending with the accession of Louis Philippe, who was crowned 
 in 1830. The advancement of intellect and the progress of opinion made 
 sworn declarations of political faith and loyalty a shame and scandal, if not 
 a jest, long before our tests. Bentham called those who required them " cor- 
 rupters of their country." Did not the Saviour reprove the convenient con 
 sciences which are solaced by such makeshifts? "Woe unto you, ye blind 
 guides, who say, ' Whosoever shall swear by the temple it is nothing ; but 
 whosoever shall swear by the gift of the temple, he is a debtor.'" 
 
 Too frequent oath-taking creates demoralization ; it is barbarism, and 
 should be decreased, if not abolished. All political oaths, whether promis 
 sory or retrospective are destructive of freedom. An oath which would turn 
 intelligent, honest men out of the jury-box strikes at the very nerve-centre of 
 society. And yet for years our people were denied trial by a fair jury of 
 honest men, selected without reference to their political faith and devotion in 
 former years. 
 
 There was a bitter contest in England after the revolution of 1640. It 
 turned upon an oath. It was not merely prelacy, or the wearing of the sur 
 plice, or the use of a liturgy, or the Book of Common Prayer, or the sign of 
 the cross, which tried the soul of Richard Baxter and others like him, who 
 
606 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 would not conform to the established church. It was the " et cetera " oath. 
 It had a clause from which it was named : u Nor will I ever give my consent 
 to alter the government of the church by archbishops, bishops, deans, and 
 archdeacons, etc., as it stands now established and ought to stand." This 
 was an oath promissory ; an oath binding fallible men never to change opin 
 ions. It included in it the et cetera no one knew what. An oath thus 
 indefinite was the essence of folly and despotism. Instead of helping the 
 prelacy to be unchangeable, the et cetera oath roused up the Baxters of that 
 day to resist. It became an advantage to the cause of dissent. The Long 
 Parliament seized upon it, along with the ship-money question, to vindicate 
 freedom and inflame the people against royalty. Puritanism thrived upon 
 that insane proscription. Pym, Fiennes, Digby, and other Puritan heroes 
 of Parliament thundered against it. After the restoration other oaths were 
 enacted. Those in the service of the church were required to promise sub 
 jection to the canons, and to abjure the solemn league and covenant. They 
 were required to renounce the right of taking up arms against the king and 
 his officers. By this test the English Church lost two thousand of its best 
 ministers. Still another law was passed, requiring of ministers an additional 
 oath, and. providing that if they refused to take it they should not come 
 within five miles of any city or corporation, or any place where they had 
 lived or which sent burgesses to Parliament. This is one of the oaths : 
 " I, A. B., do swear that it is not lawful, upon any pretense whatsoever, to 
 take arms against the king ; and that I do abhor that traitorous position of 
 taking arms by his authority against his person, or against those that are com 
 missioned by him, in pursuance of such commission ; and that I will not, at 
 any time, endeavor any alteration of the government, either in church or 
 state." Some clergymen took this oath under duress. Those who refused 
 had often no subsistence for their families in the strange country places to 
 which they were expelled. " No severity," says Hallam, "comparable to 
 this cold-blooded persecution had been inflicted by the late powers even in 
 the ferment and fury of a civil war." All sorts of subterfuges and reservations 
 were resorted to, to take the oath and not feel it binding in a certain sense. 
 It was a fruitful source of prevarication and perjury. 
 
 In the persecutions under this oath, and while Sidney and others were 
 falling under the axe of the despot, the leader of non-conformity, Richard 
 Baxter, fell under the tender mercies of Jeffreys at Westminster. That 
 judicial fiend was well selected to execute such laws. Never in the career of 
 infamous judges has there been anything to compare with his brutal treatment 
 of this meek and just man. " Does your lordship think any jury will pass a 
 verdict upon me upon such a trial ? " asked the author of the Holy Common 
 wealth. " I'll warrant you," answered Jeffreys ; " don't you trouble your 
 self about that." The packed and corrupt jury, summoned to do the bidding 
 of the obsequious tool of an infamous ruler, laid their heads together and 
 
DECADENCE OF THE OLD PURITAN SPIRIT. 607 
 
 found him guilty without leaving the box. Out of the ordeal of such odious 
 oaths and mock trials sprang the noble army of non-conformist confessors, 
 whose labors and sufferings gave to them an immortalization on earth by the 
 muse of history, and to their immortality in heaven the beauty of holiness 
 which was their " saints' rest " forever. It gave that grace and spirituality to 
 the better part of the Puritan character, of which there is so much just boast 
 ing in our own country, and that, too, on the part of men who have for 
 gotten the shining example of their ancestors. 
 
 Is it not a sad, almost savage satire on these staunch men of spiritual faith 
 and austere manners, that their "stalwart" descendants in the New World 
 were the loudest leaders in perpetuating the same system of proscriptive 
 oath-taking and mock-jury trial which gave to England her revolution of 
 1688, and to America her earliest and bravest lovers of liberty? These old 
 test oaths drove many a Puritan, Quaker, and Catholic to the New World. 
 It was reserved for their descendants to re-enact them here in the noon of 
 our own century, not only to affect religion and state, but to inflict penalties 
 and perpetuate hatred. Where was that old Puritan spirit which led to the 
 abolition of the Star Chamber, the High Commission, and the Council of 
 York, and which demanded the execution of Strafford and the king, and 
 which always held to the Petition of Right as a palladium of English liberty ? 
 Where that spirit of parliamentary courage which arrested the attempt of the 
 king upon the Commons, when he strove to suppress Wentworth and to 
 arrest Hampden, Pym, Holies, Haselrig, and Strode for high treason, be 
 cause they spoke for the Great Charter the Petition of Right and the 
 privileges of the Commons? Where the Puritan nerve and spirit which 
 resisted the attempt of the king when he came to the Commons to demand 
 the five members, with his guard of pensioners and tories, exclaiming that 
 he would not break their privileges, but that treason had no privilege ? He 
 found that his birds had flown, and retreated ignominiously from the Com 
 mons, saluted with the cry, " Privilege ! privilege ! " This was at a time, 
 too, when the axe hung over the heads of outspoken Puritans. 
 
 The writer would neither derogate from the Puritan character, nor unduly 
 exalt it. Enough remains of the history of the Puritans of New England 
 during the many years preceding our own Revolution, to show that the 
 spirit of Pym, Hampden, and Wentworth was instinct and alive in the War 
 rens, Adamses, and Hancocks of our early days. But, alas, how their de 
 scendants degenerated in our later troubles ! They cannot read without a 
 blush, the history of the test oaths which they placed on our statute book, 
 even on " revision," and their laws for the use of the army to control civil 
 affairs and override local rights. They were not merely the passive instru 
 ments of their enactment and execution, but the active advocates as well. 
 
 When Macaulay described the Puritans of old England as ' ' looking down 
 upon the rich and the eloquent, upon nobles and upon priests, with contempt, 
 
608 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 esteeming themselves rich in a more enduring treasure, and eloquent in a 
 more sublime language nobles by the right of an earlier creation, and 
 priests by the imposition of a mightier hand," could he have dreamed that 
 out of a civil war in this land, this domineering element, so proud and great, 
 would fall so far as to keep on the statute book, tests, pains, and penalties 
 which France, Turkey, Russia, and even Asiatic and African barbarians 
 would be ashamed to defend? What history has not been written, what 
 poems not sung, in praise of the heroic Puritan element, yet how ignoble 
 their descendants seem when such proscription and bigotry are exposed ! 
 
 In Great Britain there has been much progress in dispensing with oaths, 
 and in their simplification. Many ecclesiastical as well as civil oaths have 
 been abolished. As to the former, the old oath still remains in regard to 
 the doctrines, prayers, and sacraments of the established church, and against 
 simony and stipends. The act of 31 and 32 Victoria shows a most enlight 
 ened progress, from which we might have drawn valuable lessons. Com 
 pared with our verbose, vindictive, and ridiculous "iron-clad" oath, the oath 
 it prescribes is a model of brevity and sense. It reads : " I do swear that I 
 will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her 
 heirs and successors, according to law : So help me God." Our constitu 
 tional oath is more concise "I swear to support the Constitution of the 
 United States : So help me God." 
 
 The modern English official and judicial oaths are in the same pithy 
 style. A schedule of the officers who are to take them is appended to the 
 law. They are few in number. The wisdom of Parliament is further shown 
 by the reduction of wholesale swearing at the custom-houses and elsewhere. 
 The oath for hosts of officers and objects is repealed and a simple declaration 
 is substituted. The oath for members of Parliament is fixed by the act of April 
 30, 1866. It is nearly as simple as the one quoted. For the failure of a com 
 moner to take it, there is a fine of 500, and a further penalty " that his seat 
 shall be vacated in the same manner as if he were dead." Even this oath is 
 practically obsolete. The expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh on June 23, 1880, 
 for refusing to take it, will recur to the reader ; and also his re-admission, five 
 days after, without the oath, by a vote of 303 to 249. The schedule to this act 
 contains a long list of acts from Charles II. to its date, which were then modi 
 fied or repealed. They constitute a terrible catalogue of bigotry as discredit 
 able to England as their repeal is praiseworthy. Some of these oaths had 
 remained obligatory from the time of Elizabeth. They were prescribed 
 against the Catholics. The act of supremacy was amended in 1673. It also 
 was framed to exclude the Catholics ; but it had a similar bearing against all 
 dissenters. It increased the confusion and contention of the troublous era in 
 which it was passed ; but it was consumed in the keen blaze of our nine 
 teenth century, with the debris of intolerant ages. Along with it fell many 
 politico-religious tests. The Thirty-nine Articles are no longer to the Jew 
 
THE GROTESQUE SIDE OF SWEARING. 609 
 
 a stumbling block, nor to the Baptist foolishness. A new era of "reform" 
 and "emancipation" opened in the time of George IV. Not only were the 
 Catholics relieved of their disabilities, but also " every person of the per 
 suasion of the people called Quakers." By three repeals the disabilities of 
 that chosen and eternal race of races, the Hebrews, were removed, and 
 declarations were substituted in lieu of oaths. Yet with this light radiating 
 from the English legislature, we, who vaunt so much of liberal progress, 
 groped in the darkness of her oath-proscriptions until the closing year of our 
 last decade. 
 
 An English writer insists that one-half of the oaths taken in the courts 
 should be dispensed with, including all promissory oaths as to the perform 
 ance of duty. He would increase penalties for falsehood, while diminishing 
 oaths. The manner of administering oaths has much to do with their 
 strength or feebleness. How often was the oath of allegiance made ridicu 
 lous during our war ! A cavalry company dashes from house to house, and 
 swears the rebels in. It is followed soon after by a company of rebels, who 
 swear them out. At breakfast, dinner, and supper, over "hard-tack" or 
 corn pone, night and day, when the swearer was in the humor, off he dashed 
 after a "disloyal " victim. One who had that line of patriotic duty in charge 
 has given the writer an example of administering that oath which illustrates 
 this point : "You do solemnly swear (Look here ! take that cigar out of your 
 mouth !) that you'll bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of 
 
 America ; that you'll serve them honestly and faithfully (Stop that d d 
 
 talking in the ranks !) against all enemies and opposers whomsoever ; 
 (Johnny, bring me that demijohn !) that you'll observe and obey the orders 
 of the President of the United States, (Take off your hat, and keep your 
 hand up !) and the orders of the officers appointed over you : So help you 
 God. Now, git!" 
 
 This kind of swearing was not peculiar to our war period. Dickens 
 gives a similar mode in the English courts. A constant habit of admin 
 istering the same oath naturally begets this unpunctuated and mingled mon 
 otone of indifference and frivolity. It is like Chaucer's monk, who forever 
 repeated the same few terms " learned out of some decree." 
 
 One of the peculiar features of the " iron-clad" is that it compels a person 
 to swear that while he is taking the oath he is not forswearing himself; for 
 example, that he has no mental reservations, that he is playing no sleight 
 with his conscience, no thimblerig with words. He is sworn that while he 
 is swearing he is not lying ! The author has at hand another illustration 
 of a peculiar mode of swearing. It is an oath which reserves so many 
 conditions and qualifications that it nullifies itself. Carleton publishes it of 
 one of his Celtic characters, who is urged by his good priest to take a pledge 
 against intemperance. The affiant went to the schoolmaster of his village 
 ,and had the following drawn : 
 
6lO THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 " Oath against liquor made by me, Cornelius O'Flaherty, philomath, ort 
 behalf of Misther Peter Connell, of the Cross Roads, merchant, on one part, 
 and of the soul of Mrs. Ellish Connell, now in purgatory, merchantess, on 
 the other. 
 
 " I solemnly, and meritoriously, and soberly swear that a single tumbler 
 of whisky punch shall not cross my lips during the twenty-four hours of the 
 day, barring twelve, the locality of which is as followeth : 
 
 Imprimis Two tumblers at home, ....... 2 
 
 Secundo Two more ditto at my son Dan's, ..... 2 
 
 Tertio Two more ditto behind my own garden, . . . .2 
 
 Quarto One ditto at the Rev. Father Mulcahy's, i 
 
 <j)uinto Two more ditto at Frank McCarrolPs, of Kilclay, . . .2 
 Sexto One ditto wid ould Bartle Gorman, of Cargah, i 
 
 Septimo Two more ditto wid honest Roger McGaugy, of Nurchasey, . 2 
 
 12 
 
 44 N. B. I except in case any docthor of physic might think it right and 
 medical to ordher me more for my health ; or, in case 1 could get Father 
 Mulcahy to take the oath off of me for a start, at a wedding, or a christening,, 
 or at any other meeting of friends where there's drink." 
 
 The author does not know whether congressmen would make these ex 
 tensive reservations. The reader probably knows how recruits were sworn,, 
 and how they were prepared for the battles of the Republic. No custom 
 house officer ever administered a stressless oath with more haste and noncha 
 lance than do some of our courts. Who feels the binding force of such an 
 oath ? Who is not shocked by the irreverence and frivolity ? Such trivial 
 and frequent swearing is no swearing at all ; and, by extremes, it violates the 
 Bible command, " Swear not at all ! " It reminds one of the man who was. 
 swearing loudly to Hercules. His companion said : " Do not call so loud, 
 or the god may hear you ! " Our statutes groan with oaths at every page. 
 Like the ghost in Hamlet, they say : " Swear ! " " Swear ! " They should 
 evanish with the dawn. Governments condemn Thugs, Carbonari, Ku-Klux, 
 Nihilists, and secret societies generally, for their mystic oaths. Let govern 
 ments set a good example and abolish the custom. The wisest writers hold 
 oaths to be repugnant to the Christian religion. Bentham wonders why, 
 under such a religion, oaths should be so common. The answer is not 
 complimentary to our civilization. In earlier days, society was cemented 
 by solemn oaths. Liberty was assured, as in Switzerland, by an oath. 
 Patriotism, is sometimes nerved and obligations sanctified by a solemn oath, 
 when the bonds of society become loose and require tightening. But what 
 a farce is constant swearing! When it was so general in England, the 
 
WHAT IS AN OATH? 6ll 
 
 traveling Briton was everywhere on the continent designated by his own 
 shortest and commonest expletive. 
 
 There has been much metaphysical discussion as to the definition of an 
 oath. Is it a religious affirmation or an invocation to God as a witness? Is 
 it an imprecation of the vengeance of God upon him who swears falsely, or 
 a mere promise ? What was the custom and law of the Jews ? The word 
 often used in the Greek version of the Testament interprets one meaning of 
 an oath, Igopxgw "I adjure thee" ; "I call on thee to declare the truth." 
 The corresponding Hebrew word is JOJ^' It signifies at all times and 
 places in the Jewish history an adjuration. From Genesis to Revelations it 
 is the same. The majesty of the adjuration, used by the high priest to evoke 
 the truth, is not lessened by too much frequency. There was no frivolity in 
 its administration. The New Dispensation discloses another custom : "Let 
 your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay ; for whatsoever is more than 
 these cometh of evil ! " Many sects besides the Anabaptists, Moravians, and 
 Quakers hold that to take an oath is an abuse of the name of God. Calvin 
 said that there was no need of such a superfluity of oaths. Therein he fol 
 lowed the Christian fathers. Augustine sums up his creed in these words : 
 44 False swearing is fatal, true swearing is dangerous, swearing not at all is 
 safe." Chrysostom, of the golden mouth, said that " swearing took its be 
 ginning from want of truth and punctuality." 
 
 Classic literature, like our Reconstruction acts, is full of oath-taking. 
 Homer's heroes, like the army in Flanders, swore terribly. Even Helen 
 swore. She swore fidelity to Menelaus. We know how she kept her oath. 
 The immortal gods swore by the waters of the Styx. The classic swearing 
 was done by attesting and imprecating in the name of the gods. During 
 the Commonwealth the Romans swore by their swords. Under the Empire 
 they made their sacraments in the name of their Cagsars. Numa swore by 
 the goddess Fides, while now and then a warrior swore by the quiver of 
 Diana. The Egyptians swore by cats, dogs, snakes, crocodiles, baboons, 
 and onions ! Sometimes the ancient soldiers killed a bull, dipped their 
 hands in his gore, and, like other valiant men, swore to Bellona to do brave 
 deeds. In China a saucer is broken, and they swear to be broken like it if 
 they lie. In India they cut off the head of a cock, with the same sort of 
 imprecation. Some Hindus swear by holding a cow by the tail that use 
 ful beast being sacred with the Brahmins. 
 
 All through history, from Justin Martyr down to George Fox, Christian 
 men have suffered death at the stake, and imprisonment often, because they 
 would not swear. After the Restoration in England, three thousand and 
 sixty-eight Quakers went to jail rather than give up their non-oath-taking 
 tenets. But of all the oaths, the one most repugnant to good sense and con 
 science is that as to civic conduct. When we recall to mind how Harold 
 swore to William of Normandy that he would renounce the crown, and then 
 
6l2 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 began to rebel ; how King John and his son Henry swore an oath to uphold 
 Magna Charta, only to break it ; and Cromwell, to keep Parliament in session 
 five months, only to break it, then we perceive how cheap oath-taking of 
 this kind is. But what shall be said of tests in the form of oaths as to past 
 opinions and conduct, and as to countenancing and comforting a lost cause ! 
 By them a man was required to perjure himself, or be shut out from jury 
 service and official duty. The tests made him the pariah of society. 
 
 When we consider how many cunning devices are resorted to for evasion, 
 as by kissing the thumb instead of the Book, and how many lies are told 
 which, as Coke says, " concern not the suit, and therefore are extrajudicial," 
 and upon which no perjury can be assigned, may we not conclude that these 
 makeshifts contribute to lying ? Do they not belittle an oath that should be 
 solemn ? Is not this the effect of frequent and familiar swearing ? Do not fre 
 quent oath-takings dishonor society, and government its agent? Do they 
 not call down religion from its heavenly home and drag it into the mire of 
 human depravity? Do they not, therefore, corrupt the very well-springs of 
 truth and justice ? 
 
 It was because these prescriptive oaths were the Federal test for jurors and 
 office-holders, and because they were a portion of a system of demoralization 
 and barbarism, that the writer introduced the bill for their abolition. He 
 would go further and abolish all political retrospective and promissory oaths. 
 No fear of revolution, no timidity about coercion, would for a moment deter 
 him from following a policy which would save society from that reckless 
 invocation of the Divine Majesty which is so often used on the occasion of 
 oath-taking. Is it not appalling, that upon so many trifling occasions we 
 call upon the sacred name of God, and dim that effulgence which emanates 
 from the promise of His word by contamination with the imperfections and 
 vices of men ? 
 
 Since the close of the Civil War the writer recalls but one statutory oath 
 that may be regarded as having been framed in charity toward an erring 
 brother. That oath was prescribed by the act of Congress of June i, 1872, 
 and is contained in sections 1042 and 5296 of the Revised Statutes of the 
 United States. These sections provide that a poor convict who has been 
 sentenced by any court of the United States to pay a fine, or fine and costs, 
 with or without imprisonment, and has been confined in prison thirty days 
 solely for non-payment of the fine or costs, may, upon application in writing 
 to any circuit court commissioner in his district, setting forth his inability to 
 pay the fine or costs, be admitted to a hearing before the commissioner for 
 the purpose of showing his inability to pay, and that he is without property 
 exceeding twenty dollars in value, except such as is, by the laws of his state 
 exempt from being taken in execution for debt ; and that upon satisfactory 
 proof to the commissioner he shall be discharged on taking the oath men 
 tioned, which reads as follows : "I do solemnly swear that I have not any 
 
THE MISSOURI IRON-CLAD OATH. 613 
 
 property, real or personal, to the amount of twenty dollars, except such as 
 is by law exempt from being taken on civil precept for debt by the laws of 
 
 the State of ; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or 
 
 concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help 
 me God." 
 
 Not one of all the oaths ever recorded in sacred or classic lore, or pro 
 pounded in any land, for political, religious, judicial, martial, or festive pur 
 poses ; whether for jurors, witnesses, or officials ; whether at custom-houses 
 or at marriage rites ; whether to suspected patriots or supposed traitors, from 
 Noah, who took the first oath, down to the cloud of investigation-committee 
 witnesses, surpassed our "iron-clad" oath for the ridiculousness and variety 
 of its application, save one only. There was one exception perhaps ; and 
 that, too, in our own country. It is to be found in the Missouri constitution 
 made by Republicans just before the end of the war. That oath illustrates 
 the fact that there are some laws and some men who, to carry out their 
 grudges, defy the everlasting order and congruity of things. It is enough to 
 condemn the party which made it to an eternity of infamy. Luckily, as 
 shown in a former chapter, the Supreme Court of the United States pulled it 
 up by the roots. Although it remained in force for five years to blot the 
 organic law of a great and growing state, and although its provisions again 
 and again were used to give to a small minority of the people of Missouri 
 the ruling power, yet at last its authors hid from public execration, and the 
 oath was stamped out by the decision of Mr. Justice Stephen J. Field, in an 
 opinion which adds to his fame as an enlightened and liberal-minded jurist. 
 
 Well did these vile bigots of Missouri understand that whole classes of 
 good citizens would be unable to take the oath they prescribed, and be incap 
 able of jury or any other duty to society or to the state. But, comforted and 
 protected by the prescriptive bigotry and hate of Congress, with its " iron 
 clad," they disfranchised the majority of the state. How was the Missouri law 
 executed? It was not in the ordinary sense a law. It had not the excuse of 
 legislative inconsiderate haste. It was made a part of the fundamental con 
 stitution of a great state. It had not even the flimsy excuse of Protestant 
 bigotry against the Catholic faith. In some counties Methodists as well as 
 Catholics were indicted, tried, and convicted for preaching Christ's gospel of 
 love ; because, like Richard Baxter, they would not commit perjury or con 
 form to the oath. These men had been preaching that gospel for years ; but 
 no amount of work in the vineyard of the Lord saved them from the remorse 
 less clutch of these self-righteous "loyal" Pharisees. True, this constitu 
 tional clause was not directed against the body. It did not use torture, rack, 
 and thumb-screw. But it was a radical ukase against the sacred conscience 
 of man' a torture of the soul a devilish plot against the ministrations of 
 religion and the teaching of all classes of mind. It was worse than barbaric. 
 It was worse than the worst of the Federal proscriptions. 
 
614 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 In the recent wars of Europe the red-cross flag of Geneva, with its white 
 ground of chanty, gave immunity to those who cared for the sick. It alle 
 viated suffering and saved life. It earned the blessings and gratitude of 
 all. It gave laws of kindness to war. But this infamous Missouri oath, 
 which stopped the physician in his round of duty to the sick and dying, 
 and the priest in his consolations, would have hauled down the red cross of 
 Geneva. When it did not imprison the clergyman in his home, it did 
 worse ; it consigned him to the common jail. It was worse than the " five- 
 mile act " of Episcopal bigotry against the Dissenters. How was it exe 
 cuted? Let one instance illustrate. The radical ghouls of Cape Girardeau 
 County, Missouri, indicted under this law the Sisters of Charity who taught 
 in a convent. Three of these angels of mercy were dragged into court, and 
 tried for not having taken the oath it prescribed. And will it be believed 
 now ? the foreman of the grand jury sent his own child to the convent to 
 be taught, so as to get proof of the teaching, and thus to convict ! In that 
 case, however, public opinion revolted, and the Titus Oateses of Missouri 
 hid their heads for a time from public opinion ; but not without leaving their 
 prescriptive meanness as an evidence of how far degeneracy could go from 
 the days of Pym and Hampden, Baxter and De Foe. They left imperishable 
 evidence of their unfitness to live as co-workers for good in human society. 
 If these Sisters of Charity and Mercy, the Florence Nightingales of our 
 conflict, have passed from earth and found their beatitudes in that azure 
 sheen where walk the pure, white-handed in celestial light, singing the 
 praises of the Saviour they served here among men, with what pitying eyes 
 do they look down upon the foolish and spiteful human craftiness which 
 sought to break the blessed utility and unity of their lives by such a relentless 
 persecution ! Language has no vehicle of expression, the mind no idea, fit 
 to tell the burning shame which should blister forever the cowardice and 
 cruelty of a test so odious and hateful as that of the Missouri oath. 
 
 Sergeant Talfourd, in his Ion, describes the solace and comfort of those 
 who by humane endeavor mold their lives into benevolence. But these 
 radical constitution-makers and executors of infamous statutes arrested and 
 imprisoned even sisters of that order of charity which has gladdened our sad 
 world by its merciful ministrations. Names of this sisterhood are not 
 sounded by the brazen trumpets of publicity, nor mingled with the notes of 
 sectarian discord ; yet they are found on the criminal records of radical 
 Missouri the disgrace of our generation. 
 
 What execrations are not due to those who persecuted these loving la 
 borers? From the earliest centuries after Christ, when the noble Roman lady, 
 Paula, took up her residence in Bethlehem, to care for and comfort the sick ; 
 from the time she " laid their pillows aright," as the old chronicle tells us, 
 and felt that the less service she did to the sick the less she did to God ; from 
 the time of this first Sister of Mercy down to our day, when the kind Soeurs 
 
PERSECUTION OF RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. 615 
 
 Hospitali&res of France, Beguines of Flanders, and the Sisters of Elizabeth 
 in Germany, in their black gowns and white hoods, their complacent sweet 
 ness and holy living, gave to the stricken their self-devotion, so nobly illus 
 trated by Florence Nightingale and her company of noble women, whose 
 only desire was to go where suffering and perils were greater, no one had 
 ever dared to lay secular or rude hands upon one of this Sisterhood. 
 
 Who would have thought, at the close of our Civil War, when the bugles 
 had sounded the long truce and war-broken soldiers were left stranded in the 
 hospitals, that there was one being in human shape who could be so regard 
 less of those gentle sisters who had shown such self-abnegation, as to perse 
 cute them as outlaws of society ? Had they not bent over the wounded and 
 the sick " when pain and anguish wrung the brow," and whispered low the 
 words of peace, patience, and divine hope, while smoothing the pillow and 
 holding the cup to the parched lip ? Had they not aided the healing power 
 with angelic cheerfulness, and by their softening and purifying presence 
 given good impulses and holy thoughts to the sick and dying ? Why, even 
 the Robespierres and Dantons, and the very devils of the French Reign of 
 Terror respected this Sisterhood. They were recalled by a special decree of 
 the republic, which recited their boundless love and charity ; and their faith 
 ful head, " Citoyenne" Duleau, was given new authority to practice their 
 beautiful vocation. But had this French sisterhood lived in Missouri and 
 given their angelic sympathy and good offices to the wounded rebels, fine 
 and imprisonment would have been their punishment. The very fiends of 
 the Reign of Terror put to shame these bigots of our day and generation ! 
 In only one other state did radical proscription go thus far. In West Vir 
 ginia the constitution forbade any one to teach school who had not taken an 
 oath of loyalty. Girls of fourteen were suppressed as teachers under this 
 policy of spite. 
 
 The Supreme Court has more than once passed on the iron-clad oath. In 
 the case of Mr. Attorney-General Garland, already referred to in another 
 chapter, who desired to resume his practice in the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, the same principles as those asserted in the Cummings case 
 were vindicated. The Court allowed him to resume his practice in the 
 United States Courts. By a law passed on the 24th of January, 1865, the 
 iron-clad oath had been extended to the attorneys of the courts of the United 
 States. But the Court held that the oath prescribed operated as a legislative 
 decree of perpetual execution, and was ex post facto. 
 
 The repeal of the prescriptive statutes, which clouded our Federal sys 
 tem, was a paramount duty. The Democrats sought to recrown the dis 
 crowned majesty of the people, and to enthrone the states in their proper 
 relation to the government, and thus reset and repolish the jewels of popular 
 sovereignty. With what success ? 
 
 The reader may well ask, was this discrowned sovereignty rehabilitated ? 
 
6l6 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Only after many efforts was this done. The lower House of the Forty-eighth 
 Congress, at its first session, passed the bill of the writer by a two-thirds 
 vote. It was a general bill. It had the sanction of the best lawyers, such 
 as Judge Poland. But the Senate was reluctant. At last, however, the 
 matter was compromised. Something was gained, but not all. Senator 
 Garland whose magnificent efforts in behalf of this amnesty were his 
 crowning glory in Congress advised the author to take what the Senate 
 sent as the best possible to be then and there had. The bill repealed the 
 iron-clad oath and the jury test oath. It was approved by the President, 
 May 13, 1884 almost two decades after the war was over. It took away 
 many of the gross absurdities of the law. It retained one, however. It 
 amended section 1218 of the Revised Statutes, so as to read " No person 
 who held a commission in the army or navy of the United States at the 
 beginning of the late rebellion, and afterward served in any capacity in the 
 military, naval, or civil service of the so-called Confederate States, or of 
 either of the states in insurrection during the late rebellion, shall be appointed 
 to any position in the army or navy of the United States." Still proscriptive ! 
 The commissioned officers are still under the ban. 
 
 The great trouble with the policies of the Radicals was that they were 
 framed in suspicion of all the people South and of all party opponents North. 
 The Radicals forgot the motto of the Italians: " Sospetto licenzia fede" 
 If they had not the spirit of kindness toward others, they should not have 
 been cruel to themselves. As Sir Thomas Browne said of revenge, "It 
 only feathers the arrow of the enemy" ; so the same may be said of ignoble 
 suspicion. It destroys all that is knightly and magnanimous. There is no 
 lack of wisdom or patriotism in following the precepts of history as to clem 
 ency. They teach that revenge is injustice, and that it hurts most those who 
 indulge in it. 
 
 Twenty years have passed since the war was closed. It is high time that 
 all sectional proscriptions, prejudices, and animosities should cease. We have 
 felt those of us who are Northern Democrats that a great wrong was 
 done by this long delay in healing the wounds of the war. Let us now draw 
 the curtain upon sectional wrongs. It is for us to have our brothers as our 
 equals, to harbor no spirit of separation, distrust, or enmity. Let us be 
 bound and solidified by one Constitution, for one inseparable Union, and 
 under it, for the untrammeled will and rich heritage of its past wisdom and 
 glory. If we must have a test of loyalty, let us swear to each other by every 
 star upon the blue field of our ensign, by the white radiance in which all 
 colors, red, white, blue, aye, and gray, blend as one ; not, as in the old 
 Italian code, by the God who avenges, but as the old Anglo-Saxon kings 
 were adjured, by the grace and mercy of His Son that good-will and full 
 amnesty shall be the spirit and aim of our legislation, in state and Nation ! 
 
CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND ISSUES UP TO 1876. 
 
 THE CONTEST OF 1864 McCLELLAN AND LINCOLN MILITARY AND CIVIC VIR 
 TUES IN ISSUE ARM-IN-ARM CONVENTION 1868 AND ITS ISSUES ; GOVER 
 NOR SEYMOUR HIS SPEECHES AND CONDUCT THE PATRIOTISM OF THE DE 
 MOCRACY INCREASE OF OUR AREA AND POWER UNDER DEMOCRATIC 
 ADMINISTRATION THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS AND SOLDIERS 
 SEYMOUR DEFEATED JUDGE BLACK OX THE CARPET-BAGGER HORACE 
 GREELEY TRIED, AS A BRIDGE FOR HONESTY AND AMNESTY GREELEY'S 
 DEFEAT ON AN INCREASED VOTE -OTHER QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LEG 
 ISLATION CIVIL RIGHTS ECONOMIES CURRENCY BAYONETS AT THE 
 POLLS ABRAM S. HEWITT'S SPLENDID CHAMPIONSHIP OF FREEDOM VER- 
 S US FORCE ENGLISH STATUTES AND LAW ON THE SUFFRAGE ABOLITION 
 OF MILITARY INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTIONS. 
 
 IN November, 1864, the Republican party was called before the people, 
 in the election of a President. Its choice was Abraham Lincoln. Gen 
 eral McClellan represented the Democracy. The campaign was that of 
 a soldier with civic graces against a civilian with a military policy. 
 The Democrats discussed General McClellan's treatment by the Administra 
 tion. Had he not been the saviour of the capital a second Sobieski, and 
 treated with the same indignity? Were not other Democratic generals 
 ignored ? Were not the confiscation policies cruel ? Was not the destruction 
 of the Union sure, if the Republican plans of reconstruction should be carried 
 out? 
 
 These were the primates in the procession of ideas in 1864. But the 
 main points for McClellan, whose nomination at Chicago was seconded by 
 the author, were these : 
 
 i st. That his policy was the only correct and constitutional one for the 
 conduct of the war. 2d. That had it been adhered to, the war would have 
 been closed and the Union restored. 3d. That owing to the President and 
 his advisers, the fruits of his victories were resultless, and the victories them 
 selves were snatched from him by their intermeddling. 
 
 39 v 
 
6l8 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Amidst the feebleness and fickleness of the Administration, the wavering 
 support of the President, and the persistent opposition of the Republicans, 
 the fear, vanity, and trifling of those in power, the daring interference and 
 secret persecutions of those who could not understand his plans or were de 
 termined to foil them McClellan came before the convention refined from 
 the fire. Calm, vigilant, without rest, yet without haste ; clear in concep 
 tion, vigorous in action, with a grasp of mind and comprehension of intel 
 lect possessed by few ; with a power to organize confessed by all, and a 
 power to execute rarely equaled, he presented the type of a conservative sol 
 dier whose views of political necessity far outshone the disjointed ideas of 
 the fanaticism of the day. Such a man was this hero of the people. He 
 had no interest to subserve but that of his country. 
 
 He was selected by the Democrats because it was their impression that, 
 if unhindered, he would have ended the war in 1862. A record of that won 
 derful year, with his general plan to strike all around at once ; his movement 
 in February, forced by the President, when it was impossible at that season ; 
 his protests ; his salvation of Washington ; the battles of the Seven Days and 
 his campaign in Maryland ; his cruel and shameless recall on the loth of No 
 vember, 1862, while moving after the defeated enemy ; all these vindicated 
 him as the then best known soldier of the Republic. These were evidence 
 to the country that the radicals had determined to prolong the war until the 
 last measure of their policy should be carried out. 
 
 What, then, was the remedy? If the American people desired peace with 
 union; a Union strong in its members a permanent Union of states as 
 sured of their dignity and equality, they must defeat the Republican party, 
 and elect McClellan ; they must prefer Democracy and its principles. 
 
 To this end the Democracy, in their platform of 1864, proposed by all 
 peaceable means to negotiate for reunion. An armistice was not necessary to ( 
 open negotiations. " Let commissioners be appointed," said the Democracy ; 
 "let a Democratic President proclaim the illegal proclamations of his pred 
 ecessor null and void ; let the sovereign people of each sovereign state 
 send their wisest men to a grand national council, and there take steps 
 toward the rebuilding of the shattered system." " Let this be done," said 
 the Democracy, " and three months will not elapse before the hosannas 
 of a generous and Union-loving people will hail the advent of peace as if it 
 were the coming of a new salvation to our world ! " Well, did Southern 
 papers, in anticipation of such a time, prophesy that the accession of a con 
 servative Democrat like McClellan, who would repeal the obnoxious procla 
 mations, and make overtures to the South to return, with a guarantee of 
 constitutional rights, be the paralysis of secession, and the elevation of a 
 party to power invincible for the Union ! The Democracy could then 
 alone have established peace with Union. That they would never 
 consent to a peace based on separation, is as true as that they never 
 
SLAVERY MUST PERISH. 619 
 
 would have used their power for a war of subjugation. Anxious for peace, 
 and ready to hail it as a permanent condition, their legend was: " Peace, 
 Union, and Fraternity." 
 
 On these issues, and in that campaign, the Democratic party was de 
 feated and the Republican party was sustained. Passion was rife ; more 
 blood must flow. The slavery extremists brought on the war what matter 
 how? "Slavery must die the death of violence. Peace with slavery can 
 never be in the American Union. Perish the Union rather than that," is the 
 verdict, North. "Peace and Union without slavery can never be," is the cry 
 of the extremist, South. Democracy submits, and says to its sons: " The 
 Union shall not perish from the Earth." "We love not slavery let it die 
 the death" " Save the Union ! " "Save it but bind in with your laurels 
 of victory the olives of peace and reconciliation." 
 
 Since the war, there have been five Presidential elections. In four of 
 them the Democracy were worsted. In the fifth and last one they came out 
 the victors. It does not matter to the present generation, nor to posterity, 
 what persons succeeded to the Presidency. The main consideration is that 
 the government should be honestly administered ; and that there should be 
 no impediment to the people in their grand march for progress, prosperity, 
 and happiness. Many efforts, such as that of the " Arm-in- Arm Conven 
 tion" at Philadelphia on the i/^th of August, 1866, were made to reconcile 
 by sentiment, what reconstruction was destroying. The political elements 
 were not then ready for consolidation against the iconoclastic majority of 
 Congress. The activity of pulling down had not then ceased. The well- 
 intended attempts of President Johnson and his Cabinet for reconciliation of the 
 sections, in their tour over the Northern states ostensibly made to be present 
 at the laying of the corner-stone of a monument to Stephen A. Douglas, at 
 Chicago did little more than fret the body politic. Indeed, they tended to 
 increase the Republican majorities. The radical legislation took a harsher 
 form. The demand to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and spread uni 
 versal suffrage came in collision and rode down ruthlessly the impotent 
 vetoes of the President. On the question of military or civil reconstruction, 
 the result is known. It appeared in the act of March 2, 1867. The work 
 for state rehabilitation was retarded. The executive and legislative depart 
 ments did not harmonize. Supplemental acts came along, producing chaos. 
 Reconstruction, with its temperless mortar, had already begun its incongru 
 ous work. Impeachment was threatened and it came. At length the year 
 1868 rolls round. It is the year for the choice of a new President. Hora 
 tio Seymour is nominated on the 4th of July, at New- York City. The 
 canvass creates great excitement. The strife of the war resounds again. It 
 is the old clangor of "closing rivets up" for a desperate encounter. The 
 questions at issue are still those growing out of the war. The platforms are 
 fro and con, as to the principles and conduct of the Republican party ; pro 
 
620 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and con, as to the conduct of the Democracy on the war measures. The 
 action of the Democracy is roundly challenged. The action of the Northern 
 Democrats in the states which were under the control of Democratic execu 
 tives is fiercely arraigned ; and that, too, in the light of such stirring speeches 
 as Gov. Horatio Seymour made during the war. Did any honest man ever 
 doubt his sincerity and patriotism ? Where in all the argumentative urgency 
 of the war period, was a more faithful effort made for the Union and Consti 
 tution than is embodied in his Brooklyn speech ? It breathed the spirit of 
 patriotism in every line. 
 
 When Governor Seymour sent his message to the New-York Legisla 
 ture during the war, he illustrated by his acts as well as his words, the sen 
 timents of his party. He then said : 
 
 " We must accept the condition of affairs as they stand. At this moment 
 the fortunes of our country are influenced by the result of battles. Our 
 armies in the field must be supported all constitutional demands of our 
 general government must be promptly responded to. Under no circum 
 stances can a division of the Union be conceded ! " 
 
 When peace came he had a policy of peace. Would it not have been 
 wisdom then, had we accepted him with his policy? Courteous, modest, 
 scholarly, without stain upon his private life, and without taint in his pub 
 lic record, he, better than any one within the confines of the Republic, would 
 have administered its affairs with an eye single to all its interests ; and 
 with the sentiment of a patriot who recognizes no flag which has not all 
 our stars upon its field ! He liyes to a good age, as clear in intellect as when, 
 in 1868, he met the legions of the mercenary party. 
 
 But it was not possible then for men like Governor Seymour men who 
 were devoted to liberty to make good their protest against the excesses of 
 the party in power, and against the crushing of liberty by the iron hand of 
 Congress, which had not even a velvet glove to hide its despotic grasp. 
 
 The Democratic party has often been indicted for its lack of patriotism 
 and for its lack of martial vigor during the Civil War. How false the indict 
 ment ! It came from a packed jury of public spoilers. When the history of 
 this country's developments is considered, how easy it is to refute such a 
 charge ! The expanse of the Republic alone refutes it. Was it not the very 
 first Democratic Administration that purchased from France for fifteen mil 
 lions of dollars the vast territory of Louisiana ? The Federal party opposed 
 that purchase, on the ground that our territory was sufficiently extended, and 
 the cost too great. But out of the vast territory then acquired under Jeffer 
 son, what accrued to the Union? Answer The great states of Louisiana, 
 Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, the 
 Indian Territory, and the territories of Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Wyom 
 ing, and Washington. What party was it that in 1819, in the administration 
 of Monroe, purchased Florida from Spain for five millions of dollars? 
 
DEMOCRATIC EXTENSIONS OF THE UNION. 62! 
 
 Answer, again The Democratic party. Was not this extension of the 
 Union also bitterly opposed by the unpatriotic Federalists? Again, what 
 party was it that in 1845 not only annexed Texas, an empire itself, but, 
 after the war with Mexico, gave the great states of California, Nevada, and 
 Colorado, and the territories of Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona to the 
 Union? Answer, again The Democratic party, in the administration of 
 Polk. Was not the annexation of Texas, and the war with Mexico opposed 
 by the Whig successors of the Federalists ? Who defeated the bill for the 
 purchase of Cuba during President Buchanan's administration? Answer 
 The Republican Senators who were the successors of both Federalists and 
 Whigs. 
 
 When prejudices are sought to be aroused against the Democratic party 
 because of its desire for peace in our civil conflict, let it be remembered that, 
 during nearly fifty years of administration, it acquired two million two 
 hundred thousand square miles of valuable arable territory, and that its 
 acquisitions cover two-thirds of our present national area. Compare to 
 these Democratic additions to the Union, Alaska with its higher and un- 
 cultivable regions, purchased from Russia for seven millions ; a price not 
 too great, let it be remembered to Mr. Seward's credit. What have these 
 vast Democratic acquisitions done for the national industries in agriculture, 
 stock-raising, lumbering, mining, manufacturing, and the extension of our 
 commerce ? Have they not given fields for these pursuits which would never 
 have been opened if opposition to Democratic policy had succeeded ? Have 
 not our industries reaped billions of wealth in these fields, yet to be multi 
 plied from billions into hundreds of billions ? It is not possible to estimate 
 the grandeur of that development which has come from the large-minded 
 statesmanship of the Democratic party. It does not come well from Repub 
 licans to say that the Northern Democrats would for one moment consent to 
 a severance from the Union of any one of these magnificent acquisitions. 
 
 When statesmen like James G. Blaine devote their gifted pens and their 
 fluent rhetoric to enhance the advantages to the Nation of these territorial 
 acquisitions, when with pictorial and geographical illustration of artistic 
 shadings he would portray them, let that candor which is so conspicuous 
 throughout his volume take notice that all the credit and glory belong to 
 Democratic administrations. Then, perhaps, he will agree that the map 
 here presented will prove, in some future contest, quite as potential for the 
 historic party as for its opponent, in political philosophy, economy, thrift, 
 and honesty. 
 
 When it is charged that the Democratic party was derelict in the war 
 between sections of our common country, let it be answered, that it furnished 
 fully two-thirds of the officers and soldiers of the Union armies. As in the 
 War of 1812, and in the Mexican War, so it sent its legions in that war of 
 the sections. But there was this difference between it and the Republican 
 
622 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 party : it was not impassioned against our Southern brothers, and it sank all 
 other considerations in devotion to the Union, and a determination to maintain 
 it as it had come down from the Fathers. If the Democracy had not poured 
 their legions into the Union armies, where would President Lincoln and his 
 Cabinet, and the Congress which met in 1861 have been? If the Northern 
 Democrats were so desirous of a peace with disunion, all they had to do was 
 to remain at home. Would they have accepted such a peace? No ! From 
 the beginning to the close of the Civil War, over two million one hundred 
 thousand officers and soldiers volunteered upon the Union side. Two-thirds 
 of them were Democrats. Such a splendid illustration of patriotism, history 
 never before recorded. It was the Northern Democrats who saved the 
 Union. 
 
 In spite of this evidence, the elections in the North, up to 1876, turned 
 upon the loyalty to the Union of the Democratic party in and out of Con 
 gress. The military heroes who went into secession were glorified in Con 
 gress by such orators as General Garfield, in order to derogate from their 
 civil courage and the heroism of the Northern Democracy, during and after 
 the war. Attempts were made to revive the bad blood of other times, or, 
 in the parlance of the day, to u wave the bloody shirt," and thus to regain 
 for the Republican party its hold upon the public esteem, which was gradu 
 ally loosening by reason of the exposure of its excesses. The Northern De 
 mocracy never wavered in their principles. Gallant in the defense of their 
 opinions, they never failed to bear high the flag of the Union, or to show their 
 devotion to the Constitution. In the language of a Southern statesman, who 
 was himself a soldier in the Confederacy : ' ' The South loved the Constitu 
 tion more than the Union. The Republican party may have loved the Union 
 more than the Constitution, but it will be written in history, that the gallant 
 Democracy of the North were the truest patriots of the land. They loved 
 both the Union and the Constitution, one and indivisible." 
 
 This statement might go further, and still be no more than just. Mr. 
 Greeley, in his volume on The Great Conflict, informs us that the great 
 body of the men of the South were opposed to secession. The facts and 
 votes to prove this are furnished in that volume. They prove how many of 
 the men of the Democratic party opposed secession and risked and lost their 
 lives for the Union. Who would ignore the McClellans, and Hancocks, and 
 men of less note, who maintained the vigor of our Federal system against 
 secession, and fought for both Union and Constitution ? Let others derogate 
 from the Northern Democracy, when arrogating to another party all the 
 praise of quelling the " so-called " heroic rebellion. In 1860 the Demo 
 cratic party divided, one great portion of it, under Douglas, represent 
 ing the Union-constitutional sentiment, with 15365,976 votes, and 'the other 
 representing the Southern sentiment, with 847,953 votes. Is it manly, just, 
 and fair to ignore these Democratic soldiers and those who in Congress 
 
THE LOYALTY OF THE NORTHERN DEMOCRACY. 623 
 
 voted all supplies to quell the insurgency? When the Democracy were 
 sundered in 1860, was there no patriotic principle for those of the North to 
 guide their conduct ? Is it forgotten that the Northern Democracy, in states 
 like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, favored Douglas, while the extreme states 
 of the South only were largely for Breckenridge ; or that in the three great 
 states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, the whole Democratic vote was cast for 
 Douglas, with the exception of some twenty-five thousand for Breckenridge. 
 
 The Southern secession leaders could muster only about one-fifth of the 
 total vote of the United States. The Northern Democracy fought through 
 the crisis of i86o-'6i and the remaining years of trial and blood, as bravely 
 as those from whom they parted. In Illinois, seventy-five votes were given 
 to Douglas to one for his extreme Southern competitor ; yet Southern hero 
 ism was glorified in Congress by General Garfield in order to detract from 
 his Northern Democratic neighbors. At what particular time, for what 
 reason did such gentlemen learn to love rebellion, that they should make an 
 apotheosis to its heroism ? Ah ! why ? Was it because the Democrats of the 
 North opposed extra-constitutional methods of conscription and confiscation ; 
 or was it because, since the war, the Democracy acted on the spirit of for 
 giveness and favored amnesty, so that all might come back under the shadow 
 of the government? Was it because they sought to make our Southern 
 brethren equals in the Union, when they came back redeemed from their 
 prostration and the oppression of military satraps under reconstruction ? Was 
 it because Southern men joined with them in making provision for the back 
 pay and pensions of Union soldiers ? Who is sorry that Democracy built up 
 by generous policies the waste places of the South, and made a highway for 
 the people who were wandering in the mazes of test oaths, military force at 
 elections, and supervisor espionage and oppression? Who now would make 
 a desert or an aceldama of the South? Is it honorable to deprecate, de 
 nounce, and degrade the Northern Democracy? Does any party need 
 require this? Did the Democracy fail in furnishing troops for the Avar? 
 Was it a falsehood when a Republican legislature of New- York gave Gov 
 ernor Seymour the credit for even exceeding the call for soldiers? Did 
 Democrats fail to pay their taxes? Did they fail in giving their youth, their 
 manhood, their sympathy to the Union which their fathers loved and to the 
 Constitution which Washington helped to frame ? How can the Republican 
 statements be characterized ? 
 
 There is not a soldier, North or South, who does not refute the slanders 
 of the Republican party leaders against the Northern Democracy. There is 
 not one of the 200,000 crippled and disabled soldiers and sailors, there is not 
 a widow or an orphan upon our pension rolls, whose voice does not vindicate 
 the part which the Northern Democrats bore in the salvation of the Repub 
 lic ; and time itself has vindicated the wisdom, courage, and devotion of 
 their party. 
 
624 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 One would have supposed, with such a record of patriotism and with such 
 a candidate as Horatio Seymour, the Democratic party ought to have seated 
 him in the executive chair in 1868. But sectionalism and malevolence were 
 still vital and effective forces. Only eleven states with eighty electoral votes 
 were carried for Horatio Seymour, while twenty-six states with 214 electo 
 ral votes were carried for General Grant. Of the popular vote, Horatio 
 Seymour received only 2,713,600, out of 5,724,684 votes cast. The day 
 of redemption was still afar off. That day did not dawn until every expe 
 dient known to the laws of grace and wisdom was exhausted. 
 
 In other chapters the reader has been told how reconstruction laws were 
 passed, amended, and re-amended. He has observed the practical operation 
 of military and civil control over a people not unused to freedom. The fric 
 tion which led to President Johnson's impeachment is a part of this record of 
 perpetually recurring provocation. But, perhaps no people ever experienced 
 such humiliation and degradation as were suffered by the South, from the 
 rule of the* carpet-bagger. In its endeavors to reconstruct the South on a 
 partisan basis, the crying sin of the Republican party was the vagabond 
 qualities of its agents in that section. In vain is language to depict this 
 phase of Southern subjection against it. The thesaurus of our English 
 tongue may do justice to the plagues of Egypt ; but here were plagues ten 
 fold more numerous and worse. The writer is compelled to call in the opu 
 lent vocabulary of Judge Jeremiah S. Black, to eke out, or wreak out, his 
 feebleness of expression in describing the plundering horde that flew down 
 upon the South at the close of the war. Here is Judge Black's description 
 of the Republican agents in that unhappy section of the Union : 
 
 " The people would not have been wholly crushed either by the soldier 
 or the negro, if both had not been used to fasten upon them the denomination 
 of another class of persons which was altogether unendurable. These were 
 called carpet-baggers, not because the word is descriptive or euphonious, but 
 because they have no other name whereby they are known among the chil 
 dren of men. They were unprincipled adventurers who sought their for 
 tunes in the South by plundering the disarmed and defenseless people ; some 
 of them were the dregs of the Federal army the meanest of the camp-fol 
 lowers ; many were fugitives from Northern justice ; the best of them were 
 those who went down after the peace, ready for any deed of shame that was 
 safe and profitable. These, combining with a few treacherous ' scalawags,* 
 and some leading negroes to serve as decoys for the rest, and backed by the 
 power of the general government, became the strongest body of thieves that 
 ever pillaged a people. Their moral grade was far lower, and yet they were 
 much more powerful, than the robber-bands that infested Germany after the 
 close of the Thirty Years' War. They swarmed over all the states, from the 
 Potomac to the Gulf, and settled in hordes, not with intent to remain there, but 
 merely to feed on the substance of a prostrate and defenseless people. They 
 
CARPET-BAG RULE OF THE SOUTH. 625 
 
 took whatever came within their reach, intruding themselves into all private 
 corporations, assumed the functions of all offices, including the courts of jus 
 tice, and in many places they even ' ran the churches.' By force and fraud, 
 they either controlled all elections or else prevented elections from being held. 
 They returned sixty of themselves to one Congress, and ten or twelve of the 
 most ignorant and venal among them were at the same time thrust into the 
 Senate. 
 
 " This false representation of a people by strangers and enemies, who had 
 not even a bona fide residence among them, was the bitterest of all mock 
 eries. There was no show of truth or honor about it. The pretended rep 
 resentative was always ready to vote for any measure that would oppress 
 and enslave his so-called constituents ; his hostility was unconcealed, and 
 he lost no opportunity to do them injury. Under all these wrongs and in 
 dignities, the Caucasian men of the South were prudent, if not patient. No 
 brave people, accustomed to be free, ever endured oppression so peacefully 
 or so wisely. The Irish, with less provocation, were in a state of perpetual 
 turbulence ; the Poles were always conspiring against the milder rule of their 
 Russian masters ; but Southern men l made haste slowly ' to recover their 
 liberties. They could not break the shackles of usurped control ; some of the 
 links gradually rusted and fell away of themselves. The gross impolicy of 
 desolating the fairest half of the country impressed itself more and more upon 
 the Northern mind ; the mere expense, in money, of maintaining this vulgar 
 tyranny became disgusting. The negroes gradually opened their eyes to the 
 truth that they were as badly imposed upon as the whites. With consum 
 mate skill, the natural leaders of the people hoarded every fresh acquisition 
 of self-governing power. State after state deposed its corrupt governors, by 
 impeachment or otherwise, and brought its official criminals to justice, until 
 all were redeemed except Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana. A more 
 particular look at the condition of the last named state is needed, because it 
 was the principal theatre of the ' Great Fraud.' 
 
 " The agricultural and commercial wealth of Louisiana made her a strong 
 temptation to the carpet-baggers. Those vultures sniffed the prey from 
 afar ; and, as soon as the war was over, they swooped down upon her in 
 flocks that darkened the air. The state was delivered into their hands by 
 the military authorities, but the officers imposed some restraints upon their 
 lawless cupidity. They hailed with delight the advent of negro suffrage, be 
 cause to them it was merely a legalized method of stuffing the ballot-box, and 
 they stuffed it. Thenceforth, and down to a very recent period, they gorged 
 themselves without let or hinderance. The depredations they committed 
 were frightful. They appropriated, on one pretense or another, whatever 
 they could lay their hands on, and then pledged to themselves the credit of 
 the state for uncounted millions more. The public securities ran down to 
 half-price, and still they put their fraudulent bonds on the market and sold 
 
626 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 them for what they would fetch. The owners of the best real estate, in 
 town or country, were utterly impoverished, because the burdens upon it 
 were heavier than the rents would discharge. During the last ten years, the 
 city of New Orleans paid, in the form of direct taxes, more than the esti 
 mated value of all the property within her limits, and still has a debt of 
 equal amount unpaid. It is not likely that other parts of the state suffered 
 less. The extent of their spoliation can hardly be calculated, but the testi 
 mony of the carpet-baggers themselves against one another, the reports of 
 committees sent by Congress to investigate the subject, and other informa 
 tion from sources entirely authentic make it safe to say that a general confla 
 gration, sweeping over all the state from one end to the other and destroy 
 ing every building and every article of personal property, would have been 
 a visitation of mercy in comparison to the curse of such a government. 
 This may seem at first blush like gross exaggeration, because it is worse than 
 anything that misrule ever did before." 
 
 Was there ever in the language of vituperation, such an indictment 
 against such a class? Was there ever in the memories of a crushed people, 
 such a truthful statement of burdens too grievous to be borne ? Let the con 
 clusion of this great lawyer answer. The language quoted is from Judge 
 Black's essay on the Electoral Commission, entitled " The Great Fraud of 
 1876." Here is another passage from it: " The greediest of Roman pro 
 consuls left something to the provinces they wasted ; the Norman did not 
 strip the Saxon quite to the skin ; the Puritans under Cromwell did not ut 
 terly desolate Ireland. Their rapacity was confined to the visible things 
 which they could presently handle and use. They could not take what did 
 not exist. But the American carpet-bagger has an invention unknown to 
 those old-fashioned robbers, which increases his stealing power as much as 
 the steam-engine adds to the mechanical force of mere natural muscles. He 
 makes negotiable bonds of the state, signs and seals them, 4 according to the 
 forms of law,' sells them, converts the proceeds to his own use, and then 
 defies justice 4 to go behind the returns/ By this device, his felonious fin 
 gers are made long enough to reach into the pockets of posterity ; he lays his 
 lien on property yet uncreated ; he anticipates the labor of coming ages and 
 appropriates the fruits of it in advance ; he coins the industry of future gen 
 erations into cash, and snatches the inheritance from children whose fathers 
 are unborn. Projecting his cheat forward by this contrivance, and operating 
 latterly at the same time, he gathers an amount of plunder which no country 
 in the world would have yielded to the Goth or the Vandal." 
 
 What did the prostrate states do under their trials and tortures ? Sub 
 mit? Yes measurably. They hid in " Klans." They rode at night to 
 confer. They appealed in vain for relief to the Federal conquerors, and the 
 dominant party in the North. In vain their appeal for a stay of the plague. 
 
 Failing with Horatio Seymour as a candidate, the people were attracted 
 
THE REASONS FOR GREELEY'S NOMINATION. 627 
 
 to the great journalist of New- York City Horace Greeley. His fore 
 sight and kindness had taught him the larger lessons that belong to charity 
 and peace. He knew, too, that the responsibility for the great conflict was 
 a divided one ; and that justice as well as mercy required that his active 
 mind, his generous heart, his trenchant pen, and his philanthropic soul 
 should rise above party malignities and successes, to the end that the country 
 should be saved. After much discussion, and some reluctance, on the part 
 of the Baltimore Convention, the editor of the Tribune appeared before the 
 Nation as the Democratic banner-bearer, with amnesty in his heart, and with 
 rare gifts of utterance for reconciliation. 
 
 Two years before Horace Greeley's nomination for the Presidency, the 
 writer had the honor to contest successfully a congressional district in New- 
 York City with him. The contest turned on economic questions ; for both 
 candidates were in harmony upon one thought that liberal Democrats 
 and liberal Republicans should join at once, and heartily, to save the South 
 from the disorders and horrors of the existing rule of the adventurers who 
 were gleaning by robbery all that the scythe of war had left to the Southern 
 land. The subsequent candidacy of Mr. Greeley for the Presidency had 
 certain good effects. There were fearful and formidable evils which had 
 grown out of the war by the misuse of official patronage, and the lack of 
 accountability. These were demoralizing our whole political life. The 
 issues were turned out of the miry road of the vulgar, corrupt, and fero 
 cious scramble for spoils, into a contest for a benign principle. As it was 
 happily phrased by Mr. Parke Godwin, it was the contest for a composite 
 democratic Republic, in which the supremacy of the Union, the independ 
 ence of the several states, and the liberty of the individual should be alike 
 requisite and indispensable, each in its place, to the harmonious working of 
 the whole. 
 
 But there was a disaffected element in the Democratic ranks which would 
 not accept the nomination of Mr Greeley. The reform Democratic party 
 was called a " mended and frayed strand" of its old tissue ; but if any two 
 things were then most needed, it was the mending of the frayed tissues of 
 Federal government, and the conduct of administration, North and South, 
 by honest men. Who was there to make whole the torn garments of the 
 Union? Who more inspired with the true genius of reconstruction than 
 honest Horace Greeley, in whom it was incarnate ? He had, ever since Lee's 
 surrender, and before it also, " pleaded against the party of enduring hate, 
 and the wrath engendered by a bloody civil war." 
 
 When the author began his canvass for Congress in 1872, he placed the 
 issue upon these grounds, in regard to the Presidential candidacy: "The 
 Democracy," said he, " should remember that, while in the heat and dust of 
 other strifes Horace Greeley has not spared them, yet, in generous rivalry, 
 he has endeavored with them to pursue the paths of peace. With a life of 
 
628 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 unusual activity, a pen of masculine vigor, a mannerism not at all lacking in 
 the simplicity needed in high places, coming from the people as a poor 
 and friendless but brave boy, into the heart and swirl of a great metropo 
 lis, he has left his impress on this country. If elected he will, under God, 
 impress his administration with sentiments mellowed by new associations, 
 with charities silvered over by advancing years, and with a reverence for the 
 hallowed traditions of our early national career, made glorious by that 
 Democracy which has in the vicissitudes of parties become his ally in that 
 progress, and a sharer in the common blessings and glories which his admin 
 istration would bestow. The fullness of those blessings will come to our 
 country, because they will be inspired by the spirit of reconciliation." 
 
 But old party prejudices were inveterate, and the Republican reconstruc 
 tion plan prevailed. General Grant was supposed to be in accord with that 
 plan ; civil governments South were still disorganized ; lawlessness South 
 begat timidity North ; the military spirit was still rife and rampant ; and the 
 issues of the war were still uppermost in men's minds. With Henry Wilson 
 as his associate, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, the invincible, was again elected 
 President by a great majority, and on the largest increase of a national vote 
 since 1828. The increase was 38.3 per centum over that of the year 1868. 
 
 Mr. Greeley did not long survive this defeat. His self-abnegation, labor, 
 and earnestness during the canvass were a fit sequel to his three decades of 
 leadership in American philanthropy, journalism, and politics. He died 
 from exhaustion, aged sixty-one, in less than a month after the election. 
 
 In the next campaign, Democracy was as indomitable as ever. Its lead 
 ers knew that the memories of the sanguinary war could not be perpetuated. 
 They now began to force a discussion of practical politics ; for, as 1876 ap 
 proached, some of the old questions faded into twilight, while others gleamed 
 forth with an unpleasant glare. 
 
 There was a great change in the details of politics toward the conclusion 
 of the second decade. The questions which began to give concern related 
 not so much to Federal unity as to the vitality and vigor of our institutions. 
 Federal officers, under partisan legislation, were more and more aggressive 
 in assuming relations with suffrage that were incompatible with its existence. 
 This overruling question, together with the effect of pardon upon those 
 engaged in the war of the rebellion, and the attempts made in and out of 
 Congress for general and particular amnesty, and especially for the repeal of 
 that odium of all the annals of time the test oath became the leading 
 issues of the campaign. Among other questions, came up the Civil Rights 
 bill. That bill was much vaunted as a measure of reconstruction. It had 
 been enacted to assist the fortunes of the party in power. It proved a delu 
 sion in practice. It was defended on the ground of the equality of all 
 persons, regardless of the province of the state or local authorities over 
 social relations. It was said by so eminent a Republican as Gen. Joseph R. 
 
THE CIVIL RIGHTS QUESTION IN POLITICS. 629 
 
 Hawley, that he voted for that measure on the ground that he was not 
 ashamed to sleep in a tavern, or go to a theatre, or be buried in a grave-yard 
 with his colored brother. He forgot that this was not the question. It was 
 as to the function of the Federal Government. The Civil Rights bill was 
 defended on the ground that the new amendments of the Constitution 
 required such legislation. This was adjudicated finally two years ago, but 
 such decisions as were previously had as in the Slaughter House cases 
 declare that the amendments are prohibitions on the states, and not grants of 
 power to the Federal Government, and therefore that domestic matters are 
 not to be regulated by Federal law. It would be an absurdity to declare by 
 act of Congress what kind of food or drink or rules should obtain in a tav 
 ern ; or whether our theatres should play farce or tragedy, Shakespeare or 
 Boucicault " Raising the Wind" or the " Big Bonanza." 
 
 In connection with these social measures there came to the front with 
 the velocity and force of an explosion, the question of the effect of the cur 
 rency and other Federal legislation on the business interests of the Nation. 
 
 Aside from the condition of the South, the leading propositions which 
 attracted the attention of Congress during the last part of the second decade 
 and the first part of the third, were those for the resumption of specie pay 
 ments, the regulation of paper currency, and the modification of the tariff and 
 internal revenue laws. These were questions of living concern to the people. 
 Nevertheless, as in the past, and even as late as the campaign of 1880, the 
 Republican party in the campaign of the Centennial year of the Republic 
 made its stand on memories of sectional strife, and the alleged disloyalty of 
 the Democratic party, and the customary false accusation of recusancy in the 
 South with respect to the results of the war. 
 
 The war memories, however, could not last forever. There must be a 
 time for the anodyne of oblivion. The form, structure, system, genius, and 
 polity of our government were more or less called in question, as well as im 
 periled by other practical infidelities to our social and political order. There 
 were terrible strains put upon the elective franchise by the bayonet power 
 in the South, and Federal supervisors in the North, which gave a tension, 
 almost to the snapping point. Such excesses met with heroic resistance. 
 The contest of liberty-loving men against the use of the army at the polls 
 was begun at the end of the war. The first great effort was made by Laza 
 rus W. Powell, of Kentucky. His efforts and speech are forever associated 
 with the Democratic protests against this unbridled race for power, over the 
 ruins of elective liberty. A modicum of relief came after the war, from the 
 repressive measures which forbade all election or choice by the people of 
 the prostrate states. The question took a more substantial form after the 
 election of 1876. The movement was led and the liberty of the suffragist 
 championed in the House of Representatives by Abram S. Hewitt, of New- 
 York. 
 
630 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 A statement of the facts with regard to this struggle in Congress for the 
 repeal of the war legislation which authorized the Executive to use the army 
 at the polls, and thereby influence the result of elections and control the suf 
 frage of the people, is important. 
 
 Mr. Hewitt was chairman of the national committee which conducted 
 the Presidential campaign of 1876. The outcome of that campaign will 
 appear in the subsequent chapters. It terminated in the fraudulent inaugu 
 ration of Hayes as President by methods unknown to the constitution. Mr. 
 Hewitt's knowledge of the circumstances convinced him that this result 
 was only made possible by the despotic use of the army in several of the 
 states, but particularly in Louisiana. His soul was stirred with indignation. 
 He feared, and with reason, lest free government should perish in the land, 
 unless the power to use the troops at the polls were abolished. He deter 
 mined to devote himself to the supreme duty of repealing the legislation 
 which had made a national fraud triumphant for the first time in the history 
 of the country. The movement was inaugurated by the insertion of a pro 
 vision in the bill for the support of the army. It was framed at the second 
 session of the Forty- second Congress. It forbade the use of the army for the 
 purpose of sustaining the so-called state government of Packard in Louisiana. 
 The provision referred to was hardly broad enough to meet the necessities 
 of the case. Nevertheless it caused the loss of the bill. The army was 
 maintained from July until October, 1877, without lawful appropriations. 
 President Hayes called an extra session of Congress. It met in October. 
 To Mr. Hewitt, then comparatively a new member, had been assigned a 
 position on the most important committee of the House. To him was con 
 fided the Army bill. A reference to the debates will show that the bill 
 reported contained no provision whatever as to the use of the troops, and 
 that notice was given that at the regular session, beginning in December 
 following, a proposition would be made for the repeal of the obnoxious 
 legislation. At the second session Mr. Hewitt, as before, was placed in 
 charge of the Army bill. Proctor Knott, now governor of Kentucky, was 
 made chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Hewitt consulted with 
 him as to the form of the provision which he should offer as an amendment 
 prohibiting the use of the army as a posse comitattis in civil proceedings. 
 Such a provision was drafted. It was arranged that Mr. Knott should offer 
 it as an amendment to the Army bill which Mr. Hewitt would report. The 
 amendment was offered. It was ruled in order. It was adopted by the 
 House. It was rejected by the Senate ; and then the bill went into confer 
 ence. The result was the adoption of the bill containing the posse comitatus 
 clause. The first step was thus successfully achieved. 
 
 In the third and final session of the Forty-fifth Congress, this indefat 
 igable statesman followed up his success. He determined to secure the re 
 peal of the sections of the Revised Statutes which permitted the use of the 
 
ABRAM S. HEWITT'S GREAT SPEECH FOR A FREE BALLOT. 631 
 
 troops at the polls. In the speech which he made on the introduction of the 
 Army bill on the ist of February, 1879, w *^ be f un d a brief history of the 
 previous legislation, and a statement of the condition of the question at the 
 time of the introduction of the bill. It is well to know how strongly fortified 
 the New- York member was as to the technical and legal effect of his move 
 ments. He had conferred with Mr. David Dudley Field. That eminent 
 publicist had contributed to the Albany Law Journal, in September, 1877, 
 at Mr. Hewitt's suggestion, an exhaustive paper upon this subject. In fact, 
 public opinion was ripe for the removal of all impediments to free elections. 
 The repealing amendment was offered, and, strange to say, it was not objected 
 to. If amenable to a point of order, none was made. It passed the House 
 without a division. The bill went to the Senate. There this provision, as 
 well as the clause looking to the reorganization of the army, was rejected. 
 The bill went into conference. It was soon found that upon every point of 
 difference there could be agreement, except the provision which repealed the 
 power to employ troops at the polls. In the conference committee, Mr. 
 Blaine appeared as the determined advocate for the retention of this power, 
 while Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Sparks, the present Land Commissioner, then 
 chairman of Military Affairs, insisted upon the repeal as adopted by the 
 House. Three conference committees were appointed. They failed to 
 agree. On the 3d of March, 1879, Mr. Hewitt announced the final disagree 
 ment. 
 
 His speech on that occasion was resplendent with the spirit of devotion 
 to civil liberty. In it, with admirable vigor of argument and eloquent 
 beauty of appeal, he supported the Democratic position that it should no 
 longer be lawful for a soldier to be at a polling-place on the day of election. 
 His words deserve to be repeated whenever and wherever the story of the 
 struggle is told. Mr. Hewitt said : u The issue involves the very essence of 
 free government. The difference between a despotic government and a free 
 government is this : in a despotism, the military power is superior to the 
 civil ; in a free government, the civil dominates the military power. The 
 latter principle is one which we never fought for ; it came to us as an inher 
 itance from our fathers. It was so well recognized that when the Constitution 
 was formed it was not even deemed necessary to insert an article to that 
 effect. But, as a protection against military interference, provision was made 
 that citizens might bear arms, and that no soldiers should be quartered upon, 
 them without their consent. No English-speaking man for two hundred 
 years has questioned the principle that soldiers should never be present at 
 the polls ; and the question could never have been raised in this country, 
 the demand could never have been made in our land, but for the calamity of 
 a civil war. In time of civil war many political rights must be surrendered 
 to the necessities of the conflict. And so it was here. We surrendered the 
 right we had inherited, and which up to that hour we had exercised, that 
 
632 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 no soldier should show himself at the polls. We surrendered that safeguard 
 as we surrendered many other things that were dear to us. A convertible 
 currency, specie payments, almost every traditional right, disappeared in the 
 presence of the great danger with which we were confronted. 
 
 " Now, for fifteen long years we have been striving to recover that lost 
 ground. We have made gigantic efforts, sacrifices such as the world never 
 saw, to get back to the resumption of specie payments ; and yet we have 
 done nothing for the resumption of our political rights, the rights which 
 lie at the very foundation of this government. It is a reproach to our patriot 
 ism that the resumption of specie payments should have preceded the re 
 sumption of the rights necessary for the preservation of free government. 
 It is an imputation upon this liberty-loving people and its representatives 
 that they have allowed the time to pass by until now. 
 
 " Can we surrender this question? Would we be justified by the people 
 of this country, now that the issue has been raised, in conceding the princi 
 ple in time of profound peace, fifteen years after the close of a civil war, 
 that soldiers may be ordered by an executive power to the polls on the day 
 of an election? Of all men in the House, I am most anxious that there 
 shall be no extra session ; I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by 
 it. All that I have in the world is engaged in business operations which 
 are always damaged by extra sessions of Congress. But there are things 
 greater than money, greater than profits, without which money disappears 
 and profits are an illusion, things for which men have sacrificed for 
 tune and family and life in every age of the world, and the greatest of all is 
 the right of self-government. This question in respect to this bill lies at the 
 very foundation of the struggle for civil liberty which has lasted since govern 
 ments first began, and survives, as this scene bears witness, to this very hour. 
 
 " The issue thus made is one which we are ready to accept before the 
 country. Let the people decide whether they are prepared to surrender the 
 sacred right of untrammeled suffrage which this bill seeks to guard ! Un 
 less the blood which courses in our veins has degenerated from the vital fluid 
 which has made the Anglo-Saxon people great and free, I cannot doubt the 
 result of the appeal which I now make to the country." 
 
 The Forty-fifth Congress adjourned without passing any bill for the sup 
 port of the army. An extra session was thus rendered necessary. The 
 honored member from New- York was not a member of the Forty-sixth Con 
 gress. He, therefore, took no part in the great debate which resulted in the 
 final achievement of the repeal. But his long and earnest fight, prompted 
 by the purest patriotism, love of equity, honor, and law, was of paramount 
 importance to the settlement of this fundamental question involving the ob 
 scuration of the liberties of the people and the brutalizing excesses of force 
 against the muniments of freedom. 
 
 The antagonism of Mr. Blaine to the dissipation of this eclipse of liberty 
 
MR. ELAINE AND MR. HEWITT AS PARTY EXPONENTS. 633 
 
 by the baleful orb of despotic force, represents truly his position and that of 
 those who voted with him for the perpetuation of this menace by the bayonet 
 upon the free will of the voter. The opposite position, well bastioned by 
 the persistent labor and spirit of Mr. Hewitt, defines with equal zeal and 
 signal ability the status of the Democratic party, whose platforms even 
 yet glorify the achievement of free suffrage, which is one of the crown jewels 
 of our sovereignty. 
 
 In February, 1875, the writer addressed the House at length on this and 
 kindred themes. The speech was from the text: "Force or Freedom!" 
 This title suggests its logic. The long decade of mockery, with its military, 
 with its commissions, its menaces to legislatures, and its " regulation " of 
 elections, was exhaustively handled. The inestimable value of the franchise, 
 is recognized in " leading cases" for over three hundred years in English 
 jurisprudence. It can never be abridged or destroyed without sacrificing 
 order, peace, and liberty ; and when these are gone, chaos has come. This 
 was the vein of the discourse. 
 
 It was in 1871, on a bill to amend the election law, that the writer began 
 to do his humble part in this line of enfranchisement. He denounced all 
 efforts to enforce Republican rule by military domination over the ballot. 
 At that time, the Democrats were hardly one-third of the House, but they 
 believed that the body of the voters was with them ; and yet, in defiance of 
 all the traditions and histories of public and private liberty since public and 
 private liberty had life, violent interference with the voter was persisted in. 
 
 The Athenian law was that the man who interfered in any way with 
 " elections," in which choice must be free, should suffer death. When a 
 stranger interfered in the assemblies of the Athenian democracy he was 
 esteemed guilty of a high crime. He was a usurper of rights of sovereignty 
 to which he had no title. This was in a pure democracy, where the popu 
 lace assembled in the Bema and decided directly, after the orators and 
 statesmen had presented the questions of public policy. In a representative 
 government like that of England, the laws have been strict to guard against 
 the abuse of the franchise by fraud and force. We know that the common 
 law of England gave a remedy to the voter wrongfully repulsed from the 
 polls. The leading case, which has been followed by our courts even when 
 there has been no statutory remedy, is that of Asby vs. White, in which 
 Judge Holt uses this lofty language : 
 
 " And surely it cannot be said that this is so inconsiderable a right as to 
 apply that maxim to it, de minimis non curat lex. A right that a man has 
 to vote at the election of a person to represent him in Parliament, there to 
 concur to the making of laws which are to bind his liberty and property, is a 
 most transcendent thing, and of a high nature." 
 
 But lest this common law right should prove no adequate remedy for the 
 wrongful proceedings at elections, the English statute made it a high penalty 
 
 40 
 
634 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 for any soldier to be quartered near the polls. He must be at least one mile 
 off. In Blackstone, Tucker's edition, volume 2, page 179, the law is thus 
 stated : 
 
 "As soon, therefore, as the time and place of election, either in counties 
 or boroughs, are fixed, all soldiers quartered in the place are to remove, at 
 least one day before the election, to the distance of two miles or more, and 
 not to return till one day after the poll is ended." 
 
 It is further required that the Secretary of State for War, or the party 
 who for the time being is acting as Secretary, shall issue his orders to remove 
 all soldiers from places of voting, and if he fail to do so he is to be dismissed 
 and to be forever disqualified from holding office in England. 
 
 So that this u transcendent thing" of untrammeled voting is guarded not 
 only by the maxims of the common law, but by stringent penalties in English 
 legislation. These penalties were the result of that jealousy which the 
 Commons entertained for their constituents against kingcraft. Our fathers 
 received the same maxims, and endeavored to institute the same safeguards. 
 The messages of our early Presidents are full of this jealousy of military 
 powers. It was reserved for the Republican party to disregard all these 
 maxims and muniments of free elections and popular liberty. Is not the 
 right of free election, of uncontrolled choice, inconsistent with force? Is 
 not the bayonet directly the enemy of the ballot ? Are we not cherishing 
 what has been handed down to us in our history and Constitution, when we 
 are jealous of the subordination of the civil to the military power? And 
 should we not, therefore, upon the principles of logic, ethics, law, and pat 
 riotism, oppose every attack on the freedom of the ballot? 
 
 In the same connection, the Federal supervisors of elections and their 
 abettors, came under the condemnation of the vigilant congressional Democ 
 racy. What a humiliation to an American citizen it was, to see hirelings, like 
 the tatterdemalions of Falstaff, under the lead of the election superintendents 
 at the polls in our large cities ! 
 
 The platforms of parties on these subjects after the war are well known. 
 It is enough to say, that after the disaster which the Democrats suffered in 
 1868, by the failure to place in the Presidential chair that man of unsullied 
 purity and statesmanship, Horatio Seymour ; and after their failure to bridge 
 the chasm in 1872, there was more or less of a saturnalia in our politics. 
 At last the strong arm of the Democracy was lifted. In 1876 the popular 
 vote was given to it by a majority of 250,935. Preceding 1876, Colorado 
 and Nebraska had become states in the Union. Their votes were, owing to 
 the senatorial offices, potential to reverse the popular will, even if there had 
 not occurred the financial crisis in 1873. This crisis was followed by a 
 period of extreme depression of values, which ran through 1874, 1875, and 
 1876. It called into activity many nostrums in finance and much nonsense 
 in politics. Return to specie payments was more or less delayed, and even 
 
THE POPULAR HOPE OF 1876 TILDEN. 635 
 
 a return to silver subsidiary coinage found more or less impediment growing 
 out of greenback or non-redemptionist ideas. Other questions came to the 
 front in connection with administration, which it is not the purpose of this 
 history to record, although in many of these the writer took an interest. 
 Some had relation to the life-saving and letter-carrier systems, the repression 
 of dangers at sea, the repeal of the registry laws of vessels, the purchase of 
 foreign-built vessels and the supervision of steamships. Various contrivances 
 came to the front in respect to our public debt, together with legislation con 
 cerning the public lands, railroads, and railroad grants and their forfeiture. 
 In the discussion of these questions the military at the polls were too often 
 forgotten. 
 
 The people of this country had hoped by the apparent ascendency of 
 Democrats to power in 1876, that men who, like Samuel J. Tilden, in New 
 York, had, in their various states, been connected with the overthrow of fraud 
 and the vindication of honesty in the administration of affairs, would bring 
 the business of the government into the realm of ethical science ; and that 
 they would regard office as a trust, to be executed for the common weal. 
 The public voice then demanded with no uncertain sound that the executive 
 branch of the government should be taken out of the hands of the Republican 
 party. The Democracy saw that Governor Tilden had acted his part nobly 
 and well as governor of the State of New- York, hence they elected him 
 President of the United States. They were prepared to believe that a new 
 dawn had arisen upon our democratic-republican form of government ; but 
 how dark was their disappointment ! The Republican party, which had legal 
 ized the infractions of every wise law, stole another term of power ! It had 
 cured none of the trouble in the South. It had not given a staff to busi 
 ness decrepitude. It had left the states as the prey of swindlers and usurpers. 
 It had made itself the supple tool of all reckless enterprises. It was harsh 
 and prescriptive. It used its power so odiously that the centennial year of 
 1876 thundered its denunciation, but after all, the end of that party was still 
 afar off, because Democracy failed of arousal to a sense of the great wrong 
 which was committed by the electoral count of the following year, which will 
 be discussed in the next two chapters. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 THE FAMOUS ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF iSj6~^. 
 
 THE FORTY-FOURTH CONGRESS ASSEMBLES THE GATHERING STORM - DI 
 VISION OF PARTIES OPINIONS ON THE MODE OF COUNTING THE ELECTORAL 
 VOTE-PERPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEMS-COMMITTEES RAISED UNDER KNOTT'S 
 RESOLUTION HOW THEY WERE CONSTITUTED THE SECRETS OF THE COM 
 MITTEES NOW FIRST DIVULGED - THEIR DEBATES AND THE RESULTS 
 SEPARATE AND JOINT ACTION CHANCES BY DRAWING LOTS THE SUPREME 
 JUSTICES CALLED IN THE SHREWD DEVICES OF THE REPUBLICANS HOW 
 THE SECRETS WERE KEPT VARIOUS DRAFTS OF BILLS RUMORS OF WAR 
 PREPARATIONS FOR THE USE OF FEDERAL TROOPS FINAL REPORT TO 
 CONGRESS AFTER THE SECRET DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 IN the history of elective governments no such strain was ever put upon 
 human nature as that which tried the patience, forbearance, and patriot 
 ism of the people of this country during the proceedings for the count 
 ing of the Presidential vote in i8j6-JJ. A case like that one could 
 never occur again without sanguinary results. How the will of the people 
 was then defeated by malevolence, greed, fraud, and the breach of every 
 legal bond, the sequel will show. 
 
 Clouds thick and threatening obscured the horizon when the Forty-fourth 
 Congress met at its closing session, in December, 1876. There was an evi 
 dent determination on the part of the Republican leaders not to surrender 
 the reins of power. There was as resolute a purpose on the part of the 
 Democracy to gather, at all hazards, the fruits of the victory which they 
 believed they had fairly won. There seemed to be no alternative but civil 
 war. The situation was indeed grave. The Congress was divided politi 
 cally into hostile camps. The Senate was Republican, the House Demo 
 cratic. The all-absorbing, war-threatening questions were : Had the Presi 
 dent of the Senate, by virtue of his office, the right to count the electoral 
 votes? Did the Constitution invest him with discretionary power to decide 
 what were and what were not the electoral votes of a state ? Must both 
 
THE COMMITTEES ON THE ELECTORAL COUNT. 637 
 
 houses of Congress acquiesce in counting the votes of a state before they 
 could be counted ? Or would the objection of either house be fatal to any 
 electoral returns ? These questions perplexed the people at large as well as 
 Congress. Peace, unless one or the other party surrendered its claim of 
 victory, seemed out of the question. No middle ground appeared possible. 
 The horrors of another civil war loomed up before the affrighted vision. 
 In the war for the Union it was section arrayed against section ; but in this 
 which seemed to be now threatening it would be neighbor against neighbor, 
 father against son, brother against brother. 
 
 On the third day of that session of Congress the electoral colleges met in 
 the several states. As had been anticipated, double sets of returns were 
 prepared and forwarded from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, and 
 two claimants appeared for one office of elector in far-off Oregon. Peti 
 tions poured into Congress from commercial organizations and good 
 citizens of all parties and all sections, anxiously praying for a peaceful settle 
 ment of the Presidential question. In the wisdom and the patriotism of that 
 body was now the only reliance for averting bloodshed. A few days after 
 the meeting of the electoral colleges, December i4th, Mr. Proctor Knott, 
 of Kentucky, then a member of the House, and now the governor of that 
 state, known to fame as the immortalizer of " Duluth," initiated a response 
 to the urgent demands of the country. He proposed a committee of five 
 members whose duty it should be, acting in conjunction with a similar com 
 mittee on the part of the Senate, to consider the whole question of the dis 
 puted votes, and to recommend to Congress a course to be followed. The 
 resolution was adopted almost with unanimity. On the 22d of December, 
 "Forefather's Day," the Speaker, Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, announced 
 the select committee which the resolution called for A like committee had 
 already been named in the Senate. Messrs. Edmunds of Vermont, Morton of 
 Indiana, Conkling of New- York, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Republi 
 cans ; and Thurman of Ohio, Bayard of Delaware, and Ransom of North 
 Carolina, Democrats, composed the Senate committee. Messrs. Payne of 
 Ohio, Hewitt of New- York, Hunton of Virginia, Springer of Illinois, Demo 
 crats ; and McCrary of Iowa, Hoar of Massachusetts, and Willard of Michi 
 gan, Republicans, composed the House committee. 
 
 A fair proportion of the wisdom and patriotism of Congress was believed 
 to be embodied in these selections. Mr. Payne made arrangements for a 
 preliminary examination of the precedents relating to the counting of elec 
 toral votes. Nothing else was done until after the holiday recess. The 
 country began to breathe more easily. Congress had awakened to the situa 
 tion. Each house seemed to be doing its best to avert the threatened anarchy. 
 Still, there was sufficient uneasiness to paralyze trade and commerce. The 
 clouds were not all dispersed. After the holiday recess was over, Mr. Payne 
 and his coadjutors of the House committee settled down to business promptly. 
 
638 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 The Senate committee under the lead of Mr. Edmunds, did the same. Almost 
 at the outset it became evident that the two parties, as represented in the com 
 mittees, would not agree on the question regarding the extent or limitations of 
 the powers and duties of the President of the Senate in the matter of counting 
 the disputed electoral votes. Several plans of accommodation were proposed, 
 but all of them led straight to one of two results, namely, either the seating 
 of Tilden, or the seating of Hayes. They were, therefore, sure to encounter 
 the opposition of either the Republican Senate or the Democratic House. 
 In this situation there was no prospect of Congress reaching a point where 
 it would perform its constitutional duty of declaring who had been elected 
 President. Could Congress constitutionally abrogate or delegate that high 
 prerogative? The committees had serious doubts on this question, but 
 some conclusion must be reached. Nine propositions were submitted at the 
 first meeting of the House committee after New Year's Day. Among these 
 the fifth contained the germ of thought out of which grew the famous Elec 
 toral Commission. This proposition suggested the enactment of a law creat 
 ing an independent tribunal which should be authorized to count the vote, 
 and to determine any specific questions of law or of fact which might be in 
 volved in such proceeding. 
 
 Curiously enough, each committee, acting separately, without consulta 
 tion or even knowledge of what the other was doing or contemplating, took 
 up almost simultaneously the same idea of an independent tribunal. When 
 the House committee met on Jan. 10, 1877, Mr. McCrary, of Iowa, a 
 lawyer of excellent ability, now a United States judge, submitted the draft of 
 a bill for an independent tribunal. This tribunal was to consist of members 
 of the United States Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and a number (in 
 blank) of associate justices, in the order of their seniority of commission. 
 The Chief Justice was promptly ruled out. An objection was raised by a 
 Democratic member of the committee that Mr. Chief Justice Waite had 
 been heard, the previous summer, to express himself in terms of personal 
 hostility to Mr. Tilden, such as better befitted a partisan than a judge. 
 Whether this was so or not, the doubt as to his bias had its effect. It should 
 be here said, in justice to Mr. Waite, that at a subsequent stage of the dis 
 cussion a personal friend of his, speaking for him to the committee, stated that 
 it was the Chief Justice's earnest desire that his name should not be con 
 sidered in connection with the proposed commission The plan finally 
 agreed upon by the House committee favored an independent tribunal, to 
 consist of the five senior associate justices of the Supreme Court. These 
 were Justices Clifford, Swayne, Davis, Miller, and Field. Two of these 
 were known as Democrats, two as Republicans, and Mr. Justice Davis' 
 political affinity was in doubt. Thus the political balance so much sought 
 for seemed to be happily attained. 
 
 Mr. McCrary's bill made the decision of the proposed tribunal binding, 
 
SECRET COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS. 639 
 
 unless both houses of Congress should vote to overrule it. His Democratic 
 associates insisted on an amendment to the effect that the decision of the tri 
 bunal should have no binding quality or effect unless concurred in by both 
 houses. To this the Republicans would not consent, and the change was 
 made without their help. The House bill, besides providing for an evenly 
 balanced tribunal, contemplated a hearing of the questions in dispute on 
 their merits. To these five eminent judges were to be referred " the certifi 
 cates objected to, together with the objections, and all papers and evidence in 
 the possession of the President of the Senate, or of either of the houses of 
 Congress relating thereto." Power was to be granted them " to send for 
 persons and papers, and to compel the attendance of witnesses ; also to cause 
 testimony to be taken before one or more commissioners, to be appointed by 
 them for that purpose." This was before the aliunde device for cheating the 
 people had been concocted. The proposed inquisitorial power would enable 
 the tribunal of learned justices to strip the mask from fraud, and at the same 
 time would not bind them to admit that a lie became truth by being so 
 labeled under sealing wax and red tape. 
 
 Thus far the two committees were in ignorance of each other's move 
 ments. Each preserved its own secrets inviolably. Mr. Payne, of Ohio, 
 the chairman of the House committee, was then a member of the Com 
 mittee upon Banking and Currency, of which the writer was chairman. 
 They met every day, in their historic room the Speaker's room when 
 the House sat in the old hall ; the room in which John Quincy Adams saw 
 the "last of earth." Mr. Payne and the writer held close relations. These 
 began in 1855, when Mr. Payne was a candidate for governor against Mr. 
 Chase. But this and other olden intimacies growing out of the Douglas 
 and anti-Lecompton contest had not magic sufficient to open the cave 
 where the mysterious ingots of political opulence were hidden in 1877. 
 The clerk of the Banking and Currency committee was Mr. Milton H. 
 Northrup, of Syracuse, New-York. He had been appointed by the writer. 
 His trustworthiness led Mr. Payne to appoint him as clerk to the House 
 committee upon the electoral count. He was, and still is, the custodian of 
 the archives of that remarkable star chamber. Whether he has since 
 divulged them to any one, the authenticity of this relation should divulge to 
 the logical mind. But from neither the chairman, Mr. Payne, nor his clerk, 
 Mr. Northrup, could the writer, at that time, by any torture of inquisition, 
 obtain the least hint of the proceedings. The secrets of that prison-house 
 were so well kept that not even the acutely-scenting press correspondents had 
 been able to learn that such a bill was being considered. The first intima 
 tion the writer, or any one outside the committee, had of its propositions, 
 was from the bill itself, after it had received its consummation of bud and 
 bloom and been printed by order of the committees. 
 
 In response to an invitation from the chairman of the Senate commit- 
 
640 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 tee, Mr. Edmunds, the House committee on the i2th of January journeyed 
 over to the Senate wing of the Capitol. They were ushered into the Ju 
 diciary Committee room, and into the presence of the ambitious statesmen 
 who then sat around its long table. A comparison of notes followed. Each 
 committee was found equipped with a plan. Each plan was a cure for 
 the disorder under which the country staggered. The Senate plan was 
 decidedly complex. While the House was content to submit the dispute to 
 the five senior associate justices, the Senate wanted a mixed tribunal whose 
 elements should come from the legislative as well as the judicial branch of 
 the government. The Senate committee had arrived at a " third draft" of a 
 bill. They had made revision after revision. They had at last agreed to sub 
 mit a plan to their brethren of the lower house. It was this : A commission 
 to consist of thirteen members. Nine to be taken from Congress and four 
 from the Supreme Court. Each house of Congress to name five of its mem 
 bers to sit upon the Commission. One of the ten so designated was to be 
 eliminated by lot. Under this plan the Senate would appoint five of its Re 
 publican members and the House of Representatives five of its Democratic 
 members, and as the four Supreme Court judges were expected to be evenly 
 balanced, the only way to break the inevitable deadlock in the Commission 
 was to " draw cuts." The grave and reverend Senators who proposed this 
 Biblical and happy-go-lucky mode of settling a Presidential succession by the 
 intervention of Providence through the " chances," were the objects of occa 
 sional raillery from the members of the other committee. This return to 
 primitive customs was humorously styled the u dice-box" principle. 
 
 The House committee readily accepted the Senate idea of a mixed Com 
 mission. It would give to Congress itself a representation on the tribunal to 
 be created. But the Democrats of the committee strenuously insisted that if 
 there was to be a " lot," it must apply to the judiciary rather than to the 
 congressional members of the Commission leaving the political part of it 
 divided between the two parties. After general discussion it was gravely de 
 cided that the term '" commission," rather than " tribunal," should be the title 
 of this body. It was also decided that it should consist of fifteen members 
 an equal number from each of the three bodies represented. The Senate 
 committee promptly acquiesced. Thenceforward the discussion related not 
 so much to the plan as to the personnel of the Commission. It was as 
 sumed that, so far as the legislative part was concerned, the Commission 
 would be a " stand off" between the parties. How to divide five judges 
 equally between the two parties without doing violence to any one of those 
 venerable wearers of the ermine, required such a nice mathematical calcula 
 tion as to absorb the entire time of the great minds there assembled for 
 several days. The Democrats claimed but two members of the Court, Jus 
 tices Clifford and Field ; the Republicans had, perhaps, all the rest. Still, 
 Mr. Justice Davis was of uncertain political preferences. Was it unreason- 
 
THE COMMITTEES IN CONFERENCE. 641 
 
 able to hope that the equipoise, the gravity of this distinguished jurist would 
 not be disturbed by party predilections ? It was finally agreed that the con 
 tention which was shaking the half of our hemisphere should be in this 
 mode determined. It is too late now to gather up the thousand threads in 
 the tangled rumors of that eventful time. There were rumors of assassina 
 tion, rumors of wars, rumors of panic from commercial centres, and of 
 diablerie from remote territories. Democrats were to march upon Washing 
 ton by the hundred thousand. Federal troops were ordered to Washington, 
 cartridges were being made, and chaos was riding wildly over the body of 
 the Constitution under processes unknown to that instrument. By Saturday 
 night an agreement was substantially reached. It provided for taking six of 
 the justices, in the order of their seniority, namely, Clifford, Swayne, Davis, 
 Miller, Field, and Strong, one of them to be dropped out by lot. Senator 
 Conkling eloquently urged this as perhaps the only practical solution of 
 the difficulty. The House Democrats, except Mr. Springer, reluctantly as 
 sented. The advantage, they believed, was with their opponents, as it was 
 not fair to class Judge Davis as a Democrat. Mr. Springer preferred to 
 think it over until Monday morning. The joint session was adjourned, with 
 the Electoral bill still suspended, after the manner of Mahomet's coffin. 
 
 Thus stood matters on Saturday night. When the committees came to 
 gether the next Monday, a wonderful change had come over the spirit of their 
 dreams. In spite of the sternest injunction of secrecy, the plan which came so 
 near being adopted at the close of the preceding week had transpired. It had 
 trickled into the columns of the New- York Times. Members of Congress 
 were not long in getting hold of it. They were not long in heaping ridicule 
 upon the proposition. Lottery might be in certain cases admissible, but not 
 in lieu of constitutional methods. In the joint meeting of the two commit 
 tees, Mr. Payne announced to his associates, that since their plan had be 
 come known, the opposition to that feature which provided for selecting six 
 justices of the Supreme Court and dropping one by lot had developed to a 
 degree which satisfied him that it could never receive the indorsement of 
 the House. The House committee, on reflection, decided to withdraw 
 their assent to that proposition. That committee once more submitted their 
 original proposition to take the five senior justices outright. This was 
 the fairest to all parties. Two of these, Justices Clifford and Field, be 
 ing understood to be in Democratic sympathy, two, Justices Swayne and 
 Miller, in Republican sympathy, and the fifth, Justice Davis, leaning no 
 more to one side than the other. This plan, Mr. Payne urged, would in 
 sure the non-partisan character of the Commission. It would give the odd 
 number without a resort to the " lot" system, to which many seriously ob 
 jected. This brought a retort from Mr. Edmunds. This remarkable man, 
 who bears so close a resemblance to a sainted character, is known as the St. 
 Jerome of the Senate. He is a man whose wit rivals his legal acumen. 
 
642 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 He said that Judge Davis was one of those u Independents who stood al 
 ways ready to accept Democratic nominations." He had noticed that " such 
 men are generally the most extreme in their partisanship," and, he added, 
 that he " would rather entrust a decision to an out and out Democrat than to 
 a so-called Independent." Having fired this Scythian arrow, the elegant 
 and sainted Senator unstrung his bow. Mr. McCrary said that the Repub 
 licans of the House committee were quite satisfied with the senatorial 
 Providential plan ; but they would like fully as well to take the two senior 
 justices only, and drop one of them by lot. "Certainly," added he, " no- 
 one would say that Clifford and Swayne are not absolutely fair." 
 
 During this remarkable confabulation, where is the great War Governor 
 Senator Morton? Glum and saturnine, he sits far and aloof from these 
 superficialities. His every feature suggests clouds charged with thunderbolts. 
 His very presence, as he frowns upon the gathered statesmen from behind 
 his crutches, is a vengeful protest. He seems to be gathering electric cur 
 rents for a wrathful flash of luridness and danger. Thus far he has eyed 
 askance each talker, but has seldom spoken. He now ventures to ad 
 dress his associates. He declares that he entertains great doubt about the 
 power of calling in any outside tribunal to settle this momentous question. 
 If, however, there is such a power, "why not," he exclaims, "call in the 
 whole Supreme Court? Is it not more simple? It will not have the ap 
 pearance of being fixed. All parties will be satisfied. Their decision 
 would be acquiesced in by all." This was in conformity with what the 
 Senator said subsequently, when the bill was before the Senate. The Indi 
 ana Senator, with characteristic sledge-hammer force then denounced the 
 plan as a " contrivance." He held that it was unknown to the Constitution. 
 It was, in short, a cowardly evasion of duties by Congress. Mr Freling- 
 huysen took up the point in the joint committee and retorted that to drop 
 one judge by lot could not possibly be susceptible to the charge of "being 
 fixed." The discussion then reverted to the party leanings of Justice 
 Davis. " Judge Davis," said Mr. Springer, "is just about as much of a 
 Democrat as Horace Greeley was in 1871. He is not now, and never was, a 
 Democrat. His most intimate friends, among whom I may count myself, 
 do not know to-day whether he favored Tilden or Hayes. He did not vote 
 at all. They only know that he is absolutely honest and fair." 
 
 The chances of agreement, so star-like on Saturday, had become nebulous 
 on the following Monday. Unusual apprehension seized the committeemen. 
 They feared that even if an agreement in committee were possible, its ratifica 
 tion by Congress was impossible. "Those fellows," said Mr. Edmunds, 
 " who believe it foreordained that Hayes is to be President, think the Consti 
 tution, as it is, sufficient for their purpose. They will oppose any legislation 
 whatever on the subject." Mr. Bayard, more sanguine, perhaps, than some 
 of the others, said : " If we seven men of both houses could agree, would 
 
EFFORTS AT AGREEMENT. 643 
 
 there not be a weight in such an agreement sufficient to carry it through? 
 Would it not be a most noble example of abnegation of partisanship ? I am 
 one who believes that whatever measure is recommended by this committee will 
 be adopted." Mr. Hewitt, who, as chairman of the Democratic National 
 Committee, was sometimes credited with representing the views as well as the 
 interests of Mr. Tilden, was pressed by Mr. Conkling to suggest a way out of 
 the entanglement. " My colleague," replied Mr. Hewitt, " is aware of the 
 disadvantages I labor under in making suggestions. He has doubtless ob 
 served that I have had little to say in this discussion. Owing to my peculiar 
 relations, I am unjustly supposed to speak for another. But my personal 
 views are not always or necessarily in harmony with those of the person for 
 whom I am supposed to speak." He stated his conviction, however, that the 
 bill with the " lot " feature could never pass. Whereupon Mr. Conkling said 
 it was a question in his mind whether it would not be better for each commit 
 tee to report its own plan to its own house, and there discuss it, "getting 
 together finally if we can." Throughout the committee sessions, Mr. 
 Conkling manifested an exceeding anxiety to arrive at some satisfactory settle 
 ment. His opponent is Senator Morton. There he sits in his sullen and 
 sublime disquietude. He is, in this mood, the Achilles of the contest. When 
 the committees separate that evening, they walk out of the Senate Judiciary 
 room with anything but a hopeful mien. 
 
 When the committees met the next day, Mr. Payne sought refuge once 
 more in the bill agreed to by his Democratic confreres of the House com 
 mittee, naming the five senior associate justices, Clifford, Swayne, Davis, 
 Field, and Miller. He again urged its absolute equipoise Justice Davis, 
 as usual, being relied on to divide himself equally between the two parties. 
 For the sake of reaching an agreement, Mr. Payne announced that the 
 House committee, contrary to their own judgment, had assented to the 
 proposition that the decision of the tribunal should be final unless overruled 
 by both houses. Mr. Morton interposed again in favor of taking the whole 
 Supreme Court instead of any part of it, " and thus avoid invidious dis 
 tinctions." Mr. Hewitt said that his idea was, to take five from each body, 
 namely, five from the Senate, five from the House, and five from the Judiciary. 
 " In selecting the latter," said he, " there is an obvious propriety in selecting- 
 those longest on the bench, as farthest removed from the passions of the 
 party politics of the day. Those recently appointed on the bench are too 
 fresh from the domain of politics to have gotten over a natural bias that 
 they took with them." 
 
 Republican distrust of Justice Davis the expected fifth wheel of the 
 coach and Democratic insistence that he should not. be charged up against 
 the Democrats, were the leading features of these discussions, of which the 
 Constitution should by its own vigor have made an end. ' ' The proposition of 
 the House committee," declared Senator Frelinghuysen, " is really to make 
 
644 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 a Commission of eight Democrats and seven Republicans. Judge Davis has 
 twice aspired to the nomination by the Democrats for the Presidency. Per 
 haps he has now aspirations for the future. His vote might turn the gov 
 ernment over to the Democrats or retain the Republicans in power. It is 
 not a fair proposition." Mr. Hewitt, who had thoroughly investigated the 
 judge, said that the best information he could get was that he was " neutral." 
 At this a sardonic smile plays over the features of Senator Edmunds. He 
 flashes somewhat recklessly his daggers of speech, keen-edged, like those of 
 the Corsican vendetta, on which are burned in letters of bluish beauty 
 A la mortel " The best evidence of his neutrality," said the Senator, " is 
 the same as that of Greeley and Chase. He is fishing after Democratic 
 nominations!" Senator Thurman the grand old man of Ohio, and the 
 Jldus Achates of Judge Edmunds demurely suggests an even number of 
 judges. "I do not believe," he said, "that they would range themselves on 
 party lines. No doubt they would decide as they believed right." Here 
 Mr. Hoar and Mr. Willard strike off on a line of their own. They are full 
 of inspiration for "an evenly divided Commission, which, in case of inabil 
 ity to decide, should be empowered to call in an outsider, some eminent 
 American not in public life, as umpire." A waggish member suggests 
 Lord Dufferin as equal to the task ! It must be confessed that this ac 
 complished civilian was not unfitted to decide a controversy which had 
 overleaped the barriers of the Constitution ; for had he not been the success 
 ful commissioner to the Lebanon, to intervene in behalf of the Christians 
 who were being butchered by the cruel Druses of the mountains ? Had he 
 not visited " high latitudes" and drawn inspiration from the wisdom of the 
 thousand years of Iceland's republican simplicity? Had he not, by per 
 suasive good sense, reconciled Canada with the Crown ? It was hardly wag 
 gery in such a dilemma to suggest so just and fair an arbitrator. There 
 were more consultations ; but still no agreement. The Republicans still 
 insisted on drawing the line at Justice Davis. The Senate committee came 
 forward with a new proposition. It was, to take the four senior justices 
 Clifford, Davis, Swayne, and Miller and these to select a fifth. This, it 
 seems, had the acquiescence of the Democratic members of the Senate com 
 mittee. It was not approved, however, by the House Democrats. " I con 
 fess," said Chairman Payne, "that I am at a loss to understand how this 
 last proposition is based on any assumption that the Commission should be 
 equal. Judge Davis is not a Democrat. You ask us to take as a Democrat 
 one who is not more than half a Democrat, against two absolute Republi 
 cans. I can see no equality in such a proposition." 
 
 Senator Bayard, whose faith in the Supreme Court was shortly to be 
 rudely shaken, was sometimes disposed to criticize the Democrats of the 
 lower House because they so stubbornly contended for absolute equipoise in 
 the composition of the Commission. To them he talked across the commit- 
 
SELECTION OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. 645 
 
 tee table with that impressive earnestness which is his wont. No one felt 
 the gravity of the crisis and the necessity for burying party in patriotism 
 more than did the distinguished Senator from Delaware. Himself without 
 fear and without reproach, he hesitated to attribute a lower standard to 
 others. In pressing the acceptance of the Senate committee's latest plan, he 
 said : " To me it is rather saddening that the agreement should hinge on the 
 quantum of bias in Judge Davis. I know Judge Davis only slightly know 
 him only as a lawyer of limited practice knows judges who sit on the bench 
 before him. I believe he is more of a Democrat than a Republican on 
 existing issues. I cannot but believe that in this hour of great danger to the 
 institutions of this country, there will be evolved a feeling above party, a 
 feeling that shall regard the country as paramount to all merely partisan 
 ends or considerations. Party view is not the only view to take, nor the 
 strongest. For that reason I have voted for this proposition, though not 
 fully meeting my views. . . . All this weighing and balancing may 
 turn out to be perfectly useless. We may find the partisan feeling in the 
 judges the very smallest. The mere fact of their selection under the circum 
 stances, would of itself tend to make them non-partisan." The same spirit 
 of confidence shone out in Mr. Bayard's remarks made in another day's dis 
 cussion. "In my judgment," said he, "that estimate which is founded on 
 the political prejudice of any one of these judges will be found wanting. I 
 believe it would be most unwise in me to base my judgment of this measure 
 on any supposition that the small bias of a judge should turn the scale of his 
 decision." He would not stand on the shadow of a hair. On the broad 
 question of dealing with a matter like this, he would not believe that parti 
 sanship could control the decision of judges. Many are the disillusions of 
 human life ; and it is safe to say one of them has often haunted the soul of 
 the single-minded Senator. 
 
 Another fruitless session closed, and the two committees separated for 
 consultation. They met once more. Next morning they are seated around 
 the long table in the Senate Judiciary Committee room. They are informed 
 by Mr. Chairman Payne that a majority of the House committee had been 
 unable to assent to the Senate plan to charge Judge Davis against the Demo 
 crats in the choice of judges to sit on the Commission. Mr. Payne reminded 
 them that the Judge, only the day before, was the candidate against the 
 Democrats for Senator in Illinois. He called upon Mr. Hewitt to state a 
 new proposition. " At first blush," he added, "it has the unanimous ap 
 proval of the House committee." This proposition originates with Mr. 
 Hewitt. It proves to be as follows : The two senior associate justices, 
 Clifford, a Democrat, and Swayne, a Republican, are each to select another 
 justice. Then these four are to name the fifth. In the course of the discus 
 sion that followed, Mr. Hoar said that they had all proceeded on the theory 
 that there is a political bias in the Supreme Court. But he asked if any one 
 
646 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 supposed that the judges would be willing to go down to history as dividing, 
 on a question of such transcendent importance, on a party line ? Would not 
 their bias against thus appearing in history be infinitely greater than any 
 mere party bias which they might happen to feel ? This question was suffi 
 ciently answered a few days later, in the " 8 to 7" Commission. 
 
 The Hewitt proposition was summarily rejected by the Senate committee. 
 Chairman Edmunds pungently characterized it as "built on the cob-house 
 principle." That truculent Senator insisted that the taking of six judges and 
 dropping one by lot was the true principle. "This," interjected the icono 
 clastic Springer, "flavors of the dice-box principle." Senator Edmunds 
 expressed his willingness to accept the " lot" plan " and let the world howl 
 as much as it chose." But his committee had decided to submit a counter- 
 proposition. It was, to take the associate justices from the First, Third, 
 Eighth, and Ninth Judicial Circuits, and let these four name a fifth member 
 of the Supreme Court to sit upon the Commission. "This plan," says the 
 Vermont Senator, " has the merit of being based on geographical considera 
 tions Justice Clifford representing New England, Justice Strong the Mid 
 dle States, Justice Miller the Northwest, and Justice Field the Pacific 
 slope." 
 
 At last a scheme, or, to adopt the designation given to it by Senator 
 Morton, a " contrivance," was devised. It received the sanction of the com 
 mittees and of Congress. Geography came to the aid of political science. 
 It enabled the authors of the Electoral bill to jump over judicial seniority 
 as nimbly as a deer would clear a hedge. They gracefully avoided the ap 
 pearance of making invidious distinctions, which the selection of the judges 
 by name would involve. The Republicans were enamored of the device. It 
 was a new Mercator's projection, on which to map their course of plain sail 
 ing. It gave them Justice Strong, whose partisanship was pronounced, in 
 stead of Swayne. It was known that the latter had a personal regard for 
 Mr. Tilden, in whose Gramercy Park mansion, it was said, there was a room 
 always at Judge Swayne's service. These considerations made him not alto 
 gether a safe reliance when questionable party work was required. This 
 contrivance suited the Democrats, also. It gave them what they had all along 
 contended for, namely, two Democrats, with a contingent remainder in Mr. 
 Justice Davis as a probable selection for the fifth judge. Judge Swayne felt 
 the slight put upon him by his own party. He would have been acceptable 
 to the Democrats. But it was said in committee that this action was taken 
 in order to avoid the implication of unfairness, and that it was not the inten 
 tion to slight Justice Swayne. He was an Ohio man. It would be indeli 
 cate to select a judge from either of the states of the Presidential candidates. 
 Such a rule would exclude Judge Hunt, of New- York, as well as Chief Jus 
 tice Waite and Judge Swayne, of Ohio. Congress itself seems to have been 
 less tenacious of this point of etiquette, for Ohio was given no less than 
 
THE GEOGRAPHICAL PLAN. 647 
 
 three of the ten members representing that body in the Commission, namely, 
 Senator Thurman and Representatives Payne and Garfield. New- York had 
 no voice in that tribunal. 
 
 The " geographical" plan needed little urging. " The. public," said 
 Mr. Edmunds, " will recognize at once the propriety of these selections, em 
 bracing all sections of the Union, and at the same time maintaining the 
 desired political equipoise of the Commission." This was said in the most 
 impartial tone of the Senator. His attitude was that of one who would 
 not bend to the right nor to the left. He was polar in the frigidity of his 
 rectitude. What could be fairer than a geographical plan set off in judicial 
 ermine, with Justice herself holding the political scales in equipoise? Mr. 
 Hewitt was favorably impressed. u I can see," he said, "that this plan is 
 less embarrassing in that it leaves the selection of the fifth judge between 
 the two senior judges, Swayne and Davis." Judge McCrary thought that 
 the suggestion of the Senate committee was exceedingly felicitous. Judge 
 Hunton, the cautious and conservative Virginian, was not quite persuaded. 
 <; Could we believe," he half soliloquized, " that this tribunal would be abso 
 lutely devoid of partisanship, we would have no hesitation ; nor would we 
 care who were taken. But we have to act on the other theory." The House 
 committee retired for consultation. With what result afterwards appeared. 
 Its members once more joined the Senate committee within the closed doors 
 of the Judiciary Committee room at four o'clock that afternoon. Mr. Payne 
 announced that with a single exception, his associates had unanimously 
 agreed to accept the geographical proposition. That exception was Judge 
 Hunton. He wished to think of the matter over night, before pronouncing 
 his judgment. But the child was born. The long agony of the committee 
 was ended. It only remained to glance at the bill by sections. Its phrase 
 ology was then scrutinized. In this task Mr. Conkling was especially happy. 
 Mr. Morton sat moodily aside. He scowled his protest. He was silent and 
 gloomy, like the effigy of the great Napoleon when contemplating the defeat 
 of his veterans at Waterloo. He despised state lines. They might not fall 
 in pleasant places. He had reason to be satisfied afterwards with the 
 geography that made Ohio the " hub" of the Commission. 
 
 A great load seemed to have been lifted from the committees. The ven 
 erable Thurman enthusiastically declared that " the agreement of the two 
 committees would be hailed with joy from one end of the country to the 
 other. The effect on its business would be immediately felt." Mr. Hewitt 
 spoke for the great commercial metropolis. He declared that it was worth 
 five hundred millions to the country at once. Mr. Hoar's benevolent face 
 beamed with delight. He waxed eloquent over the auspicious result. He 
 declared that this committee action would be considered as one of the most 
 important events of history. That the two great parties, after the heat of 
 a quarrel over dynasties, should be able to meet deliberately and agree upon 
 
648 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 a settlement of their differences without the shedding of a drop of blood, 
 would, in his opinion, strike the student of history as something hardly 
 short of miraculous. Other members of the committee indulged in like 
 gratulations over this crowning grandeur of their work. The constitutional 
 requirements were forgotten in the general joy. But Mr. Morton was still 
 himself. He had no joy. He watched. He found fault with a feature of 
 the bill which might be interpreted as conferring power on the Commission 
 to go behind the returns. To this criticism Senator Thurman replied that 
 the bill decided no disputed questions. It created no new powers ; but it 
 submitted all disputes to this tribunal. It submitted them with the same 
 powers no more, no less that belong to the two houses of Congress, 
 jointly or severally. " It is," he said, "as to disputed questions of jurisdic 
 tion, as non-committal a bill as could be made." 
 
 The great work is accomplished ! Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Thurman are 
 made a committee to prepare an address to accompany the submission of the 
 bill to Congress. The members of the two committees descend the great 
 stone steps of the Capitol as the evening shadows are falling. They go to 
 their homes with light hearts, sincerely feeling that the country is saved from 
 chaos by this unwonted and courageous proceeding. For the last time, the 
 committees meet on the morning of Jan. 18, 1877. Mr. Chairman Edmunds 
 reads the address which, in conjunction with Mr. Thurman, he had prepared. 
 It is altered to suit various suggestions. The critical Senator from Massa 
 chusetts, Mr. Hoar, raised an objection to the phrase that " it is comparatively 
 unimportant who is President." "In my opinion," said he, "it is of 
 immense importance which party rules the country." Out goes the obnox 
 ious phrase ! Senator Conkling lays down the broad proposition that it is 
 "always unwise, in large transactions, to do anything unnecessary." He 
 then proceeds to criticise the phrase in the address, " If such jurisdiction is 
 not invested by the Constitution this bill creates it." He maintains that no 
 jurisdiction was created by the Constitution which is not vested somewhere. 
 "Can we," he asks, "by a legislative act create a jurisdiction? We may 
 create a tribunal to exercise jurisdiction ; but can we create the jurisdiction 
 itself ? " " This report," he says, " is to be put under a microscope. It is to 
 be examined with great care. No man can vote for this bill unless he believes 
 the power bestowed exists somewhere." Here Mr. Hoar suggests the follow 
 ing phraseology : "If the Constitution, requiring the exercise of this juris 
 diction, does not designate a tribunal or officer to execute it, this bill pro 
 vides such a tribunal." "I prefer," replies New- York's eminent Senator, 
 " to say just what we mean. If we have that right, it is because the Consti 
 tution requires the two houses to do it, or the Constitution not making such 
 requirement expects the law-making power to provide it. This is our ped 
 iment. Take that from under us and we are gone. This bill goes to the 
 theory of regulating and adjusting the power already held. Mr. Hoar's 
 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMITTEES. 649 
 
 amendment implies that the law-making power is vested in the tribunal. 
 That is not my theory. Mine is that the Constitution requires Congress to 
 declare a President. The two houses employ this tribunal as an auxiliary, 
 as eyes and hands. We do not delegate this power. We keep it all. This 
 is our own ministration." Senator Bayard closes the discussion. He de 
 clares that it will be a grave error, and perhaps indefensible, if this report 
 shall deny the vesting of power, and yet prescribe its exercise. But the com 
 mittees, as a whole, are in no mood to stand on mere technicalities of lan 
 guage. After a long breath of suspense, the address receives all the signa 
 tures except that of Senator Morton. The two chairmen slip duplicate bills 
 into their side pockets and repair to their respective chambers. 
 
 The fact that the committees had agreed, and that the two parties were 
 then practically committed to the agreement, was the signal for a patriotic 
 outburst throughout the country. The memory of i86i-'65 was too fresh for 
 the people not to welcome any peaceful avenue of escape. They shrank from 
 a repetition of past bloody experiences. To resist the pressure from without 
 for the passage of the Electoral bill required a moral courage such as is 
 vouchsafed to few legislatures. The bill went through both houses with im 
 petuous promptitude. Its chief opponents in the Senate were Mr. Morton 
 and Mr. Sherman ; and in the House, Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, and Mr. Mills, 
 of Texas. Almost the first response to the submission of the bill came 
 from Massachusetts, where a prolonged struggle over Senator BoutwelPs 
 seat was suddenly ended in the triumph of Mr. Hoar. Speeches of rare 
 eloquence and power were made for the bill in both Senate and House. 
 Mr. Conkling spoke for two days. Among other things, he riddled to 
 shreds the pretension that the Vice-President had the right to ' 4 count " the 
 electoral votes. Senator Hill, of Georgia, made a speech of unusual 
 cogency. It breathed throughout the true patriotic spirit. He favored the 
 expedient with all his acum'en and eloquence. His enthusiasm kindled a 
 lambent flame charged with electric force. As he reached his peroration he 
 was handed a telegram, announcing that the protracted contest for Senator 
 in his state had just ended in the senatorial toga being again placed on his 
 shoulders. The popular tide was now all one way. It was irresistible. 
 What would be the consummation ? The Democrats felt secure in the jus 
 tice of their cause. No matter to them who might be the fifth judge whose 
 choice was to determine the party bias of the Commission. No one doubted, 
 however, that the choice of the fifth judge would fall upon Mr. Justice 
 Davis. He was the only one left on the bench on whom the two Demo 
 cratic and the two Republican judges could possibly unite. He was, to be 
 sure, an unknown element, but notwithstanding this the Democrats had more 
 confidence in his impartiality than the Republicans seemed to have. How 
 the action of the Commission so equipoised might have eventuated must 
 ever be a subject for speculation, and speculation only. Judge Davis, whose 
 41 
 
650 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 political belongings were so fruitful a theme of discussion in the committees, 
 and in whom centered alike the hopes of Democrats and the fears of Repub 
 licans, was not' born to sit on the Electoral Commission. Fate had ordained 
 otherwise. 
 
 When the proceedings had reached this harmonious stage, a cloud no 
 larger than a man's hand was discerned in the western sky. An Illinois 
 44 Independent,'* not having the fear of General Logan before his eyes, cast 
 his vote for Judge Davis for Senator. That "Independent" little dreamt 
 that his craft bore Caesar and his fortunes ; or that he was playing the role 
 of General Monk. The Illinois Democrats in the legislature, gifted with a 
 fatuity beyond their age or generation, with a vision hardly extended beyond 
 their physical organs, swung into line, and the news was flashed over the 
 wires that Judge David Davis had been elected to fill the seat of John A. 
 Logan in the Senate of the United States ! That dispatch was pregnant with 
 stupendous significance to the American people, for it meant, as the fifth 
 judge on the Commission, Joseph P. Bradley ! The Electoral bill was 
 still pending in Congress, but had either party been then inclined to de 
 feat it they could hardly have done so. Both parties were fully committed 
 to it. It is not certain that either wished to recede. It was plain, however, 
 that from that moment Democratic hopes went down, and that Republican 
 apprehension was succeeded by confidence. Judge Davis' acceptance of 
 the senatorial seat removed him from the list of probabilities for the fifth 
 judgeship of the Commission. 
 
 In the further selection of the members of this Electoral Commission, 
 and by arrangement between the two parties, the Republican Senate was to 
 name three Republicans and two Democrats, and the Democratic House 
 three Democrats and two Republicans. The party caucus was in each house 
 the medium of selection. The choice of the caucus was in every case ratified 
 by the respective houses. The four judges named in the bill had, in the 
 meantime, as expected, selected Justice Bradley as the fifth judge. The 
 Commission, as finally made up, consisted of the following gentlemen : 
 
 On the part of the Supreme Court: Associate Justices Clifford, of 
 Maine ; Miller, of Iowa ; Field, of California ; Strong, of Pennsylvania ; and 
 Bradley, of New Jersey. 
 
 On the part of the Senate : Edmunds, of Vermont ; Frelinghuysen, of 
 New Jersey ; Morton, of Indiana ; Thurman, of Ohio ; and Bayard, of 
 Delaware. 
 
 On the part of the House of Representatives : Payne, of Ohio ; Abbott, 
 of Massachusetts ; Hunton, of Virginia ; Garfield, of Ohio ; and Hoar of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Eight Republicans, associated with seven Democrats, were thus to sit in 
 judgment on the electoral returns of the disputed states. Their judgment 
 was to be binding, unless both houses concurred in overruling it. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 THE ELECTORAL COUNT OF 1877. 
 
 EVENTFUL DAYS OF HISTORY MEETING OF THE HOUSES TO COUNT THE VOTE 
 FLORIDA IS REACHED EXCITEMENT RECESS ELECTORAL COMMISSION 
 MEETS THE OLD SENATE ROOM THE COMMISSION ORGANIZED THE ATTOR 
 NEYS THE JUDGMENT ON FLORID A JUDGE BRADLEY HIS NON-SEQUITUR 
 ALIUNDE ERMINE TAINTED - REPUBLICAN TRIUMPH DEMOCRATIC DES 
 PONDENCYTHE COUNT RESUMED SOUTH CAROLINA LOUISIANA THE 
 AUTHOR'S SPEECH SPEECHES OF OTHER MEMBERS SCATHING INVECTIVES 
 OF JUDGE BLACK AND JOSEPH S. C. BLACKBURN OREGON, WISCONSIN, AND 
 VERMONT VOTES THE CONCLUSION THE STARS AND STRIPES LOWERED 
 DE FACTO AND DE JURE. 
 
 M 
 
 EN will regard the year 1877 as grimed with the blackest fact and 
 the greatest political wrong of our history. There was then 
 repressed the greatest right pertaining to the American people. 
 Forbearance on their part and the goodness of God, alone pre 
 vented terrible results. There is a time when, if injury be inflicted, it can 
 not be forgotten. There is no Lethe for the outrage. The barbed shaft ran 
 kles remedilessly and poisons forever. The season of Democratic memory 
 will ever be the Centennial year. The volumes most cherished, handed down 
 by Democratic ancestors, are the writings of Algernon Sidney. They were 
 the sacred writings of one who died upon the scaffold as a devotee to his 
 imaginary commonwealth. When he wrote for the sanctio recti, in the 
 eleventh chapter of his discourses, he not only inspired such men as Rous 
 seau in France, and Jefferson in America, but, as it should be, he made the 
 law derive its excellency not from antiquity, nor from the dignity of legisla 
 tures, but from an intrinsic equity and justice which accorded with universal 
 reason. He not only inspired the Declaration of Independence, but he 
 taught that, as that which is not just is not law, so, that which is not law 
 ought not to be obeyed. If his ideal cannot be realized in human affairs, it 
 is none the less a moral mentor, one never more needed than in 1877. The 
 ideals of Plato, Harrington, Sir Thomas More, and Lord Bacon were the 
 
652 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 delight of the author's early days ; for in them were found the pole star by 
 which all political ventures should be guided. To see our country approxi 
 mate the ideal, where perfect liberty and right should find hospitality, was 
 inspiration and pride. But the year 1877 broke the idol and destroyed the 
 ideal. Amidst all the rough waves and dangerous rocks of the last " three 
 decades," it has been the author's place to be on the deck ; and while the 
 star at times has seemed obscured, never yet has it been so utterly eclipsed 
 as by the blackness of that portentous year, 1877. 
 
 No day of greater import ever came to this hemisphere than that appointed 
 for the count of the electoral vote. Both houses meet in the great Hall of 
 Representatives. Senator Ferry, of Michigan, President pro tempore of the 
 Senate, is in the chair. Speaker Randall is by his side. The galleries are 
 packed with men and women of the white and negro races, and of all local 
 ities. Public expectation stands upon the tiptoe of trepidation. The cer 
 tificates containing the electoral votes are opened by President Ferry. He 
 hands them to the appointed tellers. The votes of state after state, in alpha 
 betical order, are duly recorded, now in the Tilden and now in the Hayes 
 column. All goes serenely for a time ; when lo ! a wild excitement and a 
 hush of expectation ! Florida is reached ! The Chair announces that from 
 Florida there are two sets of returns. By the law under which they are act 
 ing, these two sets, he declares, must go to the Electoral Commission. 
 Thereupon the joint convention takes a recess, for it never " adjourns " 
 until the count is finally completed. Each house in its own way resumes 
 legislative business. All wait for the tribunal to which Congress has so im- 
 providently delegated its duties. 
 
 The Electoral Commission meets in the room of the Supreme Court. It 
 was formerly the United States Senate Chamber. Its vaulted roof, in times 
 past, reverberated with the eloquence of Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Marcy, 
 Benton, and Seward. The echoes of those memorable debates might even 
 yet be heard within those historic walls, where the Commission is now 
 convened, which is to bring so much obloquy upon the Court which is 
 wont to sit on that bench. Justice Clifford, the senior judge, takes the chair. 
 The fourteen others range themselves in the seats commonly occupied by the 
 dispensers of justice. The five judges are in the centre. They are flanked 
 on their right by the five Senators. On the left are the five Representatives. 
 At the foot of the line, at the left, sits one who is destined to fill a large and 
 tragic space in the history of the near future. It is James A. Garfield. On 
 each side of this wonderful forensic battle, is an eminent array of counsel. 
 What is the case? It is the great contention of our century. It is no pri 
 vate suit ; not even an action between states. It concerns fifty millions of 
 people. It enlists the talents of O'Conor, Evarts, Matthews, Merrick, Car 
 penter, Hoadley, Campbell, and Ashbel Green. From the first, it is evident 
 that the chief reliance of the Republican side of the contest is the astute and 
 
THE FLORIDA VOTES COUNTED FOR HAYES. 653 
 
 learned leader of the New-York bar, William Maxwell Evarts. If Mr. 
 Evarts cannot make the worse appear the better reason, then is their cause 
 vain. The first step of the Electoral Commission is to assume the regularity 
 of the returns of the Hayes electors. This is done on the plea that they have 
 come up under the seal of the state. Therefore the Tilden electors are 
 classed as contestants. Another act is even more ominous. The Commission 
 excludes all evidence " aliunde" It will not go behind the returns. It will 
 not see whether they were born of fraud. To make fraud sacred requires 
 only a proper distribution of $rima facie papers. Even in its earliest stages, 
 the malign spirit of partisanship thus crops out in the Commission. The 
 judges are not of different clay from their associates. Whether it be political 
 or judicial, it is all of a kind. 
 
 The lawyers have finished, and the case is in the hands of the Commis 
 sion. One after another, each of the members reads his opinion in secret 
 session. Fourteen members of the Commission are heard from. Fourteen 
 men, sworn to hear and impartially to judge, divide on a party line, seven 
 being quite sure that the Tilden electors from the State of Florida are regu 
 larly chosen, and that their votes should be counted in the Electoral College. 
 Seven are just as firmly convinced that the Hayes electors have the only 
 stamp of regularity. Justice Bradley alone remains to be heard from. All 
 eyes are turned to the Jersey man. Chosen as he had been, to enact the r6le 
 of a non-partisan, is he not still a judge ? Is not his symbol and his effigy 
 the blind goddess, holding the scales of justice in equipoise ? The Democrats 
 of the Commission look, not without some confidence, to Judge Bradley. 
 Would he save the Supreme Court from the threatened disgrace? Would 
 he decide on merely partisan lines ? Would his party bias bend his judgment 
 on a question involving the most stupendous consequences ever within the 
 jurisdiction of a court ? Pale and trembling, Judge Bradley unfolds his manu 
 script. He begins to read. He is impressed, apparently, with a sense of the 
 overwhelming responsibility resting upon his conscience and conduct. As 
 he reads, Democratic hopes grow bright and brighter. Justice will dawn at 
 last with auroral splendor. Alas ! The drift of his argument leads to but one 
 conclusion. The end is not the fruit of the promised exordium. Florida's 
 vote, we all know, belongs to Tilden. Change ! The wind suddenly 
 veers, and Mr. Justice Bradley accomplishes a dexterous non sequitur. 
 He closes with the assurance that his vote must be given to the counting 
 of Florida for Hayes. 
 
 In " counting" the votes from the State of Florida, it was held that Con 
 gress, which had full constitutional power to " count" them, was concluded 
 by the governor's certificate. Had not the latter been made in accordance 
 with the decision of the returning board ? Offers are made to impeach the 
 decision of this board. It is impeachable, for want of jurisdiction to do what 
 it did. What it did, changes the result. "I know of no tribunal," says 
 
654 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Judge Thurman, " high or low, whose acts, without jurisdiction or beyond 
 its jurisdiction, are not absolutely void." And so every honest lawyer and 
 man will aver. The county returns of Florida gave the vote to the Demo 
 cratic electors. This is not disputed. The court so decided it. Every de 
 partment in Florida so decided. The state remedy had been applied to 
 correct the fraud. It was applied timely. Its results are ignored by the 
 Electoral Commission. 
 
 The Democrats of the Commission felt the humiliation of this departure 
 from constitutional methods. Judge Bradley would never have been guilty of 
 such stultification unless he had deliberately decided to accept its full conse 
 quences and to gather its substantial fruits. Such an excoriation as Mr. 
 Payne, the Nestor of the House commission, gave this unjust judge for his 
 betrayal of the high trust reposed in him, has probably not been heard since 
 Sheridan's philippic against Hastings. Sadder, but wiser men, were the 
 Democratic " seven "when they marched out of the Supreme Court room 
 that memorable afternoon. The chivalric Bayard, who in the Electoral 
 committee had erected a lofty pedestal upon which the Supreme Court judges 
 should stand, bore the mien of one whose illusions had been rudely dispelled. 
 Mr. Hoar, who had, to his associates in framing the bill, scouted the idea 
 that the Supreme Court judges would be willing to go down to history as 
 dividing on a question of such transcendent importance on a party line, and 
 had expressed his conviction that their bias against thus appearing in history 
 would be infinitely greater than any mere party partiality which they might 
 feel, smiled benignantly behind his gold spectacles. He was quite content 
 with the bias, so long as his party received its benefit. 
 
 The air of the national capital became oppressive. A callous numbness 
 seemed to have settled upon the national consciousness. Only the Federal 
 office-holders breathed easier. The decision of the Commission was sub 
 mitted to Congress. The Senate, by a strict party vote, concurred in it. 
 The House, also by a strict party vote, refused to concur. Not a Republican 
 voice was raised in either branch of Congress against counting Florida's vote 
 against Florida's choice. Again the Senate files into the Hall of Representa 
 tives. The count is resumed. Florida's four votes are added to the Hayes 
 column. The certificates of other states are opened and counted, until Louis 
 iana is called. 
 
 Louisiana is found prolific of returns not two only, but a third set 
 also. The third set is signed "John Smith, bulldozed Governor of Louisi 
 ana." It purports to give " the proceedings of the college of electors at 
 New Orleans of December 6, 1876." This set proves to be a joke. It is a 
 ghastly joke, to interrupt even so grave a farce. Its reading is dispensed 
 with ; and it is ordered to be suppressed from the record. Under the law 
 regulating the count, all papers, with the objections raised on either side, go 
 to the Commission. That body met on Monday, February 12, and went 
 
THE LOUISIANA VOTES COUNTED FOR HAYES. 655 
 
 through the forms of judicial consideration. In the Florida case the counsel 
 representing Mr. Tilden included such forensic giants as Charles O'Conor, 
 Judge Black, and Richard T. Merrick. Arrayed against them, were William 
 M. Evarts, Edward W. Stoughton, Stanley Matthews, and Samuel Shella- 
 barger. The same counsel represented Mr. Hayes' side of the controversy 
 in the Louisiana case ; while for Mr. Tilden appeared the venerable Judge 
 Campbell, of Louisiana, who, before the war, had himself filled an honored 
 seat on the bench of that same Supreme Court, ex-Senator Lyman Trum- 
 bull, ex-Senator Carpenter, George Hoadley, now governor of Ohio, and 
 Ashbel Green, an eminent New- York lawyer. A more formidable array of 
 legal talent this country had never seen before any tribunal. Senator Car 
 penter prefaces his argument by disclaiming that he appears for Mr. Tilden. 
 " He is a gentleman," said Wisconsin's late Republican Senator, " whose 
 acquaintance I have not the honor of ; with whom I have no sympathy ; 
 against whom I voted on the seventh day of November last ; and if this tri 
 bunal could order a new trial, I should vote against him again, believing as 
 I do, that the accession of the Democratic party to power in this country 
 to-day would be the greatest calamity that could befall the people, except 
 one ; and that one greater calamity would be to keep him out by fraud and 
 falsehood. I appear here," added Mr. Carpenter, "for ten thousand legal 
 voters of Louisiana, who, without accusation or proof, indictment or trial, 
 notice or hearing, have been disfranchised by four villains, incorporated with 
 perpetual session, whose official title is ' The Returning Board of Louisiana.' " 
 Evidence is offered to prove that more than ten thousand legal votes had to 
 be, and had been discarded by Wells and Anderson, and the rest of the 
 Returning Board. They were votes that had been cast for Mr. Tilden. 
 They had been discarded by the Board in order to count out Mr. Tilden and 
 to count in Mr. Hayes. All such evidence is ruled out by the Commission, 
 eight to seven. It is aliunde ! The nefarious business is duly sanctioned by 
 the Commission, which solemnly declares that Louisiana's eight electoral 
 votes were cast for Mr. Hayes. 
 
 How is this decision reached? By reasoning, or by chance? When 
 the vote began, reason closed her faculties, honor hung her head in shame. 
 44 The country," said Justice Field, " may submit to the result ; but it will 
 never cease to regard our action as unjust, and as calculated to sap the found 
 ations of public morality." Eight for injustice seven for morality ! On 
 the 1 6th of February, Judge Abbott offers to show by evidence that the 
 Louisiana Returning Board is unconstitutional and its acts void. Another 
 rattle of the box eight to seven ! Then that it was not legally constituted ; 
 out came the loaded dice eight to seven ! Again he offers to prove certain al 
 leged frauds the same rattle, eight to seven ! Then no jurisdiction eight 
 to seven ! Then that the Returning Board statements as to riot, tumult, and 
 other wrongs, were forged by the Board, and besides, came too late, and 
 
656 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 that more than ten thousand legal votes were thrown out eight to seven ! 
 Then Judge Hunton moves to admit evidence that the proper returns of the 
 commissioners of Louisiana had never been compiled or canvassed eight 
 to seven ! Then Senator Bayard moves to hear evidence to show the ineligi- 
 bility of certain electors eight to seven ! Judge Field then moves for evi 
 dence generally eight to seven! Mr. Payne moves, in a quiet way, to 
 strike out " not," in the resolution refusing evidence eight to seven ! Judge 
 Thurman amends Senator Morton's " resolution that illegal votes be not 
 counted, as never canvassed or declared" eight to seven ! Then the vote 
 on Morton's resolution is taken ; and then, hark to the sinister click of the 
 remorseless handcuffs ! Louisiana is thrust within the bars with her sister 
 Florida eight to seven ! But was this the only use of the dice-box ? No ! 
 Other tenders of testimony from other states were disallowed by the same 
 cunning device. Does Judge Field offer to prove that in South Carolina, 
 troops interfered with the free choice of the state? Rejected, eight to seven. 
 That one thousand United States Marshals performed the same part? Re 
 jected, eight to seven. And so on through, until the audacious farce is per 
 formed. The result gives us a de facto Executive, with such color of right 
 as such arts fitly paint and adorn. 
 
 Of what use, in such a tribunal, were the gathered facts of the election, 
 or the gathered experience of other times and nations ? It was in reference 
 to military interference that Hallam said that nothing would break down 
 the notion of the law's supremacy, like the perpetual interference of those 
 who are governed by another law. But he might as well have applied the 
 law of roulette, or the chances of cards, as the "other law" for this nefa 
 rious transaction. It had neither dignity nor justice. The very lawyers 
 laughed before the Commission, and taunted its members with scornful sar 
 casm for the pitiful part they were playing for party supremacy. 
 
 The decision of the Commission in the Louisiana case left but a small 
 peg for the Democratic party on which to hang its hope. Louisiana was 
 everywhere looked upon by most members, as Mr. Tilden's strongest position 
 in the disputed states. If he could not hold that citadel, what could he ex 
 pect ? So shameless was the action of the Commission, it was by many be 
 lieved that Congress could not so far forget its duty to truth and to patriotism 
 as to give it indorsement. But when the Commission's decision comes to be 
 reviewed by the Senate, not a Republican voice is heard in indignant pro 
 test. Even the eminent Senator from New- York, Roscoe Conkling, is dumb. 
 When the vote is taken he is absent. Whether or not it is true that Mr. 
 Conkling' s silence is owing to his having tried and failed to secure a suffi 
 cient number of others on his side to co-operate with the Democrats to effect 
 a reversal of the Commission's decree, certain it is that, in not raising his 
 voice in the thunder tones of which he is so capable, in denunciation or 
 the projected crime against popular government, the New- York Senator 
 
THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH ON THE FRAUDS. 657 
 
 abandons his greatest opportunity. He folds his arms and holds his tongue. 
 Meanwhile the conspiracy progresses. 
 
 Upon the i9th of February, 1877, the House met under increasing ex 
 citement about the Louisiana case. The Senate had sent to the House its reso 
 lution announcing its decision as the form was "the objections made to 
 the contrary notwithstanding." Gen. Randall Gibson, a leading member 
 from Louisiana, offered an adverse order. After a speech from Judge New, 
 of Indiana, in favor of Mr. Gibson's order, there was exhibited the first and 
 almost the only instance of abnegation of partisanship. Professor Seelye, 
 now the able and learned President of Amherst College, in a pithy speech 
 declares his inability to see any justice in counting the vote of Louisiana for 
 either candidate. He inveighs against the decision, for the pound of flesh 
 can not be taken without its drop of blood. " No nation," he exclaims, 
 and his splendid vocalization startles the echo in the halls and corridors, 
 4 'ever died except by suicide." He fears imperilment to the vote of the 
 future. A weak defense of the wrong comes from Mr. Joyce, of New Eng 
 land. Then a practical answer from Mr. Levy, of Louisiana. After Mr. 
 McMahon had followed in the vein of Mr. Levy, Mr. Rice and Mr. Crapo, 
 both of Massachusetts, as if to offset the ringing speech of Seelye, appear 
 to champion the outrage. The writer is then assigned the floor. He yields 
 ten minutes to Henry Watterson. The gallant Kentuckian was known to be 
 an intimate friend of Mr. Tilden. In melancholy accents he chanted, with 
 vaticinatory periods, those sad days, and the coming of the day of reckon 
 ing dies irce, dies ilia. Then the writer began his brief analysis of the 
 Louisiana case. "Peril," said he, "gives the lessons of years in a day." 
 This judgment being foregone, the speech was made for history. As such, 
 parts of it are here substantially reported. 
 
 " The people of the United States, desiring unity and peace, honesty and 
 rejuvenescence, spoke in all legal forms provided by a complicated system of 
 electors in favor of a party whose traditions, principles, and history of hon 
 orable service have rendered it deathless, and against a new party of 
 expedients and pretensions. That deathless party was unmistakably called 
 to the high places of the land. It matters not who were its select exponents 
 or candidates ; and it matters not now what were its shibboleths and plat 
 forms. Whether wise or not, far sighted or not, just to all races and sections 
 or not, prudent in economy, provident in matters of tax andjisc or not, 
 organic and faithful to the rules of construction applied under the genius of 
 our peculiar polity or not, an unquestioned popular majority of three hun 
 dred thousand pronounced for relief and change, and for the Democracy as 
 the directing organ of that relief and change. 
 
 " Under our system of state and Federal authority, this Federal change and 
 relief was to be certified by certain state organisms and verified by a certain 
 procedure under our Federal Constitution. 
 
658 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 It was early made clear by certain manoeuvres and devices of politicians 
 that the voice of the people of two, if not three, states was to be muffled, or 
 rather that a false voice was to be heard in the land proclaiming that which 
 was not, for that which was. It was the siren voice of Duessa, and not the 
 blessed voice of Una. It was a voice which sounded high for state rights, 
 like that of the actor through the Grecian mask, hollow and mocking, 
 while at the same time it seemed to proceed from some hero or demigod 
 raised to unusual height by the tricks of the stage. 
 
 Whether the steps were wisely or unwisely taken in framing the Electoral 
 bill, is not to be now considered. That bill is the law. We know what it 
 is, what its provisions are. We knew and felt that some virtue had gone 
 out of this House when we had passed it, but we did not exactly see where 
 the virtue had alighted. We knew the old privileges of the Commons had 
 departed, but in the interest of peace we gave a reluctant vote for the bill. 
 
 It was voted for in a spirit of confidence and in a moment of peril, and 
 under terror of force and revolution, which speaks more for the caution than 
 for the pluck of our people. Still it was enacted. We are bound by its de 
 cisions, but not by its reasons. The faith of those who voted for it was 
 strong in the integrity and purity of their case ; and next in the fidelity and 
 independence of the tribunal. We placed our faith in the ermine. 
 
 But one strange thing about the bill is this : while we are permitted to 
 vote in this House, yet after all it is a sort of post mortem vote. Although we 
 are permitted to argue, it is an argumentum ad post factum. Although 
 there is some utility in the dissection of the dead, and although there may 
 be something gained by experiments upon the living, yet it seems to me to be 
 proper now to look at one particular clause of the law before stating reasons 
 for making protest against this measure. 
 
 We are graciously permitted under this bill to argue after the matter is 
 accomplished, and although we vote, and although we carry our vote in the 
 House, we are c gone/ We gain nothing. We are permitted to talk ten 
 minutes after the counting and the conclusion. It is the old Virgilian line 
 over again about Rhadamanthus, judge of hell Castigatque auditque 
 dolos the old rule of hanging a man and trying him afterward. That is. 
 our condition to-day. 
 
 And what is it we try ? Why, sir, everything as to testimony and facts: 
 and forgery and perjury and force is aliunde outside not to be considered. 
 Truth and justice and morality and fair dealing aliunde. The House is 
 aliunde. All its acts and the acts of its committees and their reports, all the 
 facts gathered in these Southern States aliunde I Nothing to be considered 
 but the bare, naked fact of a certificate, based upon what ? On forgery and 
 chicanery. On a returning board, which returned the fact that 10,400 Dem 
 ocratic votes were not counted ; on a supervisor of registration of Louis 
 iana, whose business was to transmit the votes, but who failed to transmit 
 
THE AUTHOR'S SPEECH ON THE FRAUDS. 659 
 
 2,900 Democratic votes. After they came, only four hours were left be 
 tween the time of the organization of the board and the decision ! Where 
 and how could the state correct such returns in that time ? It is a mockery. 
 Why, sir, nothing but forgery and chicanery are pertinent and competent. 
 It is said that beauty deformed and mutilated, is more hideous than natural 
 ugliness. The Parthenon is deformed by Turkish barbarism and despoiled 
 by Lord Elgin's archaeological devotion ; and so our institutions, including 
 the high judicial tribunal, are made detestable, not merely by adventurous, 
 barbarous, ignorant, and reckless rascality, but legal science comes in with 
 its spotless ermine to make the spectacle a hideous deformity, by consum 
 mating the grand outrage of history. Fraud taints everything ; all codes, 
 human and divine, pursue it into every relation of society and avenue of 
 trust. 
 
 Some member has said that he was sick of fraud, of the cry of fraud. 
 Earth is sick, and heaven is weary of the hollow words which statesmen and 
 judges use when they talk of right and justice, when such things can be 
 accomplished. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, by human law there is no statute 
 of limitations to protect fraud. It never runs for fraud. In divine law it 
 is written, u There is no rest for the wicked." Every avenue of society, 
 every relation of trust which fraud permeates, shall at last be investigated 
 and the fraud made null. The time will come, if not now, in some near 
 future, when gentlemen on the other side, who now laugh and taunt, because 
 of this condition in which the Democrats are caught, will repent of this 
 great crime of history of which they are participes criminis. 
 
 Time never runs to condone fraud, and in all God's universe there is to 
 be ceaseless unrest for its vicious votaries. Where fraud taints and blackens, 
 quibbles from lawyers, technicalities from judges, special snapperadoes from 
 the intellect, are as grass before the mower. The people cannot understand 
 why fraud should be protected. Chop logic and split hairs to the nicest 
 division of logomachy, call in the schoolmen, make your legal syllogisms and 
 refine your subtleties, the everlasting rule remains that where fraud is found, 
 nullity and void follow. Foxes by no doubling or hunting, can confound 
 the fact that fraud is the most offensive element in human society, and most 
 to be feared when the fox takes the disguise of the ermine. 
 
 Ah ! they called in the ermine to help them. The ermine is a little 
 animal. It is an emblem of purity ; it would rather be caught than be be 
 draggled in the mire. Hunters put mud around its haunt to catch it. But 
 where is the ermine now ? Ah ! the fox has become the ermine. But no 
 cunning, no craft, no human law, no divine law, can ever condone fraud. All 
 codes and the histories of all nations cry out against it. Crime cannot breed 
 crime forever. Ask the people of this country. Fraud is to them an endless 
 offense. I was about, Mr. Speaker, before the hammer fell, to refer to the 
 holy writ, so that gentlemen on the other side may have time for repentance* 
 
660 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 With permission of the House, I will read from Psalms xciv., 20 : ' Shall 
 the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a 
 law?' " 
 
 MR. KELLEY. " I object." 
 
 MR. Cox. " The Bible is aliunde with these gentlemen." 
 
 There has been no repentance. But the appellation of " Aliunde" has 
 adhered like the mythic garment of poison to one of the justices of the Court. 
 The multitudinous seas cannot wash out the stain upon the ermine. Pro 
 fessor Seelye was not alone among the Republicans in denouncing this in 
 effable iniquity. Ex-Mayor Henry L. Pierce, of Boston, joined him. With 
 these two shining exceptions, the Republican party in Congress was solid 
 as a granite mountain, in support of the infamy. 
 
 The Senators crossed the great rotunda and passed through the hall of the 
 statuesque heroes. They again took their places in the Representatives' 
 Chamber, along with the House. President Ferry had the gracious privilege 
 of announcing that the two houses not having agreed to overrule it, the de 
 cision of the Commission would stand. Louisiana was then counted for 
 Hayes. 
 
 The case of the Louisiana "count" was more flagrant than that of 
 Florida. There was no power lodged anywhere to create the Returning 
 Board. The board became de factors legislature. It corruptly and un 
 lawfully used a power to re-ordain what never was ordained. It assumed to 
 perpetuate itself. It had defeated every election since 1872. It shamelessly 
 and without any honest pretense assumed the purple of the state. It 
 played the mock king with real power. It assumed to disfranchise voters, 
 by a power not conferred on any body except the Judiciary. It was not 
 even constituted according to the illegal act creating it. Out of eighty 
 thousand Democrats in the state, no Democrat was in the board, though 
 it was required by that act that all parties should be represented. As in 
 Florida, so here, the board acted out of its jurisdiction, if it had any ; and 
 therefore its acts of disfranchisement were void. It was tendered in proof 
 that there was no evidence of intimidation and fraud (which were the pretext 
 for disfranchising ten or twelve thousand voters) accompanying the returns as 
 required by the illegal statute creating the usurping board ; and that such 
 statements as were irregularly used were corruptly fabricated by the board it 
 self in New Orleans, weeks after the election. The returns of the obsequious 
 supervisors "consolidated," as they were called were ostensibly can 
 vassed to cheat, when no such canvass was allowable ; while the returns of 
 the commissioners of elections should have been the only basis if there 
 was any upon which to act. 
 
 Rebutting testimony " reluctant quarto upon solid folio " was offered, 
 to show conspiracy, perjury, subornation of perjury, forgery, and bribery. 
 
JUDGE BLACK'S APPEAL. 66l 
 
 But it was held by this Commission, that the men named by this board 
 were de facto electors, because they were not ousted de jure by the courts ; 
 and that, too, although the courts had no opportunity to oust them ; and 
 that neither courts nor Congress could right the wrong. An Ossa of wrong 
 was piled on a Pelion of fraud each ascending mass worse, if possible, 
 than the lower stratum ! Yet, with this accumulation, we were expected to 
 accept what we could not consent to approve ! When Rousseau contended, 
 in his Social Compact, that if there be sovereigns, one of right and the other 
 of fact, the social union immediately vanishes and the body politic is dis 
 solved, he could not have contemplated a case more flagrant than the present 
 Federal authority, constituted through such malign agencies. 
 
 It was hard to restrain the men who were on the rack from crying out in 
 defiant protest. A few extracts from the splendid philippic of Judge 
 Jeremiah S. Black, will illustrate the spirit of that time. He spoke of his 
 sense of degradation and humiliation as an American citizen, by the wear 
 and tear of conscience which these forgone conclusions indicated. His irony 
 and sarcasm were only equaled by his terrific invective. In addressing the 
 " eight" commissioners, he said : "Perhaps the feeling which I in common 
 with millions of others entertain on this subject, prevents us from seeing 
 this thing in its true light. But you are wise; you are calm. You can 
 look all through this awful business with a learned spirit; no passionate 
 hatred of this great fraud can cloud your mental vision or shake the even 
 balance of your judgment. You do not think it any wrong that a nation 
 should be cheated by false election returns. On the contrary, it is rather a 
 blessing which heaven has sent us in this strange disguise. When the 
 omnipotent lie shall be throned and sceptered and crowned you think we 
 ought all of us to fall down and worship it as the hope of our political sal 
 vation. You will teach us and perhaps we will learn (perhaps not) that 
 under such a rule we are better off than if truth had prevailed and justice 
 been triumphant. Give, then, your cool consideration to these objections, and 
 try them by the standard of the law. I mean the law as it was before the 
 organization of this Commission. I admit that since then a great revolution 
 has taken place in the law. It is not now what it used to be. All our 
 notions of public right and public wrong have suffered a complete bouleverse- 
 ment. The question submitted to you is whether the persons who gave these 
 votes were ' duly appointed.' Duly of course means according to law. 
 What law? The Constitution of the United States, the acts of Congress 
 passed in pursuance thereof, the Constitution of South Carolina and the 
 authorized acts of her legislature these taken all together constitute the 
 law of the case before you. By these laws the right, duty, and power of ap 
 pointing electors is given to the people of South Carolina ; that is to say, the 
 citizens of the state qualified to vote at general elections. Who are they ? 
 By the Constitution of the state, in order to qualify them as voters, they must 
 
662 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 be registered. The registry of a native citizen is a sine qua non to his right 
 of voting, as much as the naturalization of a foreigner." 
 
 After showing that the legislature never passed any law for the registra 
 tion of voters, and that no registration of them was ever made, he said that the 
 object and purpose of such omission was fraudulent and dishonest ; for the 
 Legislature as well as the executive department of that government has been 
 in the hands of the most redemptionless rogues on the face of the earth : and 
 that whatever may have been the motive, nobody could doubt that the legal 
 effect of that omission was to make the election illegal. He contended that the 
 election itself, emancipated from all law and all authority, was no better than 
 a riot, a mob, a general saturnalia, in which the soldiers of the United States 
 Army cut the principal as well as the decentest figure. u We offer to prove " 
 said the eloquent jurist u that every poll in Charleston County, where they 
 rushed into the ballot-box seven thousand majority, was in possession of the 
 soldiers. A government whose elections are controlled by military force can 
 not be republican in form or substance. For this I cite the authority of 
 Luther vs. Borden, if perchance the old-time law has yet any influence. Do 
 you not see the hideous depth of national degradation into which you will 
 plunge us if you sanctify this mode of making a President? Brush up your 
 historical memory and think of it for a moment. The man whom you elect in 
 this way is as purely the creature of the military power as Caligula or Domi- 
 tian, for whom the pretorian guards controlled the hustings and counted the 
 Azotes. But then, we cannot get behind the returns, forsooth ! Not we ! You 
 will not let us. We cannot get behind them. No. That is the law, of 
 course. We may struggle for justice ; we may cry for mercy ; we may go 
 down on our knees, and beg and woo for some little recognition of our 
 rights as American citizens ; but we might as well put up our prayers to 
 Jupiter, or Mars, as bring suit in the court where Rhadamanthus presides. 
 There is not a god on Olympus that would not listen to us with more favor 
 than we shall be heard by our adversaries. 
 
 " You see why we are hopeless. The present state of the law is sadly 
 against us. The friends of honest elections and honest government are in 
 deep despair. We once thought that the verifying power of the two houses 
 of Congress ought to be brought always into requisition for the purpose of 
 .seeing whether the thing that is brought here is a forgery and a fraud on the 
 one hand, or whether it is a genuine and true certificate on the other. 
 
 " But while we cannot ask you to go back behind this certificate, will you 
 just please to go to it only to it not step behind. If you do you will 
 find that it is no certificate at all such as is required by law. The electors 
 must vote by ballot, and they are required to be on oath before they vote. 
 That certificate does not show that either of those requirements was met, 
 and where a party is exercising a special authority like this they must keep 
 strictly within it, and you are not to presume anything except what appears 
 
JUDGE BLACK'S SCATHING INVECTIVE. 663 
 
 on the face of their act to be done. This great nation still struggles for 
 justice ; a million majority of white people send up their cry, and a majority 
 of more than that number of all colors demand it. But we cannot com 
 plain. I want you to understand that we do not complain. Usually it is 
 said that < the fowler setteth not forth his net in sight of the bird/ but this 
 fowler set the net in sight of the birds that went into it. It is largely our 
 own fault that we were caught. We are promised and I hope the promise 
 will be kept that we shall have a good government, fraudulent though it 
 be ; that the rights of the states shall be respected and individual liberty be 
 protected. 
 
 " They offer us everything now. They denounce negro supremacy and 
 carpet-bag thieves. Their pet policy for the South is to be abandoned. 
 They offer us everything but one ; but on that subject their lips are closely 
 sealed. They refuse to say that they will not cheat us hereafter in the elec 
 tions. If they would only agree to that ; if they would only repent of their 
 election frauds and make restitution of the votes they have stolen, the circle 
 -of our felicities would be full. If this thing stands accepted and the law 
 you have made for this occasion shall be the law for all occasions, we can 
 never expect such a thing as an honest election again. If you want to know 
 who will be President by a future election do not inquire how the people of 
 the states are going to vote. You need only to know what kind of scoun 
 drels constitute the returning boards and how much it will take to buy them. 
 But I think that even that will end some day. At present you have us down 
 and under your feet. Never had you a better right to rejoice. Well may 
 you say, ' We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at 
 agreement ; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not 
 come unto us : for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have 
 we hid ourselves.' But nevertheless wait a little while. The waters of truth 
 will rise gradually, and slowly but surely, and then look out for the over 
 flowing scourge. The refuge of lies shall be swept away and the hiding- 
 place of falsehood shall be uncovered. This mighty and puissant nation 
 will yet raise herself up like a strong man after sleep and shake her invinci 
 ble locks in a fashion you little think of now. Wait, retribution will come 
 in due time. Justice travels with a leaden heel, but strikes with an iron 
 hand." 
 
 Were there ever more burning, blistering words before such an insensate 
 tribunal ? Whither had reason fled, if not to brutish beasts bent on satisfy 
 ing their lust of power ? This grand old statesman of Pennsylvania, who 
 had honored the nation as its Secretary of State and his commonwealth as 
 its chief justiciary, was driven to the Book of Books, "the book of the 
 avenging Jehovah," to voice in our own tough Teutonic tongue, his anath 
 ema maranatha against these spoilers of our elective liberties and these 
 abettors of every crime in the calendar. Meanwhile a determination to 
 
664 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 resist by all parliamentary means the consummation of the conspiracy was 
 daily growing among certain elements in the House. Dilatory motions, 
 known in common parlance as " filibustering," were made at every step 
 of the count. The avowed object of the fillibusterers was to prevent the 
 count from being completed by the 4th of March. In that case, it would 
 be the duty of the House to proceed, by states, to choose a President. The 
 choice would, of course, be Mr. Tilden. 
 
 The scenes in the House were at times intensely exciting. The country 
 seemed to be bordering on a revolution to be inaugurated in the Hall of Rep 
 resentatives. Mr. Speaker Randall was almost powerless to preserve order. 
 The sound of his gavel, which he wielded with tremendous energy, was lost 
 in the general din and uproarious demands for recognition. It was in one of 
 these exciting episodes, when every member was on his feet angrily and 
 vociferously shouting "Mr. Speaker!" that Mr. Beebe, of New- York, 
 sprang upon his desk, and stood upright, in wild gesticulative pantomime. 
 Mr. Speaker Randall's resolute course during this memorable epoch may 
 have saved the country from consequences even more serious than a fraudu 
 lent Presidency. But the Rubicon is passed, when South Carolina is 
 added to the Republican column. The fight is kept up hopelessly. A 
 stand is made on Oregon, and even on Vermont ; but there is little heart 
 left. The contestants and among them is the author feel that the die 
 is cast. By a curious reversal of principle, the governor's certificate, so 
 sacred in Louisiana, loses its sanctity in Oregon. There, that official chances 
 to be a Democrat. Mr. Tilden has but one electoral vote to gain, beyond 
 the 184 conceded to him, to assure his election. That all essential one 
 vote is supplied in the package of three which came under seal of the gov 
 ernor of far-off Oregon. Consistency, with its precious rulings against 
 going back of the returns, requires the Commission to count that vote for 
 Mr. Tilden, not inquiring into its merits or its demerits. But that will 
 not answer. It would defeat the conspiracy. So by dexterous juggling and 
 cunning sophistry, not intelligible to plain people, it is ascertained that in 
 Oregon it is not the seal of governor, but that of the secretary of state, which 
 gives sanctity to the electoral returns. And so Oregon goes with the rest. 
 Was there ever provocation so great met by self-restraint more patriotic ? 
 
 The 4th of March is close at hand. The count lacks something of being 
 completed. The cool assurance of the Republican leaders shows that they 
 have their victim in the toils. This does not mitigate Democratic exaspera 
 tion. But aside from a slender protesting minority in the House, there is a 
 general concurrence that the count must be finished. Its bitter fruits must 
 be accepted. No time is to be lost, if the great conspiracy is to be crowned 
 with success. The ist of March is here. Wisconsin, the last state in the 
 list, remains to be counted. Objection is made on the part of the Democrats. 
 The vote of Elector Downs is challenged. He had an office of trust and 
 
a * ^ - 
 
 d^^^^^^^^c^_ 
 
 DIPLOMA TS&STA TESMEN. /7 *. 
 
SENATOR FERRY ANNOUNCES THE VOTE. 665 
 
 profit. He was a pension surgeon under the United States, and was, there 
 fore, constitutionally ineligible. It is an objection raised against hope. 
 The House sustains, the Senate overrules. Under the law creating the Com 
 mission and regulating the count, this Wisconsin vote is counted for Hayes. 
 But this is not done without a protracted struggle. The House remains in 
 continuous session from twelve o'clock noon to four o'clock the next morn 
 ing. It is then prepared to notify the Senate of its readiness to proceed with 
 the count. All through the long night the galleries are crowded. The writer 
 recalls the intense feeling, amounting to agony, among members and spec 
 tators. The all absorbing interest is manifested by an unusual hush and atten 
 tion. Dramatic scenes are not infrequent. Friday, March 2, is ushered in. 
 Joseph S. C. Blackburn, now Senator, was then a member from Ken 
 tucky, a state where oratory seems to be indigenous to the soil. He rises 
 to pronounce a diatribe appropriate to the act about being completed. 
 "Mr. Speaker," said the successor of Henry Clay, "Mr. Speaker, the end 
 has come. There is no longer a margin for argument, and manhood spurns 
 the plea of mercy, and yet there is a fitness in the hour that should not pass 
 unheeded. To-day is Friday. Upon that day the Saviour of the world 
 suffered crucifixion between two thieves. On this Friday constitutional gov 
 ernment, justice, honesty, fair dealing, manhood, and decency suffer cruci 
 fixion amid thieves. It was on that day that this Presidential fraud re 
 ceived its nomination at the hands of the Republican party. It was upon 
 that day as it recurred, that every determination reached by the blistered, 
 perjured miscreants that constitute the majority of that Commission has 
 been promulgated to the country. It is on that day that you propose to 
 consummate your iniquity and foist into a place of power him whom the 
 people of the land have spurned, scorned, and rejected at the polls. If it 
 must be, it is well that it should occur here and now ; but it is well, also, 
 that before the day is finished the truth should be vindicated and the record 
 should show upon whom the responsibilities rest." 
 
 The hands of the clock point grimly to four o'clock and five minutes 
 when, on the morning of March 2, 1877, the door-keeper announces the 
 Senate of the United States. That body enters the hall. It is headed by its 
 President pro tempore, and accompanied by its Sergeant-at-Arms, and door 
 keeper. The action of each house on the objection to the Wisconsin certifi 
 cate is reported. President Ferry says: " The two houses not having con 
 curred in the affirmative vote to reject, the vote of the State of Wisconsin 
 will now be counted." " Tellers, announce the vote of the State of Wiscon 
 sin." This is done. He proceeds : " This concludes the count of the thirty- 
 eight states of the Union." " The tellers will now ascertain and deliver the 
 result to the President of the Senate." " In announcing the final result of the 
 electoral vote," added President Ferry by way of caution, conscious of the 
 tension of the popular mind, "the Chair trusts that all present, whether on 
 
 42 
 
666 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 the floor or in the galleries, will refrain from all demonstrations whatever ; that 
 nothing shall transpire on this occasion to mar the dignity and moderation 
 which have characterized these proceedings, in the main so reputable to the 
 American people, and worthy of the respect of the world." The request is 
 observed. In five minutes from the time of entering the hall, the declaration 
 is pronounced that Hayes and Wheeler have been elected President and Vice- 
 President. The Senate now files out of the hall. One minute later, the 
 House refuses Mr. Atkins* request to " take up the army appropriation bill." 
 It adjourns and the weary crowds of nocturnal watchers wend their weary way 
 in the early dawn of that March morning homeward. The stars and stripes, 
 which for thirty days had floated uninterruptedly over the Capitol, denoting a 
 continuous session, are appropriately lowered. 
 
 Then for the first time in our history sprang into existence, new and 
 peculiar relations in our polity. They are epitomized in two Latin* phrases 
 de facto and de jure. These terms were then more familiar to other 
 nations than to us. Was it not Daniel Webster vyiho, in speaking of the 
 Great Charter, said, " though it was written in a dead language, it was vital 
 with liberty? " De facto and de jure, discordant as they seem in sound and 
 sense, should be one ; and both should be concordant with freedom. The 
 genius of good government is in making them interchangeable. By melting 
 fact into right, the actual into the ideal, Practice walks hand in hand with 
 Justice. It is then that we have Utopia. It is then that we have 
 the ne plus ultra of our political hopes. It is then that fact is founded 
 upon undimmed and unchangeable relations. It is then that both are 
 eternal. Right cannot move except in harmony with its omniscient Au 
 thor. Facts isolated may be transient, temporary and ill-omened. The 
 shifting, treacherous waves symbolize them, but beneath repose the everlast 
 ing deeps of Right. What do we mean by de jure and de facto? De jure 
 means by right, by justice, or by law, as distinguished from that which is 
 existent, irregularly, and temporarily. De facto, as the word signifies, is 
 something made factum. We speak of something manufactured, like a 
 threshing machine, or an electoral return, when distinguished from that 
 which is essential. In one case, the man who uses the machine without the 
 patent right is no less a trespasser than the one who holds an office upon a 
 false, manufactured return, made to order. It is still believed by more than 
 one-half of our people that the fact accomplished in the formal inauguration of 
 a de facto President, and in the repression of the popular choice, was an out 
 rageous wrong. All nations have an abstract right to be free. But the div 
 ine order which establishes this right is almost universally violated. Few 
 nations and few men are de facto free. This is because of ignorance, 
 violence, selfishness, treachery, and tyranny. During our Civil War, the 
 Southern States, when out of their Federal relation to the Constitution, were 
 regarded by all as de facto regular states, if not by all, as de jure states. 
 
DECREE OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION. 667 
 
 The states preserved their statehood, and even when irregular governments 
 subvened, the temporary local governments remained. Why? For human 
 convenience and necessity ; because worse might or would have happened : 
 for must not courts run, debts be collected, and prisoners be tried, acquitted or 
 convicted, and murderers hanged? Must not judgments be entered, property 
 transfers executed, marriages performed, production go on, that subsistence 
 may be had, and all the duties and responsibilities of a quasi government, 
 as the agent of society, be exercised, if only temporarily ? He who would 
 propose to crush such a wise arrangement, or to upturn such results would 
 bastardize the issue of marriages, unsettle honest titles, and declare the 
 hanging of the murderer to be itself murder. He would be the enemy of 
 mankind. The rule de facto in such stress, is, therefore, justifiable. It is 
 justified by publicists and courts, by reason and right ; for when the inter 
 ests of the people of the young and innocent, especially, and of society 
 generally are jeopardized by human passion and selfishness, a government 
 of some kind is necessary to their defense and protection. 
 
 It frequently occurs, as in the case of Don Carlos, in Spain, or as in 
 the case of the rival claimants for the French crown, that divers dynasties 
 make contest. Bewildered subjects are expected to fight under the ensign 
 of one or the other, all swearing, like good knights, to avouch the qual 
 ity of the title which appears to them. For years England divided under the 
 emblem of the Rose ; and each adherent was ready, to the death, to contend 
 for the peculiar aroma, hue, and beauty of his favorite. Such contests arise 
 from the nature of human society and the self-preferences of the few, com 
 peting against each other. They depend, as in France, upon the Salique 
 law, which forbade women the throne ; or, later, upon the selfish caprices of 
 the citizen, or a coup d'etat by an Emperor. In America, peace depended 
 on a fateful day upon the submission of the Democratic party to the decree 
 of an Electoral Commission of doubtful legality, based on the frauds of a 
 notoriously corrupt and unconstitutional returning board. 
 
 In so far as the question of the legitimacy of the acting Executive, 
 Rutherford B. Hayes, was concerned, it had no foreign or hereditary aspect. 
 All the nations, by the jus gentium, recognized him ; and, for certain pur 
 poses, all the people of this country also. He held the emblems and reins of 
 power. Congress had to hold its co-ordinate relations with him, or with no 
 one. No armed or other conflict pretended to test his title. There was no 
 attempt to do so. Was there any constitutional or other provision, by quo 
 -warranto or otherwise, to test it? It was doubted whether any constitu 
 tional power existed to use that writ, even if a law for it were passed. It 
 was an anomalous hiatus. Adequate provision is made in many of the 
 states to test the title of their chief executive. In Ohio and New- York a 
 quo warranto suit may be instituted by the competing candidate, and a 
 judgment ousting the incumbent may be extended to the seating of his com- 
 
668 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 petitor. In Wisconsin, the supreme court, through Chief Justice Whiton (4 
 Wis., 792), declared that the election, and not the canvass, of the votes de 
 termined the right to office. The Court went behind the canvass, and, on 
 the just principle, ubi jus, ibi remedium, took jurisdiction to declare the 
 respondent chosen. If remedy be found for a wrong to one of the mem 
 bers of our Union, why not for a wrong to the whole body ? The protest 
 of the popular branch of Congress remains. That body, by resolution, 
 declared that the State of Florida had given its votes for the Democratic 
 candidates. On the 3d of March, in a most solemn resolution, offered by 
 Mr. Knott, of Kentucky, it declared, by 146 to 82, that they were duly 
 elected. In spite, therefore, of the action of the Electoral Commission and 
 the farce of its confirmation by the Senate, the defeat of the Presidential 
 succession, at least de jtire, was of such gravity that no lapse of time can 
 suppress, no sneer belittle, and no compliance with Democratic policy ob 
 literate the criminality of those who plotted for it. How far may discussion 
 of that crime be opened for historic reference ? How many anodynes may 
 be given to drug it to sleep ? Is it now too late to expose wrong, even if 
 it cannot be repaired or punished ? Time cannot so veneer it as to make it 
 right. The question will recur : " Had not the Democrats the true majority 
 in the Electoral College ? " Is it argued, that by the mode of its ascertain 
 ment by the Electoral Commission this question was decided authori 
 tatively ? In answer, let it for a moment be assumed that the Commission 
 was authorized by the Constitution. However doubtful the right of Con 
 gress to delegate to such a body the duty delegated to itself; however uni 
 form the practice and certain the duty, that each house held the negative on 
 the count of any state ; however unwise to give the power away to a third 
 body, even if the power to devolve it existed ; nevertheless the fact remains, 
 that the question of who was or was not the choice of the Electoral College 
 was never decided ! The truth was never declared, nor pretended to be 
 declared. It was ignored deliberately and intentionally. It was avoided. 
 That Commission ostensibly passed only upon certain papers furnished them 
 by the President of the Senate. These papers were merely prima facie 
 writings of those interested in the result certified. The Commission did not 
 entertain the merits. It did not allow the impeachment of falsehood, nor 
 the rebuttal of concocted certificates. To have done so would have conferred 
 right and repressed wrong. It would have executed the will of the States 
 and the People the summa jura imperil ! . That will was not executed, 
 and hence the relations de facto and de jure hung in ominous unrest for 
 four years over the land. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVIII. 
 
 PRESIDENT HAYES' ADMINISTRATION AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 MR. HAYES' QUALITIES HIS FORMER POPULARITY QUESTIONS DURING HIS 
 ADMINISTRATION SILVER AND GOLD RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAY 
 MENTSRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE 
 SOUTH REPEAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PARTY PLATFORMS GENERAL 
 GRANT GENERAL HANCOCK, AS SOLDIER AND CIVILIAN GARFIELD SUC 
 CEEDS HAYES HIS CAREER HIS INAUGURATION HIS LEADER IN THE 
 CABINET, ELAINE THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD AR 
 THUR'S ACCESSION THE NOTABLE EVENT OF HIS ADMINISTRATION 
 PENDLETON'S CIVIL SERVICE REFORM BILL. 
 
 THE result of the electoral count of 1877 did not dishearten the 
 Democratic people and party. It stimulated them to renewed exer 
 tion. The administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, as has been 
 shown, was that of a de facto Executive. As such he was the 
 nineteenth President of the United States. He was lacking in certain ele 
 ments of power. He was a man of amiable and complaisant disposition. 
 He and the author of this book, practiced law together, at Cincinnati, in 
 their early days. He won a fair reputation as a lawyer ; but he won more 
 reputation in the Civil War, by honorable service in the Union cause. He 
 became a major-general. He was elected to Congress in 1864, while in the 
 field. It was his success in contesting the gubernatorial chair with Allen 
 G. Thurman in 1869, and his re-election in 1875, that gave him the good or 
 the ill fortune of the nomination for the Presidency at Cincinnati, in 1876. 
 His inaugural utterances were suave and plausible ; but they did not concili 
 ate the vindictive feeling which his peculiar accession to power occasioned. 
 His best purposes were nullified. Had he refused to accept the office of 
 President in 1877, in all probability he would have been the Executive for 
 eight years after 1880. The era of good feeling did not come in his admin 
 istration, because of the questionable character of his credentials. He had 
 able men in his cabinet. Such men as Evarts, Sherman, McCrary, Thornp- 
 
670 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 son, Schurz, Devens, and Key are rarely matched for executive skill and art. 
 During his term there was much trouble connected with the labor move 
 ments. 
 
 In 1877, the agitation for the remonetization of silver disturbed the finances 
 of the country. By the first coinage regulations the standard unit of value 
 was the American silver dollar. The act of April 2, 1792, which established 
 the Mint, designated the coins of the United States. The gold coins were 
 44 Eagles," "Half Eagles," and "Quarter Eagles." The silver coins were 
 " Dollars or Units," each to be of the value of a Spanish " milled dollar" 
 (the same that was then current), and to contain 371 1-4 grains of pure sil 
 ver or 416 grains of standard silver; " Half Dollars," of half the value of 
 the dollar or unit ; " Quarter Dollars," of one-fourth the value of the dollar 
 or unit. There were " Dimes" and " Half Dimes " of proportional value, 
 and "Cents" and "Half Cents." The eagles were "each to be of the 
 value of ten dollars or units," and to contain 247 1-2 grains of pure or 270 
 grains of standard gold. The half and quarter eagles were to be of propor 
 tional weight and value. Coinage was free, and all gold and silver coins of 
 these denominations were declared to be " a lawful tender in all payments 
 whatsoever." The same act prescribed that " the money of account of the 
 United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dimes or tenths, cents or 
 hundredths, and mills or thousands." 
 
 The standard for all gold coins of the United States was fixed by this 
 act ; eleven parts in twelve of the entire weight of each coin were to consist 
 of pure gold, and the twelfth part of alloy, the alloy to be of silver and cop 
 per in convenient proportions, not exceeding one-half silver. The standard 
 fixed for all silver coins was 1485 parts fine (pure) silver, to 179 parts alloy, 
 the latter to be wholly of copper. The proportional value of gold to silver 
 in all United States coins was fixed at fifteen to one, according to quantity in 
 weight, of pure gold or pure silver ; that is to say, every fifteen pounds of 
 pure silver was to be of equal value in all payments with one pound weight 
 of pure gold, and so in proportion as to any greater or less quantities of the 
 respective metals. 
 
 By the act of Jan. 18, 1837, tne standard for both gold and silver coins 
 was thereafter to be nine hundred parts of a thousand of pure metal, and one 
 hundred of alloy, the alloy to be the same as that previously prescribed. 
 The weight of the silver dollar was fixed at 412 1-2 grains, and that of the 
 gold eagle at 258 grains. The smaller denominations were to be of pro 
 portional weights, and the gold and silver coins issued under both acts were 
 made a legal tender at their nominal value for the payment of all debts. 
 This act provided for the coinage of gold double eagles and gold dollars 
 of proportional weights, and it made these new coins also a legal tender. 
 By the act of Feb. 21, 1853, the weight of the silver half dollar was reduced 
 to 192 grains, and that of the quarter dollar, dime, and half dime, pro- 
 
THE STANDARD SILVER DOLLAR. 671 
 
 portionally ; and the legal tender quality of these coins was limited to sums 
 not exceeding five dollars. 
 
 By the "coinage act of eighteen hundred and seventy- three," which 
 repealed all previous acts in relation to the mint and coinage that were incon 
 sistent with its provisions the standard silver dollar was omitted from the 
 coinage of the United States. The silver coins authorized in this act, were : 
 the "trade dollar," the half dollar, quarter dollar, and dime. The weight 
 of the "trade dollar" was fixed at 420 grains, troy, of the half dollar at 
 twelve and one-half grammes, of the quarter dollar at six and one-fourth 
 grammes, and of the dime at one-fifth of the half dollar. The standard for 
 both gold and silver coins was not changed, except that the alloy for the gold 
 coin might be wholly of copper, or have one tenth part of it silver. The 
 weight of the gold coins was fixed at, 516 grains for the double eagle, 258 
 grains for the eagle, 1 29 grains for the half-eagle, seventy-seven and four- 
 tenths for the three dollar piece, sixty-four and one-half grains for the quar 
 ter eagle, and twenty-five and eight- tenths for the gold dollar. These gold 
 and silver coins, and none other, were thereafter to be issued ; and, except 
 the trade dollar, and silver for sums of five dollars, gold was the only coin 
 age that had a legal tender quality affixed to it by law, under this act. By 
 the joint resolution, approved July 22, 1876, the legal tender quality of the 
 "trade dollar" was abolished, and the Secretary of the Treasury was 
 authorized to limit its coinage "to such an amount as he may deem suffici 
 ent to meet the export demand for the same." 
 
 The effect of these acts was to make the gold dollar, of 25.8 grains, the 
 single standard unit of value in this country. Other fiscal measures came 
 into operation during Hayes' administration. The author, by the grace of 
 Mr. Speaker Kerr, was chairman of the Banking and Currency committee. 
 It was a perilous post for one not accomplished in fiscal philosophy by bank 
 ing experience. The chief among these measures was that passed in Jan 
 uary, 1875. It was known as the Resumption act. It declared that on the 
 ist of January, 1879, the government should begin to redeem its outstand 
 ing legal-tender notes in coin. The question then arose as to the meaning 
 of the word " coin." Did it mean gold and silver, or gold only ? Then came 
 the inquisition as to the legislation of 1873 and 1876 by which the privilege 
 of paying debts in silver had been taken away. The gold dollar seemed 
 paramount. Remonetization of silver became a shibboleth and an issue. 
 Speculation had resulted after the Resumption act in 1875. It seemed as if 
 the debtor class had entered upon hardship. Panics became imminent. 
 Ruin stared the debtor in the face. The Bankruptcy act was repealed in 
 1878 ; but as resumption came near, confidence began to be restored. Not 
 withstanding all prophecies to the contrary, better times supervened. 
 
 In 1878, Congress passed an act for the restoration of the legal quality of 
 the old silver dollar. By the act of Feb. 28, 1878, it again became lawful 
 
672 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 to coin " silver dollars" of the weight of 412 1-2 grains Troy " of standard 
 silver, as provided in the act of Jan. 18, 1837," w * tn tne devices and super 
 scriptions prescribed by that act. This act of 1878 provided that the new 
 silver dollar, together with all silver dollars theretofore coined by the United 
 States of like weight and fineness, should be a legal tender at their nominal 
 value ' ' for all debts and dues public and private except where otherwise ex 
 pressly stipulated in the contract. A subsequent act abolished the coinage 
 of the twenty-five cent silver piece. 
 
 Coinage of the silver dollar was begun at the mints under the act of 1878, 
 at the rate of not less than two millions a month. This law was passed over 
 Mr. Hayes' veto. Both parties voted for it. The old double standard was 
 restored. On the ist of January, 1879, the resumption of specie payment 
 was formally accomplished. Monetary affairs began to settle down steadily. 
 Legitimate business became possible on the old steady monetary unit. The 
 most notable events of Mr. Hayes* administration were the resumption of 
 specie payments, and the resumption of constitutional state government in 
 Louisiana, South Carolina, and other southern states. As to the latter 
 event, it came as a necessary incident to the peculiar circumstances attend 
 ing the proceedings for counting him in as the de facto President. 
 
 Again the Presidential election year rolled around. The year 1880 saw 
 the Republicans struggling at Chicago to select a candidate who could carry 
 the country. They were divided closely, between General Grant and Mr. 
 Blaine. 
 
 The author has forborne to treat of the wonderful career of General 
 Grant in the period covered by this volume. The forthcoming Memoirs, 
 written under such pathetic circumstances, in the valley and shadow of 
 death, can alone do justice to the motives and actions of that greatest gen 
 eral of modern times, who conquered as much by his generosity as by the 
 sword. It was the proudest moment of the author's life when he exer- 
 ised the privilege of voting for the restoration of General Grant to that 
 place in the army which so many of his best friends regretted that he had 
 ever left to enter the less congenial field of political strife. He was twice 
 called to the Presidential office. The issues of that period were bitter, and 
 passion was rife between the parties. The soldier-president, with all his 
 ability to command, and patriotic desire for " Peace," found a spirit of 
 turbulence and defamation in the ranks of his own party too great for even 
 his genius to quell. It became his duty, as president, to enforce laws against 
 his countrymen that were utterly inconsistent with his own chivalrous and 
 generous policy as a victorious general. The Democratic leaders too often 
 forgot this in the heat of debate, and in their vigorous denunciation of 
 bayonet rule in the South. But it remained with those of his own house 
 hold of faith, -those upon whom he had heaped honors, to seek by dark 
 and devious ways to malign and defame his personal honor. General 
 
GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT. 673 
 
 Grant has outlived all such mean detractions, and their authors have sunk 
 into the obscurity to which patriotic indignation and public opinion have 
 consigned them. Modest as a man, great as a general, noble as a patriot, 
 General Grant has a place in the hearts of his countrymen which hate, nor 
 malice, nor envy can ever reach. His name will go down to all time asso 
 ciated with that of Washington and Lincoln, as the defender of American 
 liberty and preserver of the Union. It is a matter to be regretted, in the 
 author's estimation, that General Grant's name was allowed to be presented 
 at the Chicago Convention of 1880. The author feels assured that it was 
 not because of a selfish ambition on the General's part that he permitted his 
 friends to ask for a third nomination for the Presidency. If he felt that he 
 needed a vindication from charges that were dishonorable, he needed it not, 
 for they were false. If he felt that he would like an opportunity to correct 
 some mistakes of his former administration, he needed it not, for no man, 
 however great, is above making mistakes. Only a precedent which has 
 been fixed for all time prevented his nomination and election for a " third 
 term " of the Presidency. This inviolable precedent was the sunken ditch 
 into which u the old guard" charged in unfaltering devotion to a chieftain 
 who never knew surrender. A more gallant contest was never fought in any 
 convention in our political history than that in which Blaine and Conkling 
 were the leaders of the rival hosts. It would be presumption on the part of 
 the author of the THREE DECADES to attempt a review of General Grant's 
 military career, or to discuss his motives and actions as a statesman and 
 private citizen. It is sufficient here to say that modesty and greatness of soul, 
 noble generosity, and pure disinterestedness, readiness, frankness, and the 
 best impulses of patriotic devotion in all spheres of action and life, have ever 
 been the characteristics of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. His name and fame will 
 grow in splendor with the generations that are to come. In this hour of his 
 affliction, a universal sympathy draws the hearts of his sorrowing country 
 men around his dying couch into a nearer and better Union. What a solace 
 this knowledge must give to his departing days ! How small the glory of 
 martial or executive honors, compared with this crowning bliss ! 
 
 The two grand divisions at Chicago were finally reconciled upon James 
 A. Garfield, of Ohio, who was one of the strongest and most distinguished 
 men of his party. He had won fame in the field, the forum, and upon the 
 sacred rostrum, and was deservedly popular. The congressional elections of 
 1878 had been adverse to the Republicans. But the census year was one of 
 bounteous harvests and great prosperity ; therefore the latter party appealed to 
 business interests " to prevent a change of policy. The Republican National 
 Convention was held on the 2d of June. The platform was elaborate. It 
 was a code of memories, if such a stately reminiscence of party events can 
 be called a code. It placed high above state rights, the doctrine of Nation- 
 
674 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 ality. It made " protection" dominant. It cleverly avoided the question of 
 finance. It arraigned the Democratic party. With James A. Garfield was 
 associated Chester A. Arthur of New- York, upon the ticket. The ticket 
 commanded talent and means. It had a terrible ordeal, but it succeeded. 
 
 Upon the 226. cf June, the Democratic National Convention convened at 
 Cincinnati. Its platform re-stated the old philosophy of the party, with its 
 doctrines and traditions. It opposed the tendency of the Republican party 
 to centralize government. Its metallic plank had the right ring. It advo 
 cated a tariff for revenue only. It held aloft the banner of a free vote. It 
 gave a splendid encomium to Samuel J. Tilden. It had no equivocal state 
 ment as to free ships. It pointed to the acts of the Forty-sixth Congress as 
 a superb illustration of a Democratic triumph. Upon this platform were 
 placed Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, of Pennslyvania, for President, and for 
 Vice-President, William H. English, of Indiana. 
 
 There was a "Greenback" nomination of Gen. James B. Weaver, of 
 Iowa, with a platform of principles which had many admirable anti-monop 
 olistic features. This platform had also many popular appeals to a public 
 sense of justice which were all the greater in emphasis, because of the lack 
 of popular appreciation of their necessity. But the contest was not tripartite. 
 It was a duel between the two great parties. It was the solid South against 
 an almost solid North with the inevitable result. Some of the ablest leaders 
 of the Democratic party, including such men as Governor Seymour, addressed 
 the people in favor of General Hancock and his civil record, and against 
 the doctrines of General Garfield's letter of acceptance and the Republican 
 platform. It was something magnificent to proclaim that record of General 
 Hancock as a civil governor, along with his record as a soldier. As a tem 
 porary governor in the southwest after the war, he was beyond comparison 
 for civic ability. He based his politics upon the teachings and purposes of 
 the Constitution. He had learned lessons in statesmanship in an atmosphere 
 untarnished by personal ambition. He was as far above the scandals which 
 tarnished so many brilliant careers, as he was above the grasping designs of 
 the satrap. He had fought on many battle-fields. At Gettysburg with rare 
 and striking bravery, he had added to the glory of his effulgent career. But 
 it was what he did in Louisiana and Texas that quickened every heart with 
 the impulses of freedom ; for, upon reviewing the history of his difficulties in 
 governing those states after the war, all lovers of liberty considered that he 
 should wear a civic crown to immortalize his sterling worth. When armed 
 with unrestrained military power, he was animated with the grand abnega 
 tion of the best men of all republics. He copied the splendid deeds of 
 Washington and Jackson. He wrote, thus inspired, these patriotic and glori 
 ous words : 
 
 " If called to the Presidency, I should deem it my duty to resist, with all 
 my power, any attempt to impair or invade the full force and effect of the 
 
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD. 675 
 
 Constitution, which in every article, section, and amendment is the para 
 mount law of the land." 
 
 Was not such a man fit to exercise the authority to which he bowed ? 
 Had he not proved his devotion to his country upon the battle-field ? Had 
 he not proved that he was worthy of the nomination, and of an election, too, 
 which all thought would be accomplished in that fall of 1880? The election 
 disappointed every Democrat. It is thought by some that General Hancock 
 lost his election by tampering with the tariff thought of the people in some 
 inconsiderate and local allusions. It is thought by others that the Republi 
 cans carried the election by the corrupt use of money. Whatever put in peril 
 the ascendency of the Democratic party, the election resulted in the choice 
 of Garfield and Arthur. These candidates received 214 electoral votes, in 
 cluding all the votes of the Northern States, except those of New Jersey and 
 Nevada, and four out of the five votes of California. Only 155 votes, in 
 cluding those of all the Southern States, were given for Hancock and Eng 
 lish. The aggregate of the vote for General Weaver and his colleague on 
 the u Greenback" ticket was 307,000, against 81,000 cast for Cooper and 
 Carey, of the same financial platform, in 1876. 
 
 When the term of Mr. Hayes expired, on the 4th of March, 1881, Gen 
 eral Garfield succeeded to the Presidency by lawful election. He had a won 
 derful prestige, an inborn physical vigor. He had the advantages of classic 
 culture, refined gifts of rhetoric, some experience in war, and much more in 
 Congress. He was inaugurated with a grand display. He was a man born 
 of the people. He arose from humble estate. The public services which he 
 rendered in Ohio immediately preceding the Civil War, and afterwards as 
 chief-of-staff to General Rosecrans, and his many years in the lower branch 
 of Congress, found him at last, in 1880, chosen United States Senator. He 
 advanced to this position by steady and deserved promotion. The Republi 
 cans know well how to honor their able men. This gave great strength 
 of adhesion to their party. In his inaugural, President Garfield touched 
 with elegant phraseology and rare felicity upon the progress of American 
 civilization. He made his constitutional recommendations with a happy 
 selection of themes. He formed a brilliant Cabinet. James G. Blaine, 
 of Maine, was at its head, with a genius for politics as clever as that of 
 Talleyrand for diplomacy, or Napoleon for war ; but this cabinet was 
 doomed to a short existence. Now, for the second time in the history of 
 the country, a great tragedy is enacted. James A. Garfield, the favored 
 son of Ohio and President of the Nation is cut off in the zenith and splen 
 dor of his grand career! It is not necessary to discuss the preceding 
 difficulties between the factions of the Republican party ; the one headed by 
 Senator Conkling, and the other by Mr. Blaine, and indorsed by the Presi 
 dent. It had no relation to the tragedy. The latter comes in an unexpected 
 way. It comes, like our first great tragedy, with an assassin's pistol-shot. 
 The President is about to leave Washington on a visit to his alma mater 
 
676 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Williams College. It is on the morning of the 2d of July. Along with 
 him are Mr. Elaine and other friends. He is about to take the cars for Long 
 Branch, at the Baltimore depot. An obscure, office-seeking miscreant, called 
 Charles Guiteau, who has long been watching for this opportunity to revenge 
 his disappointment, creeps stealthily behind the unsuspicious President ! 
 He is within a few feet of the President. With fatal aim he fires his weapon. 
 Its shot strikes the President in the back, inflicting a terrible wound. For 
 the second time in our history a President falls by the hand of an assassin ! 
 
 The Nation is thunderstruck. There is awe for the tragedy, and sadness 
 for the victim. From time to time hope varies with the alternations of the 
 disease which supervenes from the wound. Medical and surgical help are 
 vain. It is half-past ten, on the evening of September 19, when the Presi 
 dent suddenly dies. 
 
 For eighty days he had borne mental anguish and bodily pain with forti 
 tude. The writer at that time was within a few miles of Tarsus, where Paul 
 was born. There, by a telegram from the consul at Smyrna, he hears the 
 sad news of the death of his friend, the President. While the writer was 
 traveling from the North Cape, in the Arctic Ocean, to Constantinople, the 
 dark shadow of that crime and that suffering was upon his path. It threw a 
 gloom upon the very dynasties of other nations. But that shadow did not 
 eclipse the lustre of the President's life. Whatever may have been his weak 
 nesses, and who is free from them? he lives in the hearts of good men. 
 
 What followed the people know. Immediately after the death of Presi 
 dent Garfield, Vice-President Arthur takes the oath of office according to 
 the requirements of the Constitution. How skillfully and courteously he 
 managed the grand trusts of the high office to which he succeeded, is now 
 recognized. He was well equipped for Executive duties, as a man of educa 
 tion, of great knowledge of affairs, and as a lawyer, and a practical man of 
 business. He retired from the office of President with the best wishes of 
 every one with whom he came in contact. He had many severe trials con 
 nected with the bad administration of affairs in the post-office and other 
 departments of the government. He also had some stormy times with parti 
 sans, because he endeavored to be just to the country ; but amid all the dis 
 tractions of his party and the state, he maintained that decorous dignity 
 which becomes the President of a nation whose past has a wondrous lesson, 
 whose present has such a supreme duty, and whose future such a radiant 
 hope. 
 
 The most notable event of President Arthur's administration was the 
 passage in Congress of Senator Pendleton's Civil Service Reform bill. It 
 was a Democratic measure, which had much to do in 1884 with the selection 
 by that party, of a Presidential candidate, in harmony with its spirit and of 
 tried fealty to its principles. The assassination of General Garfield gave 
 impulse to the bill. The evils which its provisions were intended to remedy 
 are acknowledged by most men of judgment and experience in public affairs. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 THE INAUGURATION OF DEMOCRACY AND CLEVELAND. 
 
 THE PROVINCE OF HISTORY WHAT THE SOUTH HAS DONE TO RECUPERATE 
 BLACK AND WHITE NEW ORLEANS EXPOSITION THE PLATFORM OF 1884 
 GOVERNOR CLEVELAND ITS EXPONENT A CATO INAUGURATIONS OF j8oi 
 AND 1885. -THE NEW ORDER, BORN OF THE GREAT CONFLICT THE FALSE 
 HOOD OF EXTREMES, AND THE PERMANENCY OF MODERATION. 
 
 ALTHOUGH it is not so much the province of history to philoso 
 phize as to relate, the writer of this narrative has not deemed it 
 inappropriate to comment somewhat freely upon the men and 
 measures of his Three Decades. A civil war of unprecedented 
 magnitude was the most striking event of this troublous period in the history 
 of our country. That war is an epoch in our career as remarkable for the 
 events which immediately preceded it, as for its subsequent influences on our 
 polity and institutions. Any history of this period must necessarily discuss, 
 almost in every chapter, the causes and the results of that terrible conflict. 
 It is the central point of thought, whether for narrative or philosophical dis 
 cussion. The men in the conflict, the men who forced the conflict, the men 
 who made the peace ; and their prejudices, passions, and patriotism must, 
 therefore, form the main topic of discussion when recording the events of 
 the last three decades of Federal legislation. The legislation of that period 
 is entombed in the statute books. Most of it is obsolete and forgotten. 
 What remains in force, as well as what is obsolete, has had its inspiration 
 and source in the motives and acts of these men. Hence it has been the 
 writer's aim to leave to coming generations some record of them, as a key 
 to the history of this period when it shall be written. 
 
 Our Civil War has left many indelible impressions on Southern character 
 and life. It changed the mode of life in the South, and modified in many 
 respects the Northern opinion of the people of that section. The men and 
 women of the South, especially those of the Gulf states, have had experi 
 ences, mentally and morally, which have wrought many modifications in 
 
678 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 their estimates of Northern character. Most of the men who swayed South 
 ern society and politics died in or since the war. They are gone to their 
 rest. Their shadowy forms only appear to the soft light of affectionate 
 remembrance. If the light which led them into secession led astray, it was 
 light from some standard of nobility. They had a sensitive love of honor. 
 They had a proud belief in family and state which made them over-confi 
 dent. They had a great love of neighborhood which made them indiscrimi 
 nately confiding. They had a grand hospitality which made it impossible 
 for them to think truly of future events in connection with their own home 
 steads. But along with these qualities there was a universal self-respect 
 which kept them pure and undegenerate. They were never base. They 
 bore their misfortunes with uncomplaining fortitude. 
 
 When the war ended, what struggles for existence ensued ! Men, and 
 even women, in their respective spheres, so long as there was military organ 
 ization, could not be dispirited or beaten. The weight of exhaustless num 
 bers and resources, the skill of invention, and the animation of a kindred 
 gallantry for the Union could alone conquer Secession ; but all these did not 
 subdue the spirit of its adherents. The South appeared to be ruined hope 
 lessly and irretrievably in the long contest. Her education had not fitted 
 her for disaster. Ominous whispers ran around that her sons and daughters 
 had been reared to make no effort, that they were destitute of energy, that 
 their women were not housekeepers, and that their men were not provident 
 and economical. What, then, could they accomplish under circumstances 
 that might appall the stoutest heart and mind ? This was the Northern esti 
 mate of this people ; yet what could they not accomplish ? What did they 
 not do in rebuilding their shattered fortunes and dismantled places ? A few 
 years, and lo ! order comes out of chaos ; happiness succeeds misery ; pros 
 perity, gay, fair, debonair, healthful, and vigorous, arises out of the very 
 ashes of desolation. How was this change wrought? Partly through the 
 organization of the state governments which in desperation they rescued from 
 the spoiler ; partly in the counting-house, the shop, and most of all in the 
 field of agriculture ; by the loom, the needle, and the cook-stove, and by a 
 determined persistency to succeed, never expected by the outside world. 
 Everywhere energy and industry were displayed in connection with that 
 splendor of gallantry which no honorable and truthful man denies to the 
 Southern character. 
 
 Now, as this volume closes, New Orleans makes her exposition of 
 Southern achievements. It is a peaceful victory, commercial and indus 
 trial. It exhibits the wealth and working power of the South. It bursts 
 forth almost as unexpectedly and beautifully as the famous flower of the 
 forests of Ceylon, with a startling report and an opulence of fragrance. 
 Strange to say, within sight .of the industrial elements at New Orleans, is a 
 camp where the veterans of the Confederate and Union armies assemble in 
 
WHAT THE SOUTH HAS DONE TO RECUPERATE. 679 
 
 blessed concord. It is a congratulatory and hopeful augury. Chancellors- 
 ville and Gettysburg meet together : Shiloh and Antietam salute each other. 
 The old soldiers talk over bygones, in peace and brotherhood. The great 
 war which raged twenty years ago has left no scars with the just and honor 
 able warriors. The channels of wrath are filled up with the waters of 
 Lethe. Immigration comes from the North. Old foes shake hands and 
 learn to understand each other, and to recognize their common interests and 
 fraternity. The South no longer speaks with pathos. She no longer sings 
 the miserere. She has gone through her poverty. She smiles at defeat. 
 Her cities were destroyed, her fields desolated, and her labor disorganized ; 
 her homes were in ruins, her families scattered, and her sons fell in the battle ; 
 but in the face of trial and trouble, under the dark shadow of this ineffable 
 sorrow, she rises from the ashes of desolation and reveals more clearly the 
 splendid attributes of her character and the grand importance of the work 
 before her. Every element in the South seems to have been resurrected for 
 her resuscitation. What of the white man? He is enfranchised in many 
 ways. What of the negro? He is recognized as a citizen whose rights are 
 secure ; is an integral part of Southern civilization. By a pledge stronger 
 and firmer than any party platform or civil rights law, by a guarantee 
 firmer than any constitutional provision, citizenship and the equality of civil 
 and political rights have been assured to the men of swarthy looks. What 
 ever may have been thought of the advisability of the last two constitutional 
 amendments at the time and under the peculiar influence of their adoption, 
 they are now fixed in the fundamental law as firmly as any other part of it. 
 They will never be questioned nor disturbed. By the order of events and of 
 nature, the negro is left to his own contest. If he would have position and 
 power he must achieve it by his own energy, judgment, and will. If he 
 relies upon political sympathy for his advancement, he will find that he has 
 been leaning upon a broken reed, and that he must lean upon himself. The 
 honor of the Republic has been pledged to the sustentation of those elements 
 which secure the negro in his citizenship with all its incidents and rights. 
 
 Is it asked what will be the condition of parties in the South at the end 
 of the next decade ? The last election perhaps indicates, to some extent. The 
 significant utterances of President Cleveland demonstrate that the party 
 which is now dominant is not the sectional party. That party is national 
 which polls the grand majorities South and an immense vote North. Its 
 voters in the North, South, and West, in spite of all objurgation to the con 
 trary, are too strong in intelligence and numbers for any future disquietude 
 as to sectionalism. Ten millions of people have voted to discontinue the 
 long retained power of government in the hands of one party. There were 
 reasons for this change. Reasons which fail to justify heavy taxation, or to 
 vindicate accumulations in the treasury. Reasons which are larger than 
 fiscal policies. They belong to the policy of principle. They are historic 
 
680 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 and philosophic, historic because philosophic. We had reached a stage in 
 which certain leaders of the Republican party would have embraced any pre 
 text for transforming our government into something more absolute than it is. 
 
 It is a marvel that the Constitution has been preserved to us through the 
 ordeal of civil war. It is, at the same time, almost a miracle that the pen 
 dulum is again swinging toward decentralization. Alexander Hamilton 
 thought that the British Government was the best in the world, and doubted 
 much whether anything short of it would do for America. He declaimed 
 against the vices of democracy, and insisted that the British Government was 
 the only one in the world which united public strength with individual secu 
 rity. He insisted on our government being modeled after the British Gov 1 - 
 ernment as nearly as practicable, and proposed to abolish the states, or sub 
 ordinate them in the municipal corporation and consolidate all power in the 
 Federal Government. But were he alive to-day, would he not abandon his 
 worship of the old Federal fetich ? Would he not say that the philosophy of 
 the Democratic party should be judged by the experience of a hundred years, 
 and the tenets by which its perpetuity has been made so honorable and pros 
 perous? Each of the great parties to-day professes, and can profess, no other 
 than popular democratic principles. Were not Milton, Locke, and Alger 
 non Sidney the prototypes of Jefferson ? Is there any party to-day which 
 would openly advocate aristocratic and autocratic rule? It would have a 
 summary fate and short shrift. This has been the final outcome and end of 
 the various parties which, since 1791, have opposed the Democracy. 
 
 Whatever their name, there will ever be two schools of political philoso 
 phy, and two parties in this country accepting their doctrines ; one with Fed 
 eral tendencies for a strong centralized government, distrustful of the people, 
 and the other seeking local governments and strictly defining the sphere of 
 national powers to national necessities. Hence, in concluding these chapters 
 of our history of three decades, is it not well to remember that, however 
 plausible the platform adopted at Chicago by the convention which nomi 
 nated Mr. Blaine may be, and however suave his letter of acceptance, the 
 federative system of Hamilton is the framework of that platform. It was 
 repudiated by the people when they sustained a platform which contains 
 something beyond platitudes. The Democratic platform was inherited from 
 the days of Jefferson. What does it mean? Free commerce with all 
 nations, political connections with none. Hostility to monopoly by legisla 
 tion as violative of the equal rights of the people. No fostering of one 
 branch of industry to the detriment of another. The practice of the most 
 rigid economy in the conduct of public affairs. No more revenue than is 
 required to defray the necessary expenses of government. These doctrines 
 are a part of the Democratic platform of every state convention. The 
 Democratic platform adopted at Chicago on the loth of July, 1884, was not 
 made for the purpose of assisting the election of any one man President, 
 
THE PROFESSIONS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 68 1 
 
 even though he might be as honest as Grover Cleveland. That platform 
 was a declaration of principles adopted by representative men, who saw that 
 the Nation was growing older, and that new issues were born. They had 
 gone through many trials during the war, and they desired the preservation 
 of personal rights, and of the reserved rights of the states, while acknowl 
 edging the supremacy of the Federal Government within the limits of the 
 Constitution. These are the true bases of our liberties which the Democracy 
 could not surrender. When the condition of the country demanded a change 
 the Democracy made an indictment of the party which had been in power 
 for a quarter of a century. The indictment charged that the Republican 
 party during its legal, its stolen, and its bought tenures of power had steadily 
 decayed in moral character and political capacity. Its promises as to the 
 navy and shipping were failures. It was at war with its own professions as 
 to the public lands and small holdings. The indictment proceeds to say, that 
 that party has given away to railroads, and non-resident aliens, individual 
 and corporate, a larger area than that of all our farms between the two seas. 
 Has not the verdict sustained the indictment ? 
 
 The Republican party still professes a preference for free institutions : yet 
 it organized and tried to legalize a control of state elections by Federal 
 troops. It professes a desire to elevate labor : yet it subjected American work- 
 ingmen to the competition of convict labor and imported contract laborers. 
 It professes gratitude to all who were disabled or died in the war, leaving 
 widows and orphans : yet it left to a Democratic House of Representatives 
 the first effort to equalize both bounties and pensions. It proffers a pledge to 
 correct the irregularities of our tariff: yet it created and continued them. 
 Its own Tariff Commission confessed the need of more than twenty per cent, 
 reduction : yet its Representatives in Congress gave a reduction of less than 
 four per cent. It declares for the protection of American manufactures : yet 
 it subjected them to an increasing flood of home manufactured goods, and a 
 hopeless competition with manufacturing nations, not one of which taxes 
 raw materials. It professes to protect all American industries : yet it im 
 poverished many to subsidize a few. It professes the protection of Ameri 
 can labor : yet it depleted the returns of agriculture an industry followed 
 by half our people. It professes the equality of all men before the law : and 
 while attempting to fix the status of colored citizens, the acts of its Con 
 gresses were overset by the decisions of Republican courts. It " accepts 
 anew the duty of leading in the work of progress and reform " : yet its 
 detected criminals are permitted to escape through contrived delays or actual 
 connivance of the prosecution. Honeycombed with corruption, outbreaking 
 exposures have long since ceased to shock its moral sense. Its honest mem 
 bers, its independent journals, no longer maintain a successful contest for 
 authority in its counsels or support its bad nominations. That change of party 
 rule was necessary, is proved by an existing surplus of more than one hundred 
 
 43 
 
682 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 million dollars in excess of the needs of the government. Unnecessary taxa 
 tion is unjust taxation. The Republican party failed to relieve the people 
 from crushing war taxes, which, were it not for our immense resources, 
 would have paralyzed business, crippled industry, and deprived labor of em 
 ployment and its just reward. The Democracy pledges itself to purity of 
 administration, to economy, to respect for law, and to the reduction of taxa 
 tion to the lowest limit consistent with a due regard to the preservation of the 
 faith of the Nation to its creditors and pensioners. Knowing full well, how 
 ever, that legislation affecting the occupations of the people should be cau 
 tious and conservative in method, not in advance of public opinion, but 
 responsive to its demands, that party has pledged itself to revise the tariff 
 laws in a spirit of fairness to all interests. 
 
 In its latest platform the Democracy stands pledged to restore the econo 
 mies belonging to a fair and free government. They favor a continental 
 policy which would have accorded with the best sentiment of the days of 
 William L. Marcy. They are pledged in favor of honest money, for the 
 gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a paper circulating medium 
 convertible into such money without loss. Remembering the struggle to 
 which reference has been made in a preceding chapter, and in which Mr. 
 Hewitt, of New- York, led the debate in the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Con 
 gresses, it may be proudly claimed that the Democracy compelled a reluctant 
 Republican administration to assent to legislation which made everywhere 
 illegal the presence of Federal troops at the polls. This is one of the con 
 clusive proofs that a Democratic administration can preserve liberty with 
 order by constitutional methods. 
 
 On social and sumptuary matters the Democracy met the advances of lib 
 erty more than half way. In favoring an honest non-partisan civil service, 
 they will fulfill their pledges and their promises. In sympathizing with labor 
 in its just demands, they are as sincere in their professions as they have been 
 in their practices. In opposing the confirmation of unearned grants of the 
 public lands and demanding their forfeiture in the Congress which has just 
 expired, they have been true to the policy of reserving the public domain for 
 the use of the people. 
 
 While insisting that we shall have no entangling foreign policy, they ask 
 for a return to the old democratic policy of reciprocity, which will give us 
 a larger market for the varied products of our industry, a market which 
 under a quarter of a century of Republican rule became so limited that 
 scarcely a merchant flag remained upon the sea as evidence of our former 
 maritime prowess and adventure. 
 
 It was on this platform of Democratic principles that Gov. Grover 
 Cleveland, of New- York, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, were 
 nominated for President and Vice-President. 
 
 It would be invidious to make comparisons between the two leading can- 
 
RESTORATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO POWER. 683 
 
 didates before the people of this country in 1884. In fact > tnev present points 
 of contrast, rather than of comparison. The Republican candidate was no 
 new man in Federal politics, as was Governor Cleveland. 
 
 When one would compare James G. Elaine, that splendid glancing fig 
 ure in our politics, with the sedate, quiet, and unostentatious governor of 
 New- York, it is like comparing the electric flashings of the aurora borealis 
 to the stately movements of the rising sun, that source of growth and life. 
 Grover Cleveland was born in Essex County, New Jersey, in 1837. His 
 father was a Presbyterian clergyman. His family was ennobled through 
 many generations by honest men and women. Its most conspicuous mem 
 ber steadily advanced to high position. After serving as mayor of Buffalo, 
 Grover Cleveland became governor of the State of New- York. Since 
 then his star has been in the ascendant. Since his first vote was cast 
 he has been a Democrat of the best type. His election to the gubernatorial 
 chair by an astounding majority of two hundred thousand votes indicates 
 the fickleness of the popular breath. It was so tempestuous in his favor, that 
 he cannot fail to discern the power of that independent element to which he 
 is indebted for his first, as well as his more recent triumphs. That he 
 respects this element, is significant of his prudence and his gratitude. 
 
 Grover Cleveland is in his forty-eighth year. He has a powerful frame. 
 His manners are agreeable. He is liberal in his thoughts. He is a man of 
 democratic simplicity. He dislikes ostentation. The key-note to his char 
 acter is found in the moderation and frugality of his life. His firmness and 
 courage, and his deliberate judicious action mark him as a man of manliest 
 mould, and high capacity for leadership and administration. He is a Jeflfer- 
 sonian Democrat, honest, capable, and faithful to the Constitution. 
 
 In the election of 1884 the people expressed their national conscious 
 ness. In other words, there was a revolution which dethroned a corrupt 
 and effete party. In closing the last decade of this history, we see the 
 Democratic party restored to power, and at the head of our Nation, Grover 
 Cleveland. If Silas Wright deserved to be called by Thomas Benton the 
 Cato of America, may we not in tracing the life of the successor of Silas 
 Wright, from his birthplace, through childhood and as student, following 
 him through his professional career until his election as magistrate of a city 
 and then as governor of a great state, find many of the attributes of Wright, 
 and also something of the famous Roman ? In many ways the similitude 
 is striking ; and most in that he is truthful, honest, unselfish, kind hearted, 
 and devoted to the principles of Democracy and the welfare of the country. 
 
 Rome never needed a Cato more than America needed a man of similar 
 qualities, to free her from the gyves of corrupt politics. This Nation has 
 such a man for President. While others may falter in duty, he will stand 
 firm and true to the principles of the platform on which he was elected, and 
 observe and carry out his pledges of reform in letter and spirit. His need 
 
684 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 was so exigent that we may well stand appalled at the danger we have 
 escaped, and which threatened our free institutions. It needed a statesman 
 as courageous as Caesar and as honest as Cato to save our liberties from a 
 decadence worse than death ! 
 
 It is upon the same day of the week, and the same month, eighty-four 
 years after the inauguration of the first Democratic President, Thomas Jef 
 ferson, at the new city of Washington, that Grover Cleveland and Thomas 
 A. Hendricks are installed in their high offices. A contrast of the city of 
 1801 with the city of to-day will show something of the progress of our 
 country in all that makes up grandeur, extent, influence, prestige, and power. 
 Perhaps a more striking contrast would be that of the two inaugurations. 
 The first was as unostentatious as the village in which it occurred. The 
 second well became the capital of a mighty nation. There seemed to be no 
 end to the grand and imposing cavalcade which ushered in this new epoch. 
 No such display of men in line, or of enthusiasm at heart, has ever been 
 witnessed in any country. The cycle of our felicities closes with this grand 
 restoration of Democratic government ! After three decades of wandering 
 in the wilderness, the people at last have their representative men installed in 
 their great trusts. 
 
 The writer, in closing this volume at the commencement of a new regime, 
 cannot but recall the attempts of those who opposed the Democratic party in 
 its efforts for peace and harmony during the terrible struggles of the past three 
 decades. At length peace has come ! Slavery, the bete noir of our politics, 
 is no more. The constitutional amendments are acquiesced in. A majority 
 of the Southern members of Congress, on a resolution offered by the writer, 
 have affirmed their devotion to the Union, and asserted that secession is for 
 ever gone to the rearward and abysm. 
 
 The country is greatly changed. It is changed politically, socially, ma 
 terially, nationally. JVovus seculorum nascitur ordo. Our next census will 
 show sixty millions of people. By the end of the century it will show a 
 hundred millions. The questions of municipal independence, state rights, 
 and local self-government may come again ; but never again with so much 
 terrible consequence as in i86o-'6i. 
 
 In the judgment of the writer, it is only by guarding against the central 
 ization of government that the great diversity of interests in a Union of such 
 extent as ours can be harmonized, and individual rights be secured. The 
 doctrines of local independence and self-government have ever been the in 
 spiration of the writer. Without these doctrines our Union would be forever 
 endangered. By adhering to them it will fulfill the hopes and answer the 
 prayers of all true patriots. They furnish the key to unlock the magic cham 
 bers of our future. They are the safe and golden mean between the ex 
 tremes of faction. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 MATERIAL PROGRESS IN THREE DECADES. 
 
 RESULTS OF CENSUSES - OBJECT OF CENSUS FROM 1790 THE LEGISLATION FOR 
 THE TENTH CENSUS, OF 1880 ITS COMPLETENESS STAR OF EMPIRE AND 
 CENTRE OF POPULATION IN 1880 SOCIAL STATISTICS CENTENNIAL YEAR 
 OUR INCREASE FROM DECADE TO DECADE DETAILS OF ADVANCEMENT 
 FEDERAL TRADE AND TARIFF RESTRICTIONS HINDRANCES TO PHYSICAL 
 GROWTH ODDITIES OF THE CENSUS THE PUBLIC LANDS PRIMARY OB 
 JECT OF THE CENSUS THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION RE 
 SULT OF THE LAST APPORTIONMENT INCREASE OF THE SOUTH IN 
 POLITICAL POWER POPULATION, AND NOT VOTES, THE BASIS OUR 
 UNIQUE SYSTEM THE MUNIMENTS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY FOUNDED ON THE 
 CENSUS OF POPULATION OUR LIGHT OF LIBERTY. 
 
 IN the concluding chapters of this volume, which has reference to only 
 thirty years of our American history, there would be an incomplete 
 ness of etching if, amid the vicissitudes of war and peace, the advance 
 ment of the country were not more or less touched upon. No country 
 ever had better established data for the ascertainment of its progress than 
 the United States. It is no new remark that this country stands alone 
 among nations in its exhaustive state and federal system of registry or census, 
 beginning with the commencement of the government and extending down 
 to the present time. It has already taken ten national censuses. All of 
 these have had reference to the enumeration of the inhabitants required by 
 the Federal Constitution to be made once every decade. The primary object 
 of the constitutional provision is to fix the apportionment of representa 
 tives, and of direct taxes among the states. The matter of direct taxes has 
 become, for reasons not necessary to detail, obsolete. The apportionment 
 of representatives has passed through many and curious processes of legisla 
 tion. In the course of a decade, it would become almost impossible to 
 insure the indispensable prerequisite of fair representation for a rapidly in 
 creasing population like that of the several states, in a Federal polity like 
 ours, without a veracious return of their inhabitants. The first census, of 
 1790, merely undertook to require a return of the inhabitants. The second 
 census, of 1800, was like the first. The third was identical with the second. 
 But a grand stride was taken in 1810, on the first day of May, under the 
 direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin. He went outside 
 of the strict construction of the Constitution and undertook to have an ac- 
 
686 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 count of the manufacturing establishments and manufactures returned by the 
 census takers of the several districts. He was limited to an expenditure of 
 $30,000. How meagre that outlay in comparison with that of 1880, which 
 amounted to millions ! In the fourth census law, of 1820, the same provi 
 sions were re-enacted. In 1830, there was little change for the better in the 
 mode of taking the census. But in 1840, under the act of March 3, 1839, 
 for the sixth census, the census lists included revolutionary pensioners, man 
 ufacturing, agricultural, and educational statistics. A grand progress was 
 being made in our country at that time. The following decade showed 
 remarkable vitality in the Republic. The star of empire was moving rapidly 
 to the westward. Wealth was following its course. Bankruptcies and 
 crises also followed ; but the railroad, the steamship, and the telegraph began 
 to foreshadow an approaching revolution in all that would make material 
 progress and physical grandeur. Immigration began to set in, especially 
 from Ireland, whence the famine drove out fabulous numbers of people. 
 These interesting features of our advancement led to a better law. It was 
 enacted on May 3, 1850. Under it the censuses of 1850, 1860, and 1870 
 were taken. And yet, owing to our swift progress, that law turned out to 
 be very inadequate and imperfect, as applied to the condition of things in 
 1870 and 1880. It then seemed to be so clumsy, antiquated, and barbarous, 
 as applied to the new conditions of life in America, that, in the language of 
 Superintendent Walker, it was as the smooth-bore, muzzle-loading queen's- 
 arm of the Revolution, to the repeating rifle of the present time. The law 
 needed radical change, if not repeal. It was the privilege of the author to 
 take a part in forwarding the amendments of General Garfield's bill for the 
 census of 1870. One of the features of that bill was to delegate the power 
 of taking the census to supervisors and special enumerators, and to take the 
 business away from the United States marshals, who, for very many reasons 
 not necessary to be named, were incompetent and untrustworthy. This bill 
 failed, not in the House but in the Senate. 
 
 The author introduced a bill for the tenth census of 1880, which substan 
 tially became a law on the 3d of March, 1879. ^ f* xe d the cost of the work 
 at three millions, but, as it turned out, a larger sum became necessary, owing 
 to the multitude of statistics collected outside of the mere registry of popu 
 lation. Under that law it was requisite, on or before the ist of March, 1880, 
 to designate the number of supervisors of census to be appointed in each 
 state and territory. Various other provisions were made, by which the enu 
 merators who acted under the supervisors were required to visit each dwell 
 ing-house and family, and obtain certain information in addition to statistics 
 of population. But there was an additional provision in that law which 
 authorized the employment of a number of experts on certain subjects con 
 nected with our physical progress. Their reports have not yet been fully 
 printed. And although many misadventures have occurred in relation to 
 the completion of the census according to the design of its authors, yet, by 
 
THE TENTH CENSUS, OF 1880. 687 
 
 the general consent of all statisticians, there never has been made for man 
 kind, in any nation, such a stupendous collection of facts upon which to base 
 political representation and discuss questions of social science. Nearly 
 every review in Germany, Great Britain, France, and other countries where 
 intelligence has ruled upon this subject, has commended this remarkable 
 census. 
 
 The census of 1870 was, in sbme states, an unreliable and slovenly per 
 formance. The conditions just after the war, in the South, were too chaotic 
 for accuracy and completeness, even in the simple matter of population. 
 No fault, however, was found with the census work of 1880, that was not 
 promptly corrected, even by a second taking of the population. The work 
 of enumeration, which began on the first Monday of June, was completed, 
 so far as it related to population, within the month, viz. : by the ist of July 
 following. In cities of over ten thousand inhabitants it was completed 
 within two weeks. The census was thus taken, as to population, in a shorter 
 time than ever before. 
 
 The writer may be partial to the census work, but he cannot omit, in a 
 book on Federal legislation, some mention of that which gives us the most 
 perspicuous and methodical account of the improvement of our country in 
 the three decades comprehended by this history. The Compendium of the 
 Tenth Census, if not the more elaborate volumes themselves, is within the 
 reach of the people. The schedules are intelligible. The special and novel 
 inquiries, and their responses, as to railway, telegraph, and express and in 
 surance companies, and especially matters connected with manufactures and 
 agriculture in every form and variety of human product, have had their full 
 return in this census. Accurate and reliable statistics have been secured for 
 the first time in these various modes of business, and in bulk the material 
 collected and published has been double that obtained by any former census. 
 In relation to taxation and the public debt, no such return has ever been 
 made to the authorities of any other nation. The tabular statement as to 
 population shows that from 1 790, when we reached nearly four millions of 
 people, to 1880, when our population became 50,155,783, there has been no 
 such national progress made in any other country, within the like period. 
 To go back only to 1860, so as to bring it specially within the field of the 
 observations in this volume, it will be seen that the population in that year 
 was rising of thirty millions, or 31,443,321. So that, since we started in 
 our career in 1 790, we increased our population nearly thirteen times ; and 
 since 1860, we have nearly doubled our population ! 
 
 A fanciful way of exhibiting our progress, is that adopted in our last cen 
 sus volumes by graphic maps and diagrams. But nothing shows more strik 
 ingly the march of this Nation across the continent than the large census 
 map of 1880 which illustrates the movement of the " centre of population." 
 By the centre of population is meant "the point at which equilibrium would 
 be reached were the country taken as a plane surface, itself without weight, 
 
688 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 but capable of sustaining weight, and loaded with its inhabitants, in num 
 ber and position as they are found at the period under consideration, each 
 individual being assumed to be of the same gravity as every other, and con 
 sequently to exert pressure on the pivotal point directly proportionate to his 
 distance therefrom. It is the centre of gravity of the population of the 
 country." 
 
 According to the calculations of the census office, this centre in 1880 was 
 in latitude 39 04' 08", and longitude, 84 39' 40". The position of the 
 Old Observatory, at Mount Adams, Cincinnati, is : latitude, 39 06' 26.5" ; 
 longitude, 84 29' 45" . 
 
 The centre of gravity for 1880 was, therefore, 2.6 miles south of this 
 observatory and 8.9 miles west of it. That is, it is 9.3 miles west by south 
 from the observatory, or eight miles west by south from the heart of the city 
 of Cincinnati. This places it in Kentucky, one mile from the south bank of 
 the Ohio River, and a mile and a half southeast of the village of Taylors- 
 ville. Since the census statement was made this centre has changed, and, 
 doubtless, five millions of population have been added to the national pivot 
 pressure, as a climax of the author's three decades. 
 
 Table XV. in Volume I. of the Census Reports for 1880, with an accom 
 panying map. shows the westward movement of the centre of our popula 
 tion from the first census of 1790, until the last census of 1880, as follows : 
 
 TABLE XV. POSITION OF THE CENTRE OF POPULATION. 
 
 Date. 
 
 North 
 Latitude. 
 
 West 
 
 Longitude. 
 
 APPROXIMATE LOCATION BY IMPORTANT TOWNS. 
 
 Westward 
 Movements 
 By Decades. 
 
 1790 
 I800 
 
 1810 
 
 1820 
 l8 3 
 
 o / 
 
 39 l6 -5 
 39 l6 - r 
 39 "-5 
 
 39 5-7 
 38 57-9 
 
 / 
 
 76 11.2 
 76 S^.S 
 
 77 37-2 
 
 78 33-o 
 79 l6 -9 
 
 23 miles east of Baltimore, Maryland, 
 1 8 miles west of Baltimore, Maryland, 
 40 miles northwest by west of Washing 
 ton, District of Columbia, .... 
 1 6 miles north of Woodstock, Virginia, . 
 19 miles west- south west of Moorfield, 
 
 Miles. 
 
 4 1 
 
 36 
 50 
 
 ^Q 
 
 1840 
 
 39 2 - 
 
 80 18.0 
 
 1 6 miles south of Clarksburg, West Vir 
 ginia. ... 
 
 07 
 
 rtr 
 
 1850 
 
 38 59-o 
 
 81 19.0 
 
 23 miles southeast of Parkersburg, West 
 "Virsfima .... 
 
 j j 
 
 rtr 
 
 1860 
 1870 
 1880 
 
 39 o-4 
 39 I2 - 
 39 4- 1 
 
 82 48.8 
 83 35-7 
 84 39-7 
 
 20 miles south of Chillicothe, Ohio, . 
 48 miles east by north of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 8 miles west by south of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Total, 
 
 DJ 
 
 Si 
 
 42 
 
 58 
 
 4-^7 
 
 
 
 
 
 TO/ 
 
SOCIAL STATISTICS. 689 
 
 The author confesses his inability to apply the figures of this table to the 
 elucidation of any social or political problem. They may be a treasure for 
 future metaphysical investigation, in weighing or computing the influences 
 of the individual mental forces of our population, converging to and radiating 
 from the common centre of the mental forces of the whole people ! 
 
 There are two values to be appreciated in the matter of census-taking. 
 The first is that which has reference to social statistics, and the second that 
 which has reference to the apportionment of representatives among the peo 
 ple. The one is broadly scientific and the other is exclusively political. 
 
 As to the first, it may be remarked that the vast extension of our system 
 of railway and telegraph, the dash of our people across prairies and moun 
 tain ranges, overcoming all seeming impediments, and regardless of all res 
 ervations, the discovery of rich deposits of iron, coal, silver, gold, copper, 
 and other materials, the enlarging of the industries occasioned by these 
 discoveries, and the multiplication and development of wealth make the 
 census of 1880, which illustrates this progress, a marvel of completeness and 
 a reservoir of information. For the purpose of studying political and social 
 economy, or sociology in any form, all the generalizations which philosophy 
 would draw by induction and comparison of facts have been made possible 
 by the returns of this tenth census. Nor should it be forgotten, that amid 
 the changes of parties and the devastation of war, referred to at length in 
 former chapters, we have grown up a new country and almost a new class 
 of inhabitants. We have been careless of registering births and deaths. 
 We have no elaborate tables of diseases and longevities, and some phases of 
 social disorder have been neglected, but the time is coming at the end of our 
 eleven decades, when full and exact information respecting them will be 
 demanded by the people with clamorous urgency, not merely that we may 
 be prepared for the consideration of social problems, but that we may be 
 advised of the magnitude of the population, and also of the intelligence of 
 the country which is the foundation of our representative system. Without 
 an exact knowledge of our country and its resources, who can educate, and 
 who can legislate ? Never was there a greater demand than at present for 
 men trained in statistical facts and history. Their study leads to general 
 justice as well as to the advancement of truth. They are codes of jurispru 
 dence and litanies of learning. 
 
 The close of the second decade of this book brought us into the centennial 
 year. Our immense war debt had been largely reduced. The burdens of 
 taxation were gradually being lightened. Our financial system, with its 
 rank issues of paper money, was being reformed. These were signs of prog- 
 ress. They presented the American people to the world, not in the light 
 of decadence, either in their commerce or domestic progress, but, in spite of 
 all restrictive laws, in spite of warlike combinations, in spite of the great 
 
6pO THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 distraction among our states, in spite of our unexampled bloody conflict, as 
 having been lifted up by our progressive elements upon a higher plane of 
 national existence. From 1790 to 1880 our rate of decennial increase of 
 population was almost uniform. It has scarcely ever been less than thirty 
 per centum, except between 1860 and 1870, when it was only twenty-two 
 and one-half per centum. If the former ratios are maintained during the 
 next two decades, and they have been as high as thirty-six per centum from 
 1840 to 1850, who can measure the magnitude of interests involved at the 
 end of the present century, with a hundred millions of people, and with a 
 restless population steadily moving westward and southward, filling up vast 
 arable spaces of the continent, and developing its great resources. It must 
 also be remembered that hardly one-fourth of our vast territory of three mil 
 lions of square miles is under cultivation. It cannot be forgotten that by 
 the acquisition of Louisiana, under Democratic auspices, our empire over 
 leaped the Mississippi ; and that by the annexation of Texas in 1845, the 
 Texas cession of 1850, and our Mexican acquisition, all under the same 
 auspices, there was added a domain nearly equal to the states north of the 
 line of the Ohio, and east of the Mississippi. In other words, the United 
 States of 1800 was a country only about one-third as large in domain as it is 
 to-day. How is this empire inhabited ? By whom ? What are their occu 
 pations, productions, and resources? These questions are answered in the 
 Census Reports. 
 
 It is impossible to give here even a summary of the contents of the sev 
 eral large volumes which include the returns of the census of 1880, thus far 
 published. From the industrial statistics, however, a few important figures 
 may be selected. In 1850, the number of manufacturing establishments in 
 the United States was said to be 123,029 ; in 1860, there were 140,433 ; and in 
 1870, 252,148; in 1880, there appears to have been no more than 253,840. 
 The trifling increase in the number of establishments during the decade after 
 1870 is no indication of retarded progress. But it indicates the tendency of 
 the larger establishments to swallow up the smaller ones. This suggests a 
 serious question. In 1850, the capital invested in manufactures was returned 
 as $533,245,351 ; in 1860, as $1,009,855,715; in 1870,35 $2,118,208,769; 
 and in 1880, as $2,790,223,506. The number of persons employed in manu 
 facturing establishments was returned for the respective years as follows : for 
 1850, 958,079; for 1860, 1,311,246; for 1870, 2,053,996; for 1880, 2,738,- 
 950. In 1880, the total population so employed was composed of the follow 
 ing persons: 181,918 children; 53^753 females over fifteen years; and 
 2,025,279 males over sixteen years. In 1850, the wages paid in such estab 
 lishments amounted to $236,755,464 ; in 1860, $378,878,966 ; in 1870, $755,- 
 584,343 ; and in 1880, $947,919,674. That is, in 1880, the weekly wages 
 paid for each working man, woman, and child was about $6.65, or $1.11 a 
 
FEDERAL TRADE AND TARIFF RESTRICTIONS. 691 
 
 day. The average earnings of the males over sixteen years of age was 
 probably about $1.18 a day, for a full year. The materials consumed were 
 valued in 1850 at $555,174,320; in 1860, at $1,031,605,092; in 1870, at 
 $2,488,427,242; and in 1880, at $3,394,340,029. The products in 1850 
 were valued at $1,019,109,616; in 1860, at $1,885,861,676; in 1870, at 
 $4,232,325,442 ; and in 1880, at $5,369,667,706. By deducting the value of 
 the materials used, and the wages paid, from the value of the products, the 
 reader will find that for the year 1880 there was a return of $1,027,408,003 
 to the capital sum of $2,790,223,506 invested that year in our manufacturing 
 business, which is equal to nearly thirty-seven per centum of the capital. 
 These figures also suggest a serious question, one which the author has 
 most earnestly discussed over and over again in Congress, at almost every 
 session, during the past three decades. It is involved in the tariff question ; 
 and it is the key to the solution of that question. 
 
 It cannot be ignored that the changes in the law or its interpretation, are 
 more or less influential in changing economic situations. The prosperity of 
 the country may depend on a tariff schedule. A law of Congress may affect 
 transportation to sea-board and inland. The sale of our farm products 
 abroad depends on railroad freights and international reciprocity. Depres 
 sions in business are relieved and products are brought to market, under 
 conditions that are quasi if not wholly political. Increased cost of trans 
 portation adds, of course, to the cost of bread and meat. The consumer 
 pays the cost. A mite of difference in cost of transportation may make or 
 unmake a market. But the grand burden upon productive labor is not 
 revealed in the pages of the Census Reports. It consists in our unwise restric 
 tive legislation upon commerce in ships and interchanges between nations. 
 When we forbid free buying we stop free selling. Our policy is not yet 
 liberalized. The recent decades would show more thrift and increase in the 
 wealth of our nation, if there had been more repealing of customs duties and 
 fewer statutory restraints imposed upon the natural energies of the people. 
 
 In this quickening of the national pulse, this grand transformation of 
 wildernesses into domains of enterprise and activity, one cannot forget how 
 much government, and especially political parties, have to dp in the forma 
 tion and development of the condition of a country, and its occupations and 
 their changes. A law of Congress may divert industry from one occupation 
 to another, and thus enhance or decrease the value of such occupation as an 
 instrument of economy and progress, or ruin. In this connection, abundant 
 illustration may be found in our tariff and revenue laws. The census of 
 1880 reveals the fact, that in proportion to the same number of milliners and 
 dressmakers the previous census year, this class has become more numerous 
 in the ratio of 2.21 to i ; button-makers, 2.00 to i ; shirtmakers, 2.9 to i ; 
 sewing-machine operators, 1.78 to i ; launderers and laundresses, 1.37 to i ; 
 
692 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 silk-mill operators, 4.1 to i ; cotton and woolen mill operatives, each as i.io 
 to i ; jewelers, as i.io to i ; and dentists, as 1.13 to i. A thousand other 
 illustrations are deducible, so that we may infer from a few indicia, as 
 Macaulay did respecting certain matters connected with social life in the time 
 of the Stuarts, what the business of the country is in all its ramifications. 
 Our farmers have increased relatively in the ratio of only i .02 to i , although 
 small farms have not been merged into the greater. Labor has been econo 
 mized, and proprietors have remained and subsisted upon their farms, with 
 such labor as might be saved. In farming, manufacturing, and mining, pro 
 duction exceeds the home demands ; therefore, to maintain free labor, there 
 must soon be free commerce in free ships. 
 
 The farm is the foundation of our varied industries. The national do 
 main is the grand source of our prosperity. Including Alaska and its 
 islands, that domain is estimated at 3,586,006 square miles, or 2,295,043,340 
 acres. Of this area, 1,589,900,800 acres were acquired by the purchases 
 mentioned in a previous chapter, at a cost of $88,157,389.98. The Alaska 
 addition of 369,529,600 acres, at a cost of $7,200,000, was made under a 
 Republican administration. For all the other additions, the Democratic 
 party is entitled to the credit. The title to the lands thus acquired was 
 vested in the general government, as a public trust for the benefit of the 
 people. Besides these lands, the general government acquired title to 25^,- 
 171,787 acres of domain, with the like trust, by cessions from the states of 
 Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, New- York, Connecticut, and 
 Massachusetts, making a grand total of 1,849,072,587 acres of public land 
 acquisitions. It is estimated that on June 30, 1880, there remained 1,270,- 
 708,038 acres of these lands, subject to disposition by the general govern 
 ment, of which 204,802,711 acres were surveyed. Alaska is included in 
 this estimate. Deducting unearned grants to railroads, estimated at 110,- 
 000,000 acres ; private land claims, patented and unpatented, estimated at 
 80,000,000 acres ; and military and Indian reservations, estimated at 157,- 
 356,952 acres, the total public domain undisposed of on that date was 
 about 1,160,708,038 acres; or, in the language of the official report on our 
 public domain, an area " equal to 7,254,425 homesteads of 160 acres each." 
 From these figures it would appear that up to June 30, 1880, about 578,- 
 364,549 acres of public land had been disposed of by the government of the 
 United States. The official estimate is 547,754,483 acres. Up to that date 
 the net receipts to the treasury, from sales for cash and from fees and 
 commissions on account of the disposition of the lands, amounted to $208,- 
 059,657.14, of which $7,356,808.03 was paid to certain states, on account 
 of certain percentages allowed by law on receipts for the lands sold within 
 their borders. 
 
 Our public land account on July i, 1880, is officially stated as follows : 
 
THE PUBLIC LANDS. 693 
 
 For purchases and cessions, $88,157,38998 
 
 For surveying and disposition, 46,563,302 07 
 
 For purchases of the Indian occupancy title, . . . 187,328,903 91 
 
 Total cost, $322,049,595 96 
 
 Net cash receipts, 200,702,849 n 
 
 Cost of public lands in excess of receipts, . . . $121,346,74685 
 
 The cost up to that date, including purchase, acquisition of Indian title, ex 
 penses of survey, and of disposition of lands, was about 17$ cents per acre. 
 The public benefit is incalculable. 
 
 The reader would like to know how this public land trust has been 
 guarded, and for what purposes the public domain of the people has been 
 disposed of. The following figures which are the most important items 
 will give an idea on this subject. They cover a period commencing with 
 the origin of our government, and ending on June 30, 1880 : 
 
 ACRES. 
 
 Pre-emptions of 160 acres each, and cash sales, . . . 169,832,564 
 
 Military and naval service land bounties, .... 61,028,430 
 
 Homesteads of 160 acres, more or less, ..... 55,667,044 
 
 Farms under graduation act, ....... 25,696,419 
 
 Grants for support of schools and colleges, .... 78,659,439 
 
 Grants to states for internal improvements, .... 7,806,554 
 
 Grants to states of swamp and overflowed lands, . . . 69,206,522 
 
 Grants to railroad corporations, patented, .... 45,650,026 
 
 Grants for canals and military wagon-roads, .... 5,725,113 
 
 Entered under timber-culture act, ...... 9,346,660 
 
 If the reader will refer to Table XLIIL, in the Compendium of the Tenth 
 Census, he can compute, by excluding the area of the old thirteen states and 
 of Tennessee and Texas, how much of the above acreage has gone into 
 farms. In 1880 the total acreage of our farms was 536,081,835 acres. A 
 hasty glance down the table will show that more than half of this acreage is 
 in states and territories carved out of ceded and acquired lands. In other 
 words, under the Democratic policy of acquiring new territory for the peo 
 ple, our great farming interests have been extended from the Alleghany 
 Mountains to the Pacific Ocean ; and notwithstanding the extravagant Re 
 publican administration of our national land trust, there still remains an area 
 sufficient for between six and seven million homesteads, homes and support 
 for thirty-five millions of people more than are now provided for. In 1850 
 our farm acreage was 293,560,614 acres; in 1860 it was 407,212,538; in 
 1870 it was 407,735,041; and in 1880 it was 536,081,835. In 1850 our 
 farm acreage of unimproved land, included in the above, was 180,528,000 ; 
 in 1860 it was 244,101,818 ; in 1870 it was 218,813,942, and in 1880 it was 
 
694 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 251,310,793. Is not this making glad the waste places of our prosperous 
 land ? How much greater would have been our agricultural development, 
 if peace had reigned from 1860 to 1870? The retardment is marked by the 
 figures above given. The greater portion of our agricultural development 
 is due to the pre-emption and military bounty system, both Democratic 
 measures. The first pre-emption law was passed on March 3, 1801. Up to 
 1841, sixteen acts were passed for the improvement of this system of secur 
 ing the soil to the actual tiller. Any head of family, widow, or single man 
 over twenty-one years of age, who is a citizen of the United States, or has 
 declared an intention to become a citizen, may secure 160 acres of public 
 land under this system, at a nominal price, wherever it is open for settle 
 ment. 
 
 The homestead system was formulated as a political issue by the Free 
 Soil Democracy in 1852. In a national convention held that year at Pitts- 
 burg, they declared that the public land should be granted free of cost, in 
 limited quantities to the people ; and that it should not be sold to individuals 
 or granted to corporations. During the next ten years, various efforts were 
 made to pass a homestead law. Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, was one 
 of the original promoters of the system that was finally adopted. In its 
 crude state it encountered much opposition, being hampered with proposed 
 grants of enormous areas of public land to the new states. President 
 Buchanan, in vetoing one bill, reminded Congress that the old states, which 
 had ceded a large domain, and which had aided the government to acquire 
 so much of its public land, had an interest in these lands that should not 
 be overlooked. That bill was also objectionable in that it disfavored for 
 eigners who came to make a home in our country. Mr. Buchanan men 
 tioned several other objectionable features, and the bill failed. 
 
 Finally, in 1862, another homestead bill passed the House of Repre 
 sentatives by a vote of 107 to 16, and the Senate by a vote of 33 to 7. On 
 May 20, 1862, President Lincoln affixed his signature to this bill, and it 
 became a law. Since that time, over fifty-five million acres of the public 
 domain have been entered under the homestead law, which gives free to the 
 actual settler 160 acres. 
 
 The Democratic and Republican parties are entitled to divide honors on 
 the establishment of the railroad land grant system, but not in respect to the 
 administration of that system. The grant to the Illinois Central Railroad, 
 in 1850, was the first large one. It gave alternate sections of 640 acres, 
 within six-mile limits on each side of the track. After July, 1862, the 
 grants to the Pacific and other railroads grew, and grew, until from six miles 
 on each side, the limits were extended to ten, twenty, forty, and even fifty 
 miles on each side of the railroad ! For this excess of liberality the grantees 
 owe no gratitude to the Democratic party. The latter party has long since 
 called a halt in such an extravagant and riotous breach of trust in regard to 
 
RESULT OF THE LAST APPORTIONMENT. 
 
 695 
 
 the "heritage of the people." Undoubtedly the country has been greatly 
 benefited by the extension of railroads, which this extravagant government 
 aid made possible. The land grant railroads have connected the landless 
 with the lands, and given an outlet to the products of millions of acres, 
 which would otherwise not have been reclaimed. Had the grants been con 
 fined to necessary aids, the same benefits would have accrued to the people, 
 and much corruption and national scandal been avoided. Some efforts have 
 been made in Congress to reclaim unearned railroad grants ; and it is due to 
 the people that these efforts should be continued until a successful settlement 
 is effected. This may be done without injustice to grantees, and without 
 retarding that national progress, of which the figures of the tenth census 
 and this sketch of our public domain will give an outline to the reader. 
 
 The primary object of the census is the apportionment of power. It 
 was for this purpose that the framers of the Federal Constitution incor 
 porated in it a peremptory requirement that a decennial census should be 
 taken. When the census returns of 1880 showed the population of the 
 country to be 50,155,783, Congress addressed itself to the task of re 
 arranging the apportionment of Representatives. The work was begun in 
 the Forty-sixth Congress. It was completed in the first session of the Forty- 
 seventh Congress. The plan proposed in the Forty-sixth Congress by the 
 author was finally adopted, although the number of Representatives which 
 he suggested, 307, was changed finally to 325. The author's plan was not 
 altogether new. Although it involved a conflict with the census office, it 
 works harmoniously. He proposed that after Congress should have fixed 
 upon the number of members of the Lower House, the whole population, 
 omitting that of the territories and the District of Columbia, should be a 
 dividend for that number, and the quotient should be the basis of representa 
 tion for each member. But, on the division of the population of the states 
 so as to ascertain the number of members for each state, there would be a 
 remainder. Was this to be unrepresented ? The loss in the number of mem 
 bers corresponding to the fractions in the several states was to be compen 
 sated for, as nearly as might be, by assigning to the states having the largest 
 fractions an additional member each, so as to make up the whole number of 
 Representatives. According to this plan, the law making an apportionment 
 of Representatives in Congress among the several states under the tenth 
 census, approved Feb. 25, 1882, provided that after the 3d of March, 1883, 
 the House of Representatives should be composed of 325 members, to be 
 apportioned as follows : 
 
 Alabama, 8 
 
 Arkansas, 5 
 
 California, 6 
 
 Colorado, l 
 
 Connecticut, 4 
 
 Delaware, . , i 
 
 Florida, 2 
 
 Georgia, V . 10 
 
6 9 6 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Illinois, 20 
 
 Indiana, 13 
 
 Iowa, ii 
 
 Kansas, 7 
 
 Kentucky, 11 
 
 Louisiana, 6 
 
 Maine, 4 
 
 Maryland, 6 
 
 Massachusetts, 12 
 
 Michigan, n 
 
 Minnesota, 5 
 
 Mississippi, 7 
 
 Missouri, 14 
 
 Nebraska, 3 
 
 Nevada, i 
 
 New Hampshire, 2 
 
 New Jersey, 7 
 
 New-York, 34 
 
 North Carolina, o, 
 
 Ohio, 21 
 
 Oregon, i 
 
 Pennsylvania, 28 
 
 Rhode Island, 2 
 
 South Carolina, 7 
 
 Tennessee, 10 
 
 Texas, 11 
 
 Vermont, 2 
 
 Virginia, 10 
 
 West Virginia, 4 
 
 Wisconsin, 9 
 
 The law further provided that whenever a new state is admitted to the 
 Union, the Representative or Representatives assigned to it shall be in 
 addition to the number 325 ; and that in each state the number of Represent 
 atives to which such state may be entitled in the Forty-eighth and each subse 
 quent Congress, shall be elected from districts composed of contiguous terri 
 tory, and containing, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of inhabitants. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the dominant political element which is sup 
 posed to reside in the Democratic party, and the dominant portion of that 
 party which is supposed to reside in the Southern States, have become dom 
 inant under a fair census of the population, by the constitutional addition of 
 electors for President and Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress, 
 whereby this ascendency has been greatly secured. When, therefore, such 
 statesmen as Mr. Blaine attribute too much power to the South in propor 
 tion to the votes cast, and refer to that section as a possibly controlling element 
 in our politics ; when such an accomplished writer inveighs against such 
 domination, after the methods revealed in the early chapters of this book, 
 it is well to understand the very basis of our representative government. It 
 is just to emphasize the fact that the right to representation in Congress and 
 in the Electoral College does not lie in voting, but in population ; that all 
 except Indians not taxed, are counted ; that negroes are not counted by the 
 three-fifths rule as persons, and two-fifths as property ; but that with other 
 revolutions, their equal status has been evolved ; that votes are not the test of 
 power or its division among states or sections ; and that it is upon the popu 
 lation that the splendid structure of the Federal system is founded. 
 
 The theory of our government is vindicated, in spite of all adverse criti 
 cism, in this one fact, that in the Federal system no state is great and no state 
 small. Each has equal representation in the Senate. All are counted in 
 
OUR UNIQUE SYSTEM. 697 
 
 certain relations as states, irrespective of population. But in the House of 
 Representatives, where the people are most nearly represented, there is every 
 ten years a power to rectify any inequality of states. Let us be thankful for 
 a peaceably ordained constitutional revolution. It moves like the earth in its 
 orbit, with happy alternation of grateful night, prolific day, and benignant 
 seasons. If the smaller states complain of being overbalanced in the House, 
 we must remember that in the Senate and the Electoral College their equi 
 librium is maintained, substantially and potentially. Let them bow grace 
 fully to the inevitable. If larger states, or any number of states, lose a mem 
 ber of Congress each, the Senate by the terms of the Constitution is unalter 
 able for them also, and their voice is that of an equal and of a power in this 
 body. If in other states there is to be an increase, let us proudly remember 
 that it is the increase of the country and of the popular branch which has 
 not always kept pace with the senatorial increase. It is the growth of our 
 system in all its far-reaching influences by a law greater than the Constitution. 
 These changes should not be left to chance for their representation. So that 
 whether the states be great or small, West or East, North or South, their 
 relative equality and equal dignity is vindicated. "Self-reverent each, and 
 reverencing each ; distinct in individuality ; but like each other, even as those 
 who love." 
 
 There is in the legislative organisms of no other country any semblance to 
 the American system of enumeration and popular representation. Opulence, 
 dignities, titles, vassalage, municipalities, and classes have had their obse 
 quious representatives in all ages and countries, and now and then, by some 
 wild convulsion, the common people, in a fierce, unequal way, have had their 
 will expressed in legislation ; but as a general rule the people have been un 
 represented, either because of an unfair local distribution of the representation 
 or by the suppression of the franchise. Our Federal system of representation 
 is in every sense republican in fact, form, and spirit. What is representation 
 in a political sense? Rousseau has denied its legitimacy as an agent of 
 society ; Guizot combats the theory that individual will is the source of 
 sovereignty, and holds to the doctrine that no individual will has in itself any 
 right to power except it conform to reason. These metaphysical distinctions 
 have been spun into such a thin fibre that by one side it has been held that 
 when you have supplied yourself with a representative you are no longer free. 
 You have lost your sovereignty over your will, and given it a master. The 
 other side retorts : " Your personal will is insufficient for order and security. 
 You employ a servant. He is your slave. You give him suffrage, only to 
 execute your sovereign will." 
 
 So that, whether we individually consent to that which our deputy does 
 or omits, we are bound by his act as representing us. Even the minority, by 
 the theory of our system, impliedly consents to the will of the majority, and 
 thus there is practical unanimity. This is the refinement of our system. 
 44 
 
698 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 But it may be asked whether with this popular basis and its grand results, 
 we have not the same greed for gain, ambition to excel, love of rule, desire 
 for intrigue, and play of unruly prejudice, jealousy, and passion which have 
 made the history of other nations tragical even to their decline and fall. 
 There can be but one answer to this question. Intelligence and morality are 
 the only conservative elements of a republic. 
 
 While we remain an intelligent, moral people, who shall compete with us 
 in our abundant harvests, our rich balances of trade, our increase in com 
 merce and expansion of labor, our influx of precious metals, and our inex 
 haustible mines of coal, iron, copper, gold, and silver. Our exportations 
 and importations, our marvelous immigration, our stupendous inter-state 
 communications and their incomes and outgoes by rail, canal, lake, river, 
 and sea, our inventive faculty, with its miracles of manufacture, and above 
 all and beyond all, our movement westward from ever-renewing centres of a 
 restless population, which in a century has added fifty millions of souls to our 
 active energies, are unparalleled in the history of nations. 
 
 What is the vitalizing and ennobling principle of our civilization, and the 
 warrant for its preservation? That warrant is in the virtue, schools, and in 
 telligence of the whole people, who, receiving their broad inheritance en 
 dowed in the eons past by geology and its changes with an opulence of 
 fertility and wealth, have transmuted it beyond the dreams of alchemy into 
 manifold and magnificent values, and spread their domain since 1790 from a 
 little strip along the Atlantic into continental proportions, reaching from sea 
 to sea. That principle of civilization is our representative system, which 
 strikes no name, however humble or dependent, from the peerage of the 
 American Republic. 
 
 England may boast of her rule in Asia, Africa, and Ireland, and proudly 
 echo the praise which her laureate lavishes on her, as a land of settled gov 
 ernment, of just and old renown, and of freedom broadening slowly from 
 precedent to precedent ; but she has no popular representation in her Parlia 
 ment founded on the equal rights of all the people. It was left to her Ameri 
 can colonies, a century ago, in this new hemisphere, by a written constitution, 
 to erect a muniment, high and splendid, around the temple of liberty, and 
 to guard it with a unity and force which the division and variety made by 
 mountain and river, and the strong passions of hostile armies, could neither 
 sever nor overcome. Within that muniment, our composite society is assured 
 of protection, stability, and progress. In rearing it every one has builded 
 over against his own house, as in the days of dismantled Jerusalem ; so that 
 through the whole mass of our living people, freedom broadens decennially, 
 not from precedent to precedent, but like the bole of the oak, by its inner 
 growth drawn from the soil, sun, and sky, into an intense robust life, which 
 has defied the tempests of the past century, and under God's guidance will 
 defy the storms of centuries to come ! 
 
THE MUNIMENTS OF PUBLIC LIBERTY. 699 
 
 It is nearly four hundred years since Columbus set in the forehead of his 
 time the jewels of Isabella, the Catholic. The people whom she ruled saw 
 the sails of his caravel expand under favoring breezes from the Andalusian 
 strand, to find a new continent, and found a new empire ! Then the red 
 man held undisputed barbaric sway over the vast regions now embraced 
 within our limits. Here, since, arose institutions whose attractive forces 
 created, from out of the loins of the Old World, a nation of freemen. Since 
 then, like the oak, our greatness has expanded, ring on ring. We have 
 spread our boughs from sea to sea! Our country, with its institutions 
 of benevolence and learning, its wealth, splendor, commerce, and liberties, 
 has become the cynosure of all eyes and the refuge of all lands. It is a 
 fitting tribute to our position, history, and freedom, that the genius of re 
 publican France is, as we write, sending to us for exaltation within the 
 waters of our great metropolis, the image of Liberty lifting up a lighted 
 torch, as a beacon of promise and symbol of enlightenment to all who 
 traverse the broad seas and seek our asylum. It is our duty to see that the 
 emblem loses nothing of its splendid significance. May it never be said 
 to us, as De Tocqueville said to France : " Are your principles losing 
 their force by your example ? Does your application of them lead the 
 world to doubt their truth ? Are your regenerating principles the glory 
 and most precious portion of your history leading the nations to a happier 
 future, or dragging them down after you in moral degradation ? " With 
 vestal vigilance let these principles be ever watched ! We need not repair 
 to the golden urns of other skies to re-illume the light which shines like 
 the stars upon our ensign. The youthful, exultant, and defiant spirit of Free 
 dom here enshrined and consecrated fills the land with a common senti 
 ment concerning the Republic, which is the essence of patriotism, and will 
 shed around the splendid gift of our sister republic of the Old World, not 
 the lurid glare which leads astray, but an aureole " only not divine," whose 
 effulgence will make glad the struggling people of all lands, aspiring to a 
 better future. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abolitionists, their motto, 50. 
 
 Cause of proscription of, 51. 
 
 Support of nullification, 63. 
 
 Vindicated by loose construc 
 tion of the preamble of the 
 Constitution, 36. 
 Abolition of slavery, constitu 
 tional mode of accomplish 
 ing, 322. 
 
 Abbott, Josiah G., member 
 electoral commission, 650. 
 
 Proposition in the electoral 
 
 commission, 1877, 655. 
 A bell, E. A., removed from 
 office by Gen. Sheridan, 544. 
 
 Cause of removal of, 544. 
 Adams, Charles Francis, advo 
 cate of measures to allay 
 slavery agitation, 28. 
 
 Efforts in Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress to avert war, 64. 
 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 75. 
 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 
 Sketch of, 91. 
 
 As minister to Great Britain 
 takes part in negotiations 
 respecting the Declaration 
 of Paris, 270-273. 
 
 Instructions from Seward and 
 
 Lincoln, 352-3. 
 
 Adams, J. H., member of South 
 Carolina treaty commis 
 sion (1860), 110. 
 
 Adams, John, causes of his de 
 feat for the presidency by 
 Jefferson, 106. 
 
 Course in France respecting 
 
 Continental paper, 129. 
 Adams, John Quincy, secretary 
 
 of state, 44. 
 
 Adams Samuel, statue of, 26. 
 Ad interim secretaries, 582-583. 
 Aiken, the revenue cutter, 
 
 seizure of, 146. 
 
 Alabama, convention and or 
 dinance of secession, 115-116. 
 
 Chooses delegates to Southern 
 Congress, 116. 
 
 Treaty commission, 1860, 116. 
 
 Condition at close of war, 402. 
 
 Provisional government, 403. 
 
 Convention of 1865, 404. 
 
 Ku-Klux in, 468. 
 
 Part of third military district 
 under reconstruction acts, 
 512. 
 
 Registration in, 513. 
 
 Constitutional convention in, 
 1867, 513. 
 
 Constitution, provisions of, 
 514. 
 
 Conditions of admission of, to 
 representation, 514. 
 
 Financial condition of, 1872, 
 
 516. 
 
 " Alabama," the, sinking of, by 
 the Kearsage, 211. 
 
 Alcorn, James L., Republican 
 candidate for governor of 
 Miss., 1869, 529. 
 Elected governor, 1869, 530. 
 Elected U. S. senator, 1870, 530. 
 Inaugural address as govern 
 or, 1870, 531. 
 His idea of state sovereignty, 
 
 531. 
 
 Aldrich, Cyrus, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 99. 
 Alien Acts of 1798, 105. 
 Aliunde, 653, 658, 660. 
 Allen, Ethan, statue of, 26. 
 Allen, Henry W., governor of 
 
 Louisiana, 1864, 295. 
 Allen, James C., clerk of the 
 
 House, 1857, 27. 
 
 Alley, John B., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 90. 
 Allison, Abraham K., governor 
 
 of Florida, 1865, 419. 
 Amendment of the Constitu 
 tion, debate respecting power 
 
 of, January, 1865, 323-325. 
 American Anti-Slavery Society, 
 
 51. 
 American Basttte, 225. 
 
 American " party, 50. 
 Ames, Adelbert, service in as 
 sault of Fort Fisher, 212, 313. 
 Appointed provisional gov 
 ernor of Mississippi, 1868, 
 527. 
 Senator from Mississippi, 1870, 
 
 Elected governor of Missis 
 sippi, 1873, 533. 
 
 Course as governor of Mis 
 sissippi in 1875, 533. 
 Amnesty proposed by Garrett 
 Davis, June 9, 1864, 316. 
 
 President Lincoln's procla 
 mation, 337, 338. 
 
 Classes excluded, 338, 346. 
 
 President Johnson's procla 
 mation, 346. 
 
 Classes excepted, 346, 347. 
 
 Henry Winter Davis" plan of, 
 434. 
 
 President Johnson's plan of, 
 435. 
 
 Vicissitudes of the question 
 of, 595-601. 
 
 Effect of delay of, in the 
 South, 596. 
 
 Incompleteness of, 597. 
 
 General Butler's bill for, 595, 
 598. 
 
 Position of Mr. Blaine re 
 specting, 1876, 600. 
 
 Established by public senti 
 ment, 601. 
 
 Anderson, Robert, abandon 
 ment of Ft. Moul trie and oc 
 cupation of Ft. Sumter, 146. 
 
 Declines to surrender, 149. 
 
 Attacked, 149. 
 
 Surrenders, 149. 
 
 Anderson, Thomas L., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 96. 
 
 Sketch of, 96. 
 Anderson, John A., 297. 
 Antietam, battle of, 188. 
 Anthony, Henry B., president 
 pro tern, of the Senate, 86. 
 
 Action in Senate Dec., 1865, 
 
 350. 
 
 Appomattox, surrender at, 578. 
 Apportionment of representa 
 tion the original object of 
 the census, 695. 
 
 The law of 1882 respecting 
 
 basis of, 695, 696. 
 Archer, Stevenson, member 
 House committee, 1872, on 
 difficulties in Louisiana, 557. 
 Arkansas, convention and ordi 
 nance of secession, 119. 
 
 Declaration of cause of her 
 secession, 119. 
 
 Delegates sent to Southern 
 Congress, 119. 
 
 Campaign in 1862, 174. 
 
 Loyal government of, 341. 
 
 Legislation recognizing same, 
 342. 
 
 New state government of, re 
 cognized by Johnson, 349. 
 
 Steps toward reconstruction 
 in, 1864, 436. 
 
 President Lincoln's plan for 
 reconstructing, 436. 
 
 Ordinance of secession an 
 nulled, 436. 
 
 Destitution of her people In 
 1865, 437. 
 
 Amnesty act of, 439. 
 
 Part of the fourth military 
 district under the recon 
 struction acts, 534. 
 
 Provisional legislature of, 
 forbidden, April, 1867, to 
 reassemble, 534. 
 
 Registration in, 534. 
 
 Convention and constitution, 
 534. 
 
 Fraud at ratification of con 
 stitution, 1867, 534, 535. 
 
 Act of Congress for readmit 
 ting, 535. 
 
 Surrendered by military com 
 mander to civil authorities, 
 535. 
 
 Legislation of, 1869, respect 
 ing debt of, 536. 
 
 Government of, 1868-1875, 535- 
 
 Consititution of, 1874, 540. 
 Financial condition of, 542. 
 Post, capture of, 195. 
 Arm-in-Arm convention, 619. 
 Army at the polls, struggle in 
 Congress for repeal of laws 
 permitting, 630-634. 
 Army of the United States, dis 
 qualification for commis 
 sion in, 616. 
 
702 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Arrests, arbitrary, 233, 224. 
 Arthur, Chester A., nominated 
 for Vice-President by the 
 Republican party, 1880, 674. 
 Elected Vice-President, 675. 
 Becomes President, 676. 
 Senator Pendleton's civil ser 
 vice reform bill the event of 
 the administration of, 676. 
 Asboth, Alexander, at Pea 
 
 Ridge, 174. 
 
 Ashe, Thomas S., candidate for 
 governor in North Carolina, 
 1868, 497. 
 Ashley, James M., calls up thir 
 teenth amendment in the 
 House, Jan. 6, 1865, 321. 
 Reports reconstruction bill, 
 
 Dec. 20, 1864, 342. 
 Presents articles of impeach 
 ment of President Johnson, 
 583. 
 Ashmore, John D., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 94. 
 Sketch of, 94. 
 
 Assassination of President Lin 
 coln, 344. 
 
 President Garfleld, 76. 
 Atlanta, capture of, 207. 
 Extent of operations for re 
 ducing, 214. 
 
 Attorneys, iron-clad oath ex 
 tended to, in United States 
 courts, 615. 
 A very, William T., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Prisoner at Johnson Island, 
 
 95. 
 
 Baird, Absalom, proclaims mar 
 tial law in New Orleans, 
 1864, 431. 
 Baker, E. D., disposition toward 
 
 compromise, 64. 
 Senator Thirth-sixth Con 
 gress, 72. 
 Sketch of, 90. 
 Military service and death at 
 
 Ball's Bluff, 164. 
 
 Baker, William, removed from 
 office by Gen. Hancock, 549. 
 Baldwin, Abraham, 803. 
 Baldwin, Augustus C., votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 Ball's Bluff, battle of, 164. 
 Baltimore, mob in, April 19, 
 
 1861, 152. 
 Banishment, enacted by the 
 
 Confederate Congress, 246. 
 Bank, the United States, 142. 
 Banks, National, act of 1863, 
 establishing system of, 141. 
 Act of 1864, respecting same, 
 
 142. 
 Secretary Chase's suggestions, 
 
 142. 
 
 Origin of the system, 142. 
 Bank notes, national, 141. 
 State, 142. 
 
 Issue of, secured by United 
 States stocks, suggested by 
 Fillmore, 1849, 143. 
 Bankruptcy act, repeal of, 
 
 1878,671. 
 Banks of issue, power of states 
 
 to charter, 143, 144. 
 Banks, Nathaniel P., elected 
 speaker of the House of 
 Representatives, 50. 
 Succeeds General Patterson, 
 
 162. 
 
 In Shenandoah Valley, 183. 
 At Cedar Mountain, 187. 
 Captures Port Hudson, 196. 
 Red River expedition, 210. 
 Proclamation of, Jan. 11, 1864, 
 427. 
 
 Banks, Nath'l P., general order 
 
 of, Feb. 13, 1864, 427. 
 Barksdale, Wm., member of 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Favoring secession, 74. 
 Present at the Keitt-Grow 
 
 altercation, 76. 
 Sketch of, 97. 
 Barnwell, Robert W., member 
 of treaty commission (1860) 
 of South Carolina, 110. 
 Barrow, Washington, member 
 of military league commis 
 sion of Tennessee (1861), 120. 
 Bartholdi statue, 699. 
 Basse Edward, appointed judge 
 
 in Texas, 1867, 573. 
 Baxter, Elisha, elected senator 
 
 from Arkansas, 437. 
 Conflict with Joseph Brooks 
 for governorship of Arkan 
 sas, 537-541. 
 Baxter, Richard, persecution 
 
 of, 606. 
 Bayard, James A., senator in 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 Sketch of, 71, 87. 
 Bayard, Thomas A., member of 
 committee on the electoral 
 count, 637. 
 
 Remarks by him in the com 
 mittee, 642, 644. 
 Member of electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 Proposition in the electoral 
 
 commission, 656. 
 Beauregard, P. G. T., Confed 
 erate general in the attack 
 on Fort Sumter, 148, 149. 
 Confederate general at Bull 
 
 Run, 154-156. 
 
 Beecher Henry Ward, views 
 respecting restoration of 
 states to their federal rela 
 tions, 570-572. 
 
 Bell, John, presidential candi 
 date, 1860, 60, 61. 
 Belmont, Mo., Confederates 
 attacked at, by General 
 Grant, 1861, 163. 
 Benjamin, Judah P., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 70. 
 Sketch of, 70. 
 Attitude toward the Critten- 
 
 den compromise, 79. 
 In the Confederate cabinet, 88. 
 In council at Montgomery 
 upon question of firing on 
 Fort Sumter, April, 1861, 150. 
 Bentham, Jeremy, queries re 
 specting utility of oath- 
 taking, 604. 
 
 Bentonville, battle of, 212. 
 Berrien, John McPherson, 303. 
 Big Bethel, battle of, 154. 
 Biggerstaff, Aaron, Ku-Klux 
 
 outrages upon, 461, 462. 
 Bigler, William, senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 76. 
 Testimony respecting the 
 committee of thirteen, 80. 
 Vote in committee of thir 
 teen on Jefferson Davis* 
 proposition, 115. 
 Bingham, John A., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 His eloquence and ardor, 75. 
 Minister to Japan, 75. 
 Manager in the impeachment 
 
 of President Johnson, 585. 
 Sketch of, 585. 
 Bingham, Kinsley S., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 89. 
 Binney, Horace, on the right of 
 the President to suspend the 
 writ of habeas corpus, 227. 
 
 Birney, James G., anti-slavery 
 candidate for the presiden 
 cy, 1844, 47. 
 
 Black, Jeremiah S., one of the 
 counsel for Milligan before 
 the supreme court, 230. 
 
 Secretary of state, 258. 
 
 Effort to prevent foreign rec 
 ognition of Confederacy, 
 258, 259. 
 
 Counsel for President John 
 son in impeachment trial, 
 587. 
 
 Speech before the electoral 
 commission, 661-663. 
 
 Carpet-baggers described by, 
 
 Counsel representing Mr. Til- 
 den before the electoral 
 commission in the Florida 
 case, 655. 
 
 Blackburn, J. S. C., speech of, 
 March 2, 1877, 665. 
 
 Blaine, James G., moves, June, 
 1864, to lay the Brown sub 
 stitute for the House re 
 construction bill on the 
 table, 340. 
 
 Advocates in conference 
 committee power to use 
 army at the polls, 631. 
 Secretary of state in Presi 
 dent Garfleld's cabinet, 675. 
 His genius for politics, 675. 
 Contrasted with Grover 
 Cleveland, 683. 
 
 Blair, Frank P., conference of, 
 with Jefferson Davis, Jan. 
 12, 1865, 330, 331. 
 Second visit of, to Richmond 
 with respect to peace, 332. 
 
 Blair, Jacob B., urges prosecu 
 tion of the war, 1865, 314. 
 
 Blair, Montgomery, counsel for 
 the plaintiff in error, in the 
 Cummings case, 251. 
 
 Blockade proclaimed, 152. 
 Effect of, 242. 
 Opposition, 263, 273. 
 Raised, 346. 
 
 Blount, William, impeachment 
 of, 583. 
 
 Bocock, Thomas S., attempt to 
 cut off debate on Lecomp- 
 ton, 27, 56. 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con- 
 
 Parliamentary skill of, 74. 
 Speaker of the Confederate 
 
 Congress, 92. 
 Bonham, Milledge L., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 94. 
 Sketch of, 94. 
 Governor of South Carolina, 
 
 1864, 295. 
 Boozer, Lemuel, elected Lieut.- 
 
 Gov. South Carolina, 503. 
 Border State convention of 
 
 congressmen, 28. 
 Boreman, Arthur I., governor 
 
 of West Virginia, 195. 
 Boteler, Alexander R., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Moves for the committee of 
 
 thirty-three, 73. 
 Sketch of, 93. 
 
 Botts, John M., leader of mod 
 erate Republicans in Vir 
 ginia, 488. 
 Bouligney, J. E., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 94. 
 Sketch of, 94. 
 
 Boutwell, George S., discusses 
 limits of power to amend 
 the constitution, January, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 703 
 
 Boutwell, George S., member of 
 committee of investigation, 
 preliminary to impeachment 
 of President Johnson 581. 
 One of the managers of the 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 585. 
 Sketch of, 585, 586. 
 Boyce, William W., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress from 
 South Carolina, 74. 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 
 remedy, 74. 
 Sketch of, 94. 
 
 Arraigns Richmond govern 
 ment on state rights 
 grounds, 312. 
 Boyd, Alexander, murdered by 
 
 Ku-Klux, 455. 
 
 Boyd, James, testimony of, re 
 specting the Ku-Klux, 455. 
 Bradley, Joseph P., chosen 
 member of the electoral 
 commission, 650. 
 Announces his vote in the 
 electoral commission in 
 the case of Florida, 653. 
 Bragg, Braxton, campaign in 
 
 Kentucky, 1862, 191. 
 At Stone River, 192. 
 At Chattanooga, 202. 
 Branch, Lawrence O'B., mem 
 ber Thirty-sixth Congress 
 from North Carolina, 74. 
 Distrusts secession as a cure 
 
 for Southern ills, 74. 
 Skill in debate, 74. 
 Sketch of, 93. 
 Confederate general at New- 
 
 bern, 1862, 167. 
 Breckenridge doctrine, 55. 
 Breckenridge, John C., presi 
 dential candidate,1860, 60, 61. 
 Senator, Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 65. 
 
 Personal sketch of, 65. 
 Vice-President, 86. 
 On the South Carolina chiv 
 alry, 410. 
 
 Brewster, O. H., election of, as 
 speaker in Louisiana legis 
 lature, 556, 557. 
 
 Briggs George, attitude toward 
 the Crittenden compromise, 
 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 94. 
 
 Briggs, George N., member of 
 Massachusetts constitutional 
 convention of 1850, 586. 
 Bright, Jesse D., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Inclination toward the South, 
 
 72, 89. 
 
 Brooke, John M., 172. 
 Brooke, J. R., in command of 
 the city of New Orleans, 568. 
 Brooks, James, discusses the 
 negotiation, Jan. 10, 
 
 Brooks, Joseph, conflict with 
 Elisha Baxter for governor 
 ship of Arkansas, 537-541. 
 Brown, Albert G., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 69. 
 Sketch of, 69, 88. 
 Resigns as senator, 114. 
 Statement by, respecting af 
 fairs in Mississippi, 528. 
 Brown, B. Gratz, proposes leg 
 islation deferring admission 
 of states to representation 
 until after suppression of 
 insurrection, 340. 
 Supports President Johnson's 
 
 administration, 356. 
 Brown, John, raid, 50. 
 
 Brown, John T., member of 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Brown, Joseph E., proclamation 
 
 as governor of Georgia, 
 
 April 26, 1861, 111. 
 Governor of Georgia, 1861,294. 
 Governor of Georgia, 1864, 295. 
 His ability, 296. 
 Biographical sketch of, 303- 
 
 306. 
 Advice to the people, 1865, 
 
 Brown", Neil S., candidate 
 
 against Harris, 1856, 297. 
 Brown, William G., votes for 
 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 Brownlow, William G., elected 
 
 governor of Tennessee, 295, 
 
 349. 
 Proclamation of, respecting 
 
 Ku-Klux, 474. 
 Buchanan, Frank, command 
 
 ing Confederate ram Vir 
 
 ginia, 169. 
 cha 
 
 Buchanan, James, Mr. Polk's 
 
 secretary of state, 47. 
 Elected President, 50. 
 His attempt to defend public 
 property in the Southern 
 States, 146. 
 Buchanan, J. Rev., driven away 
 
 by Ku-Klux, 471. 
 Buchanan, R. C., in command 
 of the fifth military dis 
 trict, 549. 
 
 Buckalew, Charles R., 356. 
 Buckingham, Catharinus P., 
 assistant secretary of war, 
 192. 
 
 Buckner, S. B., Confederate 
 defender at Fort Donelson, 
 175, 176. 
 
 Buell, Don Carlos, in command 
 department of Ohio, 1862, 
 175. 
 
 Takes Bowling Green, 176. 
 At Shiloh, 177. 
 Drives Bragg out of Ken 
 
 tucky, 191. 
 
 Bulger, M. J., candidate for 
 governor of Alabama, 1865, 
 406. 
 Bullock, Ruf us B., governor of 
 
 Georgia, 510. 
 
 Bull Run, battle of, 154-156. 
 Congressmen at the, 157. 
 Flight from, 158. 
 Second battle of, 188. 
 Burch, John C., member Thirty- 
 
 sixth Congress, 99. 
 Burlingame, Anson, member 
 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 90. 
 Sketch of, 90. 
 Burnett, Henry C., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Confederate senator, 72. 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 
 gress, 95. 
 
 Confederate senator, 95. 
 Burnside, A. E., his belief that 
 Vallandigham would not be 
 convicted, 83. 
 
 His services at Roanoke Isl 
 and and Newbern, 1862, 160- 
 168. 
 
 At Fredericksburg, 192. 
 In command of the depart 
 
 ment of the Ohio, 196. 
 Butler, Benjamin F., occupies 
 Relay House and Federal 
 Hill, Baltimore, 153. 
 Commanding troops in expe 
 dition against Hatteras, 1861, 
 164-166. 
 
 Occupies New Orleans, 193. 
 His operations against Fort 
 Fisher, 212. 
 
 Butler, Benjamin F., opinion 
 of martial rule in District 
 of Columbia in 1865, 232. 
 
 One of the counsel against 
 Milligan in the supreme 
 court, 230. 
 
 Rule at New Orleans, 425. 
 
 One of the managers in the 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 585. 
 
 Opens case for managers in 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 589. 
 
 Amnesty legislation proposed 
 
 by, 595, 598. 
 
 Butler, M. C., exonerated re 
 specting Hamburg massa 
 cre, 467. 
 
 Candidate for lieutenant- 
 governor of South Caro 
 lina, 505. 
 
 Calhoun, John C., favors an 
 nexation of Texas as neces 
 sary to slavery, 46. 
 
 Views upon state sovereignty, 
 
 Opinion of legitimate result 
 
 of emancipation, 364. 
 Biographical sketch of, 52-54. 
 His theory of states rights, 101. 
 California, admission of, 48. 
 Calvert, Charles B., proposition 
 of, August 5, 1861, for peace 
 amendments to the Consti- 
 tion, 315. 
 
 Democratic vote cast for his 
 proposition of Aug. 5, 1861, 
 315. 
 
 Campaign, political, 1864, 617,618; 
 1868, 619-624; 1872, 627-628; 
 1876, 628-629; 1880, 674; 1884, 
 683. 
 
 Campbell, John A., his part in 
 peace negotiations, 1861, 
 147, 148. 
 
 Confederate commissioner at 
 the Hampton Roads con 
 ference, 333. 
 
 Counsel for Mr. Tilden in the 
 Louisiana case before the 
 electoral commission, 655. 
 Cameron Simon, senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 64, 72. 
 Attitude toward the Critten 
 den compromise, 79. 
 Sketch of, 87. 
 
 Canby, Edward R. S., com 
 mander of the first recon 
 struction district, 296, 492. 
 Commander second military 
 district, Sept, 5, 1867, 296, 496. 
 Capitol, the, description of, 25. 
 Old halls of legislation, 26. 
 Statuary ha 11, 26. 
 Carpenter, Matt. H., counsel in 
 
 ex-parte Garland. 256. 
 Counsel for Mr. Tilden in the 
 Louisiana case before the 
 electoral commission, 655. 
 Extract from his speech be 
 fore the commission, 655. 
 Carpenter, R. B., candidate for 
 governor of South Caro 
 lina, 505. 
 Carter, George W., leader of 
 
 faction in Louisiana, 554. 
 Career and enterprises of, 555, 
 
 560,561. 
 
 Cardoza, Francis L., secretary 
 of state, South Carolina, 503. 
 Cardoza, J. W., sup't of educa 
 tion, Mississippi, 532. 
 Carpet-baggers, application of 
 
 the term, 453. 
 Rule in the South, 684, 626. 
 Carthage, Mo., engagement at, 
 1861,163. 
 
704 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Casey, James B., collector of 
 
 customs. New Orleans, 554. 
 Enterprises of, 560, 561. 
 Cass, Lewis, Democratic candi 
 
 date for the presidency, 
 
 1848,48. 
 
 Cedar Mountain, tattle of, 187. 
 Census, the system in the 
 
 United States, 685-689. 
 Object of constitutional pro 
 
 vision, 685. 
 
 Sketch of legislation, 685, 686. 
 Author's bill for census of 
 
 1880, 686. 
 Importance and excellence of 
 
 results of census of 1880, 687. 
 Character of census of 1870, 
 
 687. 
 Statistics of population, 687, 
 
 688. 
 Scientific and political pur 
 
 Need of extending field of, 
 
 689. 
 Showing of increase in popu 
 
 lation, 690. 
 Industrial statistics to 1880, 
 
 Chamberlain, Daniel H., attor 
 ney-general, South Caro 
 lina, 503. 
 Governor of South Carolina, 
 
 506. 
 
 Sketch of, 506. 
 
 Chancellorsville, battle of, 197. 
 Chandler, Zachariah, attitude 
 respecting conciliation, 1861, 
 79. 
 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 72, 89. 
 
 Secretary of the interior, 89. 
 Demands the thirteenth 
 
 amendment, 311. 
 Charleston, evacuation of, 212. 
 Chase, Salmon P., resists en 
 forcement of fugitive slave 
 act in Ohio, 61, 62. 
 Attitude respecting doctrine 
 
 of states rights, 62. 
 Views as to expediency of 
 coercion of seceded states, 
 63,64. 
 Attitude toward the Critten- 
 
 den proposition, 78. 
 Opinion in Veasie Bank vs. 
 
 the collector, 144. 
 Dissents from the opinion of 
 the supreme court in the 
 Cummmgs case, 252. 
 Demands the thirteenth 
 
 amendment, 311. 
 Presides at the trial of the im 
 peachment of President 
 Johnson, 586, 588. 
 Chase, Samuel, impeachment 
 
 of, 584. 
 
 Chattanooga, battle of, 202, 
 Chickamauga, battle of, 201. 
 Choate, Rufus, member Massa 
 chusetts constitutional con 
 vention of 1850, 586. 
 Churchill, John C., member of 
 committee of investigation 
 preliminary to impeach 
 ment of President Johnson, 
 581. 
 
 Church and the military, con 
 flict between, in Alabama, 
 408. 
 
 Civil officers, attempt by mili 
 tary commander to remove, 
 in North Carolina, 495. 
 Removal of, in Louisiana, 
 
 1867,544-549. 
 
 Civil Rights bill, its relation to 
 states rights, 628. 
 
 Civil Service Reform, bill for, 
 a Democratic measure, 676. 
 Influence of the measure 
 upon selection of Demo 
 cratic presidential candi 
 date, 1884, 776. 
 Civil War, the, proximate 
 
 causes of, 28. 
 Efforts to avert, 32. 
 Slavery agitation the cause 
 
 of, 56. 
 Could it have been avoided? 
 
 78-80. 
 
 Civism, wisdom of, 34. 
 Clark, Daniel, senator, Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 72. 
 Amendment to the Crittenden 
 compromise measure, 78-80. 
 Clark, Horace F., member of 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 Governor of North Carolina, 
 
 295. 
 
 Clark, John B., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress,96. 
 Confederate general, 96. 
 Clark, J. S., his testimony in re 
 gard to Ku-Klux in Ala 
 bama, 469. 
 Clarke, Charles, governor of 
 
 Mississippi, 1864, 295. 
 Clarksville, capture of, 176. 
 Clay, Clement C., senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 70. 
 Sketch of, 70, 88. 
 Part taken by, in the Niagara 
 
 peace negotiations, 317. 
 Clay, Henry, resists attempt to 
 prohibit extension of sla 
 very, 45. 
 Presidential candidate, 1844, 
 
 47. 
 
 Clayton, Powell, inaugurated 
 governor of Arkansas, 1868, 
 535. 
 
 His administration de 
 nounced, 536. 
 Elections of, as senator, 536, 
 
 537. 
 
 His quarrel with Lieutenant- 
 Go vernor Johnson, 536, 537. 
 Clemens, Jeremiah, statement 
 of purpose of Confederate 
 government in attacking 
 Fort Sumter, 150. 
 His loyalty, 150. 
 Clemens, Sherrard, member of 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Union zeal of, 73. 
 Cleveland, Grover, his party 
 
 not sectional, 679. 
 Nominated for President by 
 
 the Democratic party, 682. 
 Platform upon which nomi 
 nated, 682. 
 Contrasted with James G. 
 
 Blaine, 683. 
 Sketch of life, 683. 
 Compared with Silas Wright, 
 
 683. 
 
 A Cato, 683. 
 
 Inaugurated President, 684. 
 Cliff, Tony, murdered in Ala 
 bama, 1870, 469. 
 Clifford, Nathan, member of 
 
 electoral commission, 650. 
 Presides in the electoral com 
 mission, 652. 
 
 Clinton, George, statue of, 26. 
 Clingman, Thomas L., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 Confederate general, 87. 
 Clopton, David, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 97. 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 97. 
 Cobb, Howell, 303. 
 
 Cobb, Williamson R. W., mem 
 ber Thirty-sixth Congress 
 from Alabama, 74. 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 
 remedy, 74. 
 Sketch of, 97. 
 
 Cochrane, John, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 Sketch of, 91. 
 Coercion of a state, power for, 
 
 Coffroth, Alexander, he votes 
 for thirteenth amendment, 
 326. 
 
 Coin, public faith pledged in 
 act of March 18, 1869, to 
 payment of bonds in, 136. 
 Provisions of act of April 2, 
 
 1792, respecting, 670. 
 Standard under that act, 670. 
 Standard by act of January 
 
 18, 1837,670. 
 
 Weight of fractional silver, 
 reduced, act of Feb. 21, 1853, 
 670. 
 
 Question of meaning of term, 
 under act of Jan. 1, 1879, 671. 
 Coinage act of 1873, 671. 
 Coif ax, Schuyler, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Afterwards speaker, 75. 
 Colonies, slavery in the, 37-39. 
 Collamer, Jacob, statue of, 26. 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 64, 72, 86. 
 
 Vote in committee of thir 
 teen on Jefferson Davis' 
 proposition, 115. 
 Colquitt, Walter T., 303. 
 Columbia, S. C., occupation of, 
 
 212. 
 Compromise, author's plea for, 
 
 in 1861, 31. 
 Missouri, 45. 
 
 Crittenden, proposition, 66, 67. 
 Commission of seven citizens 
 proposed July 29, 1861, for 
 peace negotiations, 315. 
 Commissioners' treaty from 
 South Carolina, December, 
 1860. 146. 
 Confederate, treaty, 1861, 146, 
 
 147. 
 Confederate, to England and 
 
 France, October, 1861, 275. 
 Confederate peace, January, 
 
 1865, 327, 328. 
 
 Confederate, attendance at 
 the Hampton Roads confer 
 ence, 333. 
 Report of, 334. 
 Commission, electoral, see 
 
 electoral commission. 
 Committee with respect to 
 peace amendments to the 
 Constitution, proposed by 
 the author, July 29, 1861, 314. 
 Of House of Representatives 
 1872, to investigate diffi 
 culties between United 
 States and state officials in 
 Louisiana, 557. 
 
 Of House of Representatives, 
 to investigate election of 
 1874 in Louisiana, 569. 
 Committees on the electoral 
 count of 1876, constitution 
 of, 637. 
 Plans and proceedings of, 638- 
 
 648. 
 
 Report of, 648. 
 Conciliation, efforts toward, 
 
 29-32, 64, 66. 
 
 Ancient Roman policy of, 31. 
 Confederacy, surrender of the 
 armies of, 214. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 705 
 
 Confederacy, cause of final de 
 feat of, 215. 
 Occasion for its organization 
 
 Recognition by foreign pow 
 ers, 242, 258. 
 
 Severe measures of, 247. 
 Justification for, 248. 
 The recognition of, by foreign 
 powers the purpose of Ma 
 son and Slidell, 275. 
 Geographical limits of, 1884 
 
 309. 
 Conference, the Hampton 
 
 Roads, 333. 
 
 Confiscation acts of the Thirty- 
 seventh Congress, in effect 
 bills of attainder, 249. 
 Confiscation in Louisiana, 434. 
 Confiscations enacted by the 
 Confederate Congress, 246. 
 Congress, the Thirty-sixth, 
 
 December session, I860, 61. 
 Its men and work, 62-80. 
 After life of some of its 
 prominent members, 86-99. 
 Congress, special session of, 
 
 1861, 122. 
 Congressional action, true rule 
 
 for, 373. 
 Congress, U. S. S., fight with 
 
 the Virginia, 169. 
 Conkling, Roscoe, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Rare gifts, 75. 
 His extensive fame, 91. 
 Member of committee on the 
 
 electoral count, 637. 
 Favors " lot " plan, 641. 
 Course in committee, 643. 
 Advocates electoral commis 
 sion bill in the Senate, 649. 
 Refrains from voting in the 
 Senate upon decision of 
 electoral commission in the 
 Florida case, 656. 
 Connecticut, states rights in, 
 
 106. 
 
 Conover, Simon B., senator 
 from Florida, sketch of, 523. 
 Conscription, correspondence 
 between Seddon and Brown 
 respecting, in Georgia, 305. 
 Constitution of the United 
 States, fidelity of Demo 
 cratic party to, 35. 
 Construction of preamble of, 
 
 35-36. 
 
 Conflict with the law of na 
 tions considered, 244. 
 Author's proposition July 29, 
 1861, for amendment of, in 
 order to restore peace and 
 union, 314, 315. 
 
 Amendment of, proposed by 
 Mr. Calvert, of Maryland, 
 and Senator Saulsbury, 315. 
 Views of the author expressed 
 in Congress respecting the 
 power to amend, 321, 322. 
 Remarks of President Lin 
 coln respecting essentials to 
 validity of amendment to, 
 344. 
 Position of parties respecting 
 
 construction of, 356, 357. 
 Respect paid to, by the gov 
 ernment throughout the 
 war, 364. 
 Amendments to, proposed by 
 
 Thaddeus Stevens, 366. 
 Constitution, state, adopted 
 under the reconstruction 
 acts in Virginia, 489. 
 Submitted to vote, 492. 
 North Carolina, 496. 
 
 Constitution, state, ratified, 497 
 South Carolina, 503. 
 Georgia, 510. 
 Alabama, 513. 
 Submitted, 614. 
 Florida, 517. 
 Mississippi, 527. 
 Vote on, ; 28. 
 
 New election ordered, 529. 
 Ratified, 529. 
 Arkansas, 534. 
 Fraud in election charged 
 
 534, 535. 
 Louisiana, 548. 
 Ratified, 549. 
 Texas, 575. 
 Ratified, 576. 
 Revised, of Missouri, 1865, 250, 
 
 251. 
 Amended, of Tennessee, 1864, 
 
 382. 
 
 Texas, 1866, 400. 
 Ratified, 401. 
 
 New, of Arkansas, 1870, 540. 
 Amended, of Louisiana, 1870, 
 
 Texas, 1876, 575. 
 Constitution of Southern Con 
 
 federacy, 117, 118. 
 Continental Congress, powers 
 
 of, 127. 
 
 Continental bills of credit, 128. 
 Contraband of war, what are, 
 
 265. 
 
 Convention, proposed by Gar- 
 rett Davis, June 9, 1864, to 
 reconstruct the Union. 316. 
 Convention, Secession, South 
 
 Carolina, 110. 
 Georgia, 111. 
 Mississippi. 114. 
 Florida, 115. 
 Louisiana, 115. 
 Alabama, 115. 
 Texas, 116. 
 Arkansas, 119. 
 Virginia, 119. 
 North Carolina, 120. 
 Tennessee, 121. 
 Convention, Tennessee, under 
 
 Sro visional government, 
 anuary 9, 1865, 382. 
 
 North Carolina,Oct.2, 1865,384. 
 
 Mississippi, 1865, 392. 
 
 Georgia, 397. 
 
 Texas, 1866, 401. 
 
 Alabama, 1865, 404-406. 
 
 South Carolina, 1865, 412. 
 
 Florida, 1868, 419. 
 
 Louisiana, 1864, 428. 
 
 Arkansas, 1864, 436. 
 
 Held under the reconstruc 
 tion acts, in Virginia, 489. 
 
 North Carolina, 496. 
 
 South Carolina, 502. 
 
 Georgia, 509. 
 
 Alabama, 513. 
 
 Florida, 517. 
 
 Mississippi, 526, 529. 
 
 Arkansas, 534. 
 
 Louisiana, 549. 
 
 Texas, 575, 578. 
 
 Conway, Thomas W., attempts 
 to establish mixed schools 
 in Louisiana, 432. 
 Cooper and Cary, popular vote 
 for, as candidates of the 
 Greenback party, 1876, 675. 
 Corcoran, Michael, Col., held as 
 hostage by the Confederate 
 authorities, 243. 
 Corinth, capture of, May, 1862, 
 178. 
 
 Attack on, October, 1862, 191. 
 Corwin, Thomas, seeks to allay 
 slavery excitement, 28. 
 
 Corwin, Thomas, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 His eloquence, 75. 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 Humor of, 365. 
 
 Coste, M. L., revenue cutter 
 
 Aiken surrendered by, 146. 
 
 Cotton, effects of cultivation of, 
 
 on slavery, 39, 41. 
 Its relation to the blockade, 
 
 263. 
 The supply of, from foreign 
 
 sources, 264. 
 
 Cotton-gin of Whitney, rela 
 tion of, to cotton produc 
 tion^. 
 Coushatta, La., massacre near, 
 
 August, 1874, 565. 
 Cowan Edgar, champion of 
 President Johnson's admin 
 istration, 356. 
 
 Craige, Burton, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 93. 
 Sketch of, 93. 
 
 Craig, James, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 96. 
 Sketch of, 96. 
 
 Crandall, Prudence,eflfort in be 
 half of the colored race, 41. 
 Crane, Joseph, Lt.-Col., killed 
 
 by B. M. Yerger, 531. 
 Crapo, W. W., debates in the 
 House, the electoral com 
 mission, Louisiana action, 
 657. 
 Crawford, Martin J., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Favoring secession, 74. 
 Sketch of, 96. 
 
 Crawford, William H., 113, 303. 
 Crawford, William J., peace 
 commissioner from the Con 
 federacy, 146. 
 Credit, Public, causes of its 
 
 soundness, 131. 
 Crime in Texas, 1865-'68, statis 
 tics of, 574. 
 
 Crittenden, George B., Confed 
 erate general, at Webb's 
 Cross Roads, 174. 
 Crittenden, John J., advocate 
 of measures tending to allay 
 irritation caused by slavery, 
 
 Senator, Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 65. 
 
 Personal sketch of, 65-68, 88. 
 
 Compromise prepared by, 66. 
 
 Speech in the Senate respect 
 ing his compromise proposi 
 tions, 66, 67. 
 
 Eulogy on Douglas, 67. 
 
 Farewell address to the 
 Senate, 67. 
 
 Death of, 68. 
 
 Stood against extremists, 72, 
 76. 
 
 Responsibility for failure of 
 compromise prepared by, 
 
 Member of the committee of 
 thirteen, 77. 
 
 Vote on the Clark amend 
 ment, 79. 
 
 Vote in committee of thir 
 teen, on Jefferson Davis' 
 proposition, 115. 
 
 Resolutions of July 22, 1861, 
 a union measure, 122. 
 
 Compromise proposed by him, 
 directed toward the preser 
 vation of the Union and not 
 of slavery, 219. 
 
 Accepted by the Democracy 
 of the North, 220. 
 
706 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Crittenden, John J., guest at 
 dinner of Secretary Seward, 
 after Trent affair, 291. 
 Remarks at, 292. 
 Purpose of the war declared, 
 in resolutions of July 22, 
 1861, 362. 
 
 Democratic party loyal to 
 same, 363. 
 
 Crompton Samuel, indebted 
 ness of the cotton raiser to, 
 38. 
 
 Cumberland, the ship sunk 
 by the Virginia, 169. 
 
 Cummings, State of Missouri, 
 249-255. 
 
 Currency, question of, in poli 
 tics, 629. 
 
 Curry, Jabez L. M., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, .74. 
 Not desirous of compromise, 
 
 Sketch of, 97. 
 
 Curtis, Benjamin R., counsel 
 for President Johnson in 
 impeachment trial, 587. 
 Curtis, Samuel, R., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 99. 
 Sketch of, 99. 
 Services in Missouri (1862), 
 
 174. 
 
 Cushing, Caleb, president of 
 Charleston Convention, 60. 
 Custom-house faction, quarrel 
 of, with Warmoth faction 
 of Republican party in 
 Louisiana, 554-561. 
 Cutter, R. King, credentials as 
 senator from Louisiana re 
 ported Feb. 18, 1865, 342. 
 Daily News, friendly attitude 
 
 in the Trent affair, 282. 
 Daly, Charles P., argument re 
 specting recognition of cap 
 tured Confederate sailors 
 as prisoners of war, 243. 
 Davidson, Thomas G., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 94. 
 Sketch of, 94. 
 
 Davis, Alexander, Lieut -Gov 
 ernor of Mississippi, 532. 
 Davis, David, delivers the opin 
 ion of the supreme court 
 in the case of Milligan, 231. 
 Dissents from opinion of the 
 supreme court in the Cum- 
 mings case, 252. 
 Discussed in committee on 
 
 electoral count, 641-645. 
 Selection of, for electoral 
 
 commission expected, 649. 
 Elected senator from Illinois, 
 
 650. 
 
 Davis, Edmund J., presides 
 over constitutional conven 
 tion of Texas, held under 
 reconstruction acts, 574. 
 Elected governor of Texas, 
 
 1869, 576. 
 
 Davis, Garrett, proposes, June 
 9, 1864, steps toward recon 
 struction, 316. 
 
 Personal appearance of, 356. 
 Davis, Henry Winter, his elo 
 quence and logic, 92. 
 Speeches against military in 
 carcerations, 233, 234. 
 Biographical sketch, 237. 
 President Lincoln's message, 
 
 Dec. 15, 1863, on, 339. 
 Protests against conduct of 
 President Lincoln, in with 
 holding signature from re 
 construction bill, 341. 
 His plan for reconstruction, 
 434,435. 
 
 Davis, Henry Winter, test oath 
 a feature of his reconstruc 
 tion plan, 602. 
 Davis, Jefferson, senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 68. 
 
 Personal sketch of, 68. 
 
 Attitude toward the Critten 
 den proposition, 77. 
 
 President of the Southern 
 Confederacy, 88. 
 
 At the battle of Seven Pines, 
 92. 
 
 Resigns as senator, 114. 
 
 Proposition in the committee 
 of thirteen, 114. 
 
 Slavery esteemed by him the 
 sole ground of controversy, 
 115. 
 
 Chosen provisional President 
 of the Southern Confeder 
 acy, 118. 
 
 In council at Montgomery, 
 discussing question of firing 
 on Fort Sumter, 150. 
 
 Leaves Richmond, 1865, 213. 
 
 Mention of at dinner given 
 by Mr. Seward after Trent 
 affair, 292. 
 
 Requisition for troops, Au 
 gust 30, 1864, 305. 
 
 Dissatisfaction in the South 
 with administration of, De 
 cember, 1864, 311, 312. 
 
 Proposed meeting of govern 
 ors of Southern States to 
 oppose policy of, as Presi 
 dent, 312. 
 
 Recent discussion respecting 
 his position on question of 
 secession from Confeder 
 acy, 319. 
 
 Letter to Governor Z. B. 
 Vance, January 8, 1864, 320. 
 
 Capture, confinement, and re 
 lease of, 579. 
 
 Davis, Jefferson C., services in 
 Missouri, 1862, 164. 
 
 At Pea Ridge, 174. 
 Davis, John G., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 76. 
 Davis, Reuben, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from Missis 
 sippi, 74. 
 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 remedy for Southern ills, 74. 
 
 Sketch of, 97. 
 
 Dawes, Henry L., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 
 Senator, 91. 
 
 Discusses limitations of pow 
 er of amendment to the 
 Constitution, Jan., 1865, 323. 
 
 Reports, from committee on 
 elections, resolution for ap 
 pointment of visiting com 
 mission for Southern States, 
 340. 
 
 Dawson, John L., offers peace 
 resolutions in summer of 
 1864, 317. 
 Day, S. T., elected lieut.-gov- 
 ernor of Florida, 1870, 522. 
 
 His contest with Governor 
 
 Reed, 523. 
 
 Dayton, William L., as minister 
 to France, participates in 
 the negotiations respecting 
 the Declaration of Paris, 
 270, 271. 
 
 Debt, the public, in 1790, 128 ; 
 
 1846, 126 ; 1849, 126 ; 1851, 126 ; 
 
 1857, 126; 1865, 130 ; 1884, 130. 
 
 Declaration of Paris, articles 
 
 of, 266. 
 
 Objection of United States to, 
 267. 
 
 Declaration of Paris, negotia 
 
 tions respecting, prior to 
 
 1861, 267. 
 Preamble and resolutions of 
 
 fered by the author, 1862, 
 
 268. 
 Proposition to Great Britain 
 
 and France to admit the 
 
 United States as a party to, 
 
 1861, 269,270. 
 Conditions of admission, ten 
 
 dered by Great Britain and 
 
 France, 270. 
 Rejection of the conditions 
 
 by the United States, and 
 
 failure of the negotiations, 
 
 270, 271. 
 
 De/octo, 666-668. 
 Dejarmette, Daniel C., member 
 
 of the Thirty-sixth Con 
 
 gress, 72. 
 Dis 
 
 sposed toward a Southern 
 Confederacy, 72. 
 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 92. 
 De jure, 666-668. 
 De Kay, Drake, aid to General 
 
 Mansfield, 157. 
 
 Democratic party, strict con- 
 structionists of the Consti 
 tution, 35-36. 
 
 Success, 240. 
 
 Of the North the only 
 Union party, 248. 
 
 Attitude of, toward prescrip 
 tive measures, 257. 
 
 Mr. Seward's sentiments to 
 ward, 1868, 274. 
 
 Unsparing efforts of, in Con 
 gress throughout the war 
 to bring about an honorable 
 peace, 314. 
 
 Convention of, at Chicago, 
 1864, holds out the olive 
 branch, 317. 
 
 Its theory of constitutional 
 construction, 356. 
 
 Platform of, 1864, 618. 
 
 False charges against, 620. 
 
 Deeds of, 620. 
 
 Its desire for peace, 621 r 
 
 Its loyalty and services dur 
 ing the war, 621-623. 
 
 Attitude of, Dec., 1876, 636. 
 
 Its candidates for President 
 and Vice-President, 1877, de 
 clared by resolution of the 
 House elected, 668. 
 
 Convention at Cincinnati, 1880, 
 674. 
 
 Platform and nominations, 
 1880, 674. 
 
 The civil service reform bill 
 a measure of, 676. 
 
 Not sectional, 679. 
 
 Reasons for its triumph in 
 1885, 679-682. 
 
 Its pledges, 682. 
 
 Democrats, votes of, for the 
 thirteenth amendment on 
 final passage in the House. 
 326. 
 
 Northern, favor doctrine of 
 squatter sovereignty, 55. 
 
 Their theory of status of se 
 ceding states, 123. 
 Dent, Lewis, candidate for gov 
 ernor of Mississippi, 1869, 529. 
 
 His letter to President Grant, 
 
 1869, 530. 
 Devens, Charles, member of the 
 
 Hayes cabinet, 670. 
 Deweese, Robert A., murder of, 
 
 566. 
 Direct tax of 1799, 129. 
 
 Of 1861, 140. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 707 
 
 Disloyal practices, order of sec 
 retary of war, Aug. 8, 1862, 
 for arrest of persons guilty 
 of, 223. 
 
 District of Columbia, suffrage 
 bill for, 376. 
 
 Disunion, temporary, as i 
 
 means of peace, 29. 
 Evils of, 33. 
 
 Dixon, James, efforts in Thirty' 
 sixth Congress to avoid war, 
 
 Attitude toward President 
 Johnson's administration, 
 356. 
 
 Doolittle, James R., senator 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Sketch of, 89. 
 
 Vote in committee of thirteen 
 on Jefferson Davis' propo 
 sition, 115. 
 
 Attitude toward President 
 Johnson's administration, 
 356. 
 
 Donelson, Fort, capture of, 175. 
 Dorman, James, Rev., whipped 
 
 by Ku-Klux, 471. 
 Dougherty, Edward, removed 
 from judgeship in Texas, 
 573. 
 
 Douglas, Stephen A., advocate 
 of measures for allaying 
 slavery agitation, 28. 
 
 Views of possible modes of 
 avoiding the civil war, 29. 
 
 Introduces Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 49. 
 
 His doctrine of squatter sov 
 ereignty favored by the 
 Northern Democrats, 55. 
 
 Position respecting Lecomp- 
 ton bill, 56, 58. 
 
 Speech at Columbus, 58. 
 
 His vote on the conference 
 bill, 58. 
 
 Candidacy at the Charleston 
 convention, 59. 
 
 Nominated for the Presi 
 dency, 1860, 60. 
 
 His doctrines finally defeated, 
 61. 
 
 Leader in the Senate of the 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 63. 
 
 Anxious for reconciliation, 64. 
 
 Death of, 1861, 67. 
 
 Eulogies upon, 67, 68. 
 
 View of Southern attitude 
 toward the Crittenden pro 
 position, 77. 
 
 Testimony respecting the 
 committee of thirteen, 80. 
 
 Following of, 622-623. 
 Dred Scott decision, effect upon 
 
 parties, 58. 
 
 Dupont, Samuel F., command 
 ing naval forces in expedi 
 tion against Port Royal, 
 1861, 165. 
 
 Durant, Thomas J., commis 
 sioner of registration in 
 Louisiana, 1863, 426. 
 
 Declines appointment of gov 
 ernor of Louisiana, 545. 
 Durell, E. H., president of Lou 
 isiana convention, April 
 1864, 428. 
 
 Durkee, Charles, senator, Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 89. 
 
 His hostility to the fugitive 
 
 slave law, 89. 
 Duties on imports, statement 
 
 of, 1860-1864, 138-140. 
 Edgerton, Frank S., murder of, 
 
 566. 
 
 Edmondson, Harry A., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Edmondson, Harry A., member 
 of Confederate Congress, 
 93. 
 
 Edmunds, Geo. F., chairman of 
 senate committee on the 
 electoral count, 1876, 638. 
 Remarks by him in said com 
 mittee, 642, 644, 646, 647. 
 Member of electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 
 Education of colored people in 
 Connecticut, efforts to ward, 
 40,41. 
 
 Eggleston, B. B., presides at 
 constitutional convention, 
 , Mississippi, 1868, 526. 
 
 Eldridge, Charles A., member 
 of committee of investiga 
 tion, preliminary to im 
 peachment of President 
 Johnson, 581. 
 
 Elections, presidential, 1856, 50 ; 
 1860, 60, 61 : 1864, 617, 618 ; 
 1868, 619, 624 ; 1872, 627, 628 ; 
 1876, 634, 635 ; 1880, 675 ; 1884, 
 683. 
 
 Elective franchise, question of 
 
 conferring right of, upon 
 
 colored persons in the work 
 
 of reconstruction, 343, 344. 
 
 Restricted in Tennessee, 1865, 
 
 Military interference with ex 
 ercise of, 629-634. 
 Electoral college, states in re 
 bellion declared not en 
 titled to be represented in, 
 342. 
 
 Electoral commission, occasion 
 for, 637. 
 
 Committees of Congress for, 
 637. 
 
 Other plars than proposed, 
 638. 
 
 The McCrary plan, 638. 
 
 House committee's plan of 
 constituting it from the su 
 preme court, 638, 642. 
 
 Question of finality of con 
 clusions of, 638, 639. 
 
 Secrecy of deliberations pre 
 paratory to, 639. 
 
 Committee conferences re 
 specting, 640-648. 
 
 The mixed-tribunal plan, 640. 
 
 The "lot" feature, 640. 
 
 The "lot" feature disclosed, 
 641. 
 
 The "lot" feature abandoned, 
 641. 
 
 The seniority principle of se 
 lection of members, 643. 
 
 The "cob-house" principle, 
 646. 
 
 The geographical plan, 646. 
 
 Agreement of committee, 
 648. 
 
 Passage of bill for, 649. 
 
 Constitution of, 650. 
 
 First meeting of, 625. 
 
 Assumes the regularity of the 
 returns of the Hayes elec 
 tors in the Florida case, 653. 
 
 Excludes evidence, aliunde, 
 653. 
 
 Decides the Florida vote in 
 favor of Hayes, eight to 
 seven, 653. 
 
 Decides congress concluded 
 by the governor's certificate 
 in the case of the electoral 
 vote of Florida, 653. 
 
 Considers the Louisiana re 
 turns, 655. 
 
 Declines to admit evidence, 
 aliunde, 655, 666. 
 
 Electoral commission, Louis 
 iana vote in favorof Hayes, 
 eight to seven, 656. 
 
 Electoral C9unt, 1877, 652-666. 
 Filibustering to prevent com 
 pletion of, 664. 
 Close of, 665. 
 
 Electoral vote, question of 
 right to count, 636, 637. 
 
 Ellis, John W., as governor, 
 urges North Carolina to se 
 cession, 119. 
 
 Governor of North Carolina, 
 1861, 294. 
 
 Ellsworth, Ephrnim Elmer, col 
 onel of zouave regiment of 
 Illinois, 154. 
 Killed at Alexandria, 154. 
 
 Ely, Alfred, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 91. 
 At Bull Run, 157. 
 Captured, 158. 
 
 Emancipation, in other coun 
 tries, 37. 
 
 Emancipation of slaves a legiti 
 mate result of the war, 
 364. 
 
 Equality before the law a le 
 gitimate result of, 364. 
 
 Emancipation proclamation is 
 sued; 123. 
 
 Proposed by Charles Sumner 
 to be made a statute, 340. 
 
 Emory, W. H., commander 
 department of the Gulf, 565. 
 Course of, in the McEnery- 
 Kellogg contest, 565. 
 
 English, James E., votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 
 English, William H., nominated 
 by the Democratic party for 
 Vice-President, 1880, 674. 
 Vote cast for, in the electoral 
 college, 675. 
 
 Ericsson, John, service to the 
 Union as an inventor, 172. 
 
 Et cetera oath, 606. 
 
 Etheridge, Emerson, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 His genius for politics, 74. 
 
 Eustis, George, and McFarland, 
 E. I., secretaries of Messrs. 
 Mason and Slidell, 279. 
 
 Eustis, George, taken from the 
 
 Trent, 280. 
 
 Letter acknowledging cour 
 tesy of Captain Wilkes, 281. 
 
 Evarts, William M., counsel be 
 fore the electoral commis 
 sion, 1877, 653. 
 
 Member of the Hayes cabinet, 
 669. 
 
 Everett, Edward, nominated 
 
 Vice-President, 1860. 60. 
 Proposed member of peace 
 commission, 1861, 315. 
 
 Ewell, Richard S., in the Shen- 
 
 andoah valley, 183. 
 At Manassas, 188. 
 
 Ewing, Thomas, proposed mem 
 ber of peace commission 
 1861, 315. 
 
 Exchange of prisoners, theo 
 retical obstacles to, 243. 
 
 Exposition at New Orleans, 
 lessons of, 678, 679. 
 
 Fairfax, Lieut. D. M., boards 
 
 the Trent, 279. 
 
 Captain Wilkes' instructions 
 to, 279. 
 
 Fair Oaks, battle of, 184. 
 
 Familiar and frequent oath- 
 taking, remarks on the sub 
 ject, 604-612. 
 
 Farm, the, foundation of our 
 industries, 692. 
 
708 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Farm, the, public land devoted 
 
 to farms, 693. 
 Homestead system, 694. 
 Farragut, David G., captures 
 
 New Orleans, 193. 
 At Port Hudson, 196. 
 At Mobile, 210, 211. 
 Federal Hill fort, occupation of 
 
 by General Butler, 153. 
 Federal party, cause of over 
 throw, 105. 
 Attitude toward state rights, 
 
 108. 
 
 Federal system of representa 
 tion, theory of, vindicated, 
 
 Federal system, vitality of, 124. 
 
 Fellows, J. Q. A., candidate for 
 
 governor of Louisiana, 1864, 
 
 427. 
 
 Fenton, Reuben E., senator and 
 
 governor, 91. 
 
 Ferry, Orris S., senator in 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, from 
 Connecticut, 91. 
 Ferry, Thomas W M presides at 
 the count of the electoral 
 votes, 1877, 652. 
 
 Announces decision in matter 
 of Louisiana electoral vote, 
 660. 
 
 Announces result of the elec 
 toral count, 665. 
 Fessenden, William P., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72 
 Secretary of the treasury, 86. 
 Field, David Dudley, counsel 
 for Milligan before the su 
 preme court, 230. 
 Counsel for the plaintiff in 
 error in Cummings case, 251. 
 On the use of the army at the 
 
 polls. 631. 
 
 Field, Stephen J., delivers 
 opinion of supreme court 
 in the Cummings case, 253. 
 Delivers opinion of supreme 
 court in ez-parte Garland, 
 256. 
 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 
 Considered the action of the 
 electoral commission in the 
 Florida case unjust, 655. 
 Proposition in the electoral 
 
 commission, 656. 
 Fifth Regiment, New York 
 Excelsior brigade, scouting 
 party of, near Fredericks- 
 burg, 199. 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, candidate of 
 the American party for the 
 presidency, 1856, 50. 
 Suggests, 1849, issue of bank 
 notes secured by United 
 States stocks, 143. 
 Proposed member of peace 
 
 commission, 1861, 315. 
 Finances, national, prior to the 
 
 civil war, 125-129. 
 Management of, during the 
 
 civil war, 129-144. 
 Financial crises of 1837 and 1857 
 
 131. 
 
 Financial state of Virginia, 493. 
 North Carolina, 499. 
 South Carolina, 506. 
 Georgia, 511. 
 Alabama, 516. 
 Florida, 524. 
 Mississippi, 532, 533. 
 Arkansas, 542. 
 Louisiana, 550, 553, 569, 570. 
 Texas, 572, 577. 
 
 Fishback, William M., elected 
 senator from Arkansas, 437. 
 
 Fisher, Fort, operations against 
 
 and capture of, 212. 
 Fitch, Graham N., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Attitude toward secession, 89. 
 Fitzpatrick, Benjamin, nomi 
 nated Vice-President, 60. 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 70. 
 Sketch of, 87. 
 
 Presided over Alabama con 
 vention, Sept. 1865, 404. 
 Flag of the Union, similarity 
 to flag of Confederacy, 308. 
 Symbolism of the resem 
 blance, 308. 
 
 Flanders, B. F., candidate for 
 governor of Louisiana, 1864, 
 427. 
 
 Appointed governor of Louis 
 iana, 545. 
 
 Flanagan, J. W., elected sena 
 tor from Texas, 1870, 577. 
 Flannegan, Harris, governor 
 
 of Arkansas, 1864, 295. 
 Florence, Thomas B., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 Florida, question of acquisition 
 
 Convention and ordinance of 
 secession, 115. 
 
 Delegates elected to South 
 ern Congress, 115. 
 
 Military operations in, in 1862, 
 
 Provisional government of, 
 419. 
 
 Convention, 1865, 419. 
 
 Ordinance of secession de 
 clared void, 420. 
 
 Part of the third military dis 
 trict, under reconstruction 
 acts, 517. 
 
 Registration in, 517. 
 
 Constitutional convention in, 
 517. 
 
 The constitution, 517. 
 
 The legislature, 517. 
 
 Admission to representation, 
 517. 
 
 Installation of state officers 
 of, 518. 
 
 Government, 1868-'74, 518-524. 
 
 Legislation in, concerning 
 freed men, 523. 
 
 Financial condition of, 1872, 
 524. 
 
 Presidential returns from, at 
 the electoral count, 1877, 637. 
 
 Electoral vote of, consid 
 ered by the electoral com 
 mission, 1877, 652. 
 
 Decision of the electoral com 
 mission, upon electoral vote 
 of, 653. 
 
 Vote of, counted for Hayes, 
 654. 
 
 Comparison of case before 
 electoral commission with 
 that of Louisiana, 660. 
 Flournoy, R. W., experience 
 
 with Ku-Klux, 472. 
 Floyd, John B., course as sec 
 retary of war, 151. 
 
 Abandons Fort Donelson, 175, 
 
 176. 
 
 Foote, Andrew H., services on 
 the Tennessee River, 175. 
 
 Takes Clarksville, 176. 
 Foote, Henry S., offers resolu 
 tion in Confederate Con 
 gress, September, 1862, for 
 peace, 318. 
 
 Sketch of, 319. 
 
 Force bill, debate upon, April 
 4,1871, 475-479. 
 
 Force bill, author's speech up 
 on, 476, 479. 
 
 Force bills characterized, 452. 
 
 Force or freedom, author's 
 speech from that text, 633. 
 
 Foreign power, Confederate 
 union with, suggested, De 
 cember, 1864, 312. 
 
 Foreign relations during the 
 
 civil war, 258-274. 
 Mr. Seward's management of, 
 273. 
 
 Forney, John W., incident at 
 house of, 1855, 410. 
 
 Forrest, N. B., testimony of, 
 respecting the Ku-Klux, 
 454, 455. 
 
 Forsyth, John, of Alabama, 
 peace commissioner from 
 the Confederacy, 146. 
 
 Fort Lafayette, " The Ameri 
 can Bastile," 282. 
 British subjects detained in, 
 282. 
 
 Fort Warren, Captain Wilkes' 
 prisoners detained in, 281. 
 
 Foster, Charles, member of 
 committee for investigating 
 Louisiana election of 1874, 
 569. 
 
 Foster, John G., services at 
 
 Newbern, 1862, 167. 
 At the battle of Games' Mills, 
 186. 
 
 Foster, La Fayette S., efforts in 
 Thirty-sixth Congress to 
 avert war, 64. 
 
 President pro tempore of the 
 Senate, 86. 
 
 Fouke, Philip B., member of 
 the Thirty-sixth Congress, 
 
 Obligation to congressional 
 
 associations, 95. 
 
 Fourteenth amendment dis 
 cussed and condemned, 257. 
 Franklin, Benjamin, breach be 
 tween him and John Adams, 
 129. 
 Franklin, William B., at West 
 
 Point, Va., 182. 
 
 Franklin, William S., com 
 mander sub-district of Win 
 chester, 486. 
 Frederick, Caesar, murdered in 
 
 Alabama, 1870, 469. 
 Fredericksburg, battle of, 192. 
 Freedmen, President Lincoln's 
 remarks respecting, in mes 
 sage of Dec. 8, 1863, 338. 
 
 Status of, 1867, 375. 
 
 Rights refused to, in Tennes 
 see, 1866, 382. 
 
 Legislation in North Carolina 
 respecting, 1866, 388. 
 
 Legislation respecting the, 
 in Mississippi, 1865, 393. 
 
 Legislation respecting the, in 
 Georgia, 1865, 398. 
 
 General Granger's order re 
 specting, 400. 
 
 Legislation respecting the, in 
 Texas, 401. 
 In Alabama, 406. 
 In South Carolina, 415. 
 In Florida, 420. 
 In Virginia, 424. 
 In Arkansas, 436, 438. 
 
 Order of General Sickles re 
 specting, 416. 
 
 Attitude of, in South Caro 
 lina, 1867, 501. 
 
 Legislation in South Carolina 
 respecting, 504. 
 
 Convention of, at Charleston, 
 1867, 501. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 709 
 
 Freedmen, convention of, at 
 Mobile, Ala., 1867, 512. 
 
 Legislation in Florida con 
 cerning, 523. 
 
 Threatened outbreak of, in 
 Mississippi, 1867, 526. 
 
 Legislation respecting the, in 
 Louisiana, 1869, 553. 
 
 Persecuted in Texas, 572, 574. 
 
 Orders respecting, in Texas, 
 
 573. 
 
 Freedmen's Bureau, attitude of 
 administration of, toward 
 state courts, 1866, 388. 
 
 Acts of establishment of, 
 441, 442. 
 
 President Johnson's vetoes of 
 acts establishing, 444. 
 
 Investigation of, 447. 
 Freedom of the seas, the policy 
 of the United States, 264. 
 asserted by America, 
 
 American doctrine of, admit 
 ted by Great Britain as a 
 result of the Trent affair, 
 293. 
 
 Free ships and free trade, 289. 
 Free soil party, 48. 
 Frelinghuysen, F. T. f member 
 of committee on the elec 
 toral count, 637. 
 Remarks in said committee, 
 
 642,643. 
 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 Fremont, John C., service in 
 
 Virginia, 184. 
 
 French, Ezra B., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 90. 
 Second auditor of the treas 
 ury, 90. 
 
 French, George Z., member of 
 convention and legislature 
 of Alabama, during recon 
 struction period, 498. 
 Frye, William P., member of 
 committee of Congress to 
 visit New Orleans to com 
 pose political situation, 569. 
 Frost, Daniel M., surrenders 
 Fort Jackson, Mo., to Capt. 
 Lyon, 163. 
 Fugitive slave act, irritation 
 
 produced by, 48. 
 Its requirement of surrender 
 of fugitives without trial by 
 jury, 51. 
 
 Question of its constitution 
 ality, 62. 
 
 Opposition in Ohio, 62. 
 State legislation to nullify, 
 
 106-109. 
 Fusion party in Louisiana, 1872, 
 
 562. 
 
 Games' Mills, battle of, 186. 
 Ganson, John, offers resolution 
 to investigate the matter of 
 military incarceration, Jan., 
 1865, 233. 
 
 Votes for thirteenth amend 
 ment, 326. 
 Gardner, Frank, surrenders 
 
 Port Hudson, 196. 
 Garfield, James A., one of the 
 counsel for Milligan before 
 the supreme court, 230. 
 Argument in defense of Mil 
 ligan, 232. 
 
 Remonstrates against mili 
 tary incarcerations, 234. 
 Offers, June 13, 1864, the 
 Brown substitute for House 
 reconstruction bill, 340. 
 Opposes electoral commission 
 bill in the House, 649. 
 
 Garfleld, James A., member 
 electoral commission, 650. 
 
 Nominated by the Republi 
 can party for President, 673. 
 
 Elected, 675. 
 
 Sketch of, 675. 
 
 His inaugural, 675. 
 
 Assassination, 675, 676. 
 
 His fortitude, 676. 
 Garland, Augustus H., 31. 
 
 Facts in the case of his appli 
 cation for restoration to 
 practice in supreme court, 
 255. 
 
 Decision in said case, 256. 
 
 Biographical sketch of, 440, 
 
 Elected governor of Arkan 
 
 sas, 1874, 540. 
 Stand for the repeal of the 
 
 prescriptive oaths, 616. 
 Garnett, M. R. H., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Disposed toward a Southern 
 
 Confederacy, 78. 
 His Confederate service, 92. 
 Wounded at Seven Pines, 93. 
 Favoring secession, 74. 
 Oratory at the time of the 
 
 withdrawal of the states, 64. 
 Garrison, William Lloyd, estab 
 
 lished The Liberator, 1831, 50. 
 Gartrell, Lucius J., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Favoring secession, 74. 
 Sketch of, 96. 
 Geutry, Meredith P., 297. 
 Georgia, secession convention, 
 
 111. 
 Debates in the legislature 
 
 and convention respecting 
 
 secession, 111, 112. 
 Ordinance of secession, 111. 
 Seizure of United States 
 
 property, 111. 
 Payment of debts to northern 
 
 creditors forbidden, 111. 
 Election of delegates to 
 
 Southern Congress, 111. 
 Military operations in, in 
 
 1862, 173. 
 
 Campaign, 1864, 206-209. 
 Declines to respond to Con 
 
 federate call for troops, 
 
 1864, 305. 
 Peace resolutions proposed in 
 
 legislature of, 1864, 319. 
 Desolation following Sher 
 
 man's march through, 395, 
 
 467. 
 Steps toward reorganization 
 
 in, 397. 
 Provisional government of, 
 
 397. 
 
 Convention, 1865, 'Jdl. 
 Ordinance of secession an 
 
 nulled, 397. 
 Part of third military district 
 
 under reconstruction acts, 
 
 508. 
 
 Civil officers in,continued, 508. 
 Registration in, 509. 
 Constitutional convention un 
 
 der reconstruction acts, 509. 
 Constitution ratified, 510. 
 Conditions of readmission of, 
 
 as prescribed by Congress, 
 
 510. 
 
 Legislature of, 1868, 510, 511. 
 Debt of, increased under 
 
 Republican rule, 511. 
 Financial condition, 1872, 511. 
 Gettysburg, battle of, 201. 
 Gibson, George, Jr., comman 
 
 der sub-district of Fortress 
 
 Monroe, 486. 
 
 Gibson, Randall, action in 
 House on decision of elec 
 toral commission in Florida 
 case, 657. 
 
 Giddings, Joshua R., contended 
 that the Democratic party 
 in 1857 was committed to 
 inter-state slave trade, 39. 
 
 Aggressive anti-slavery ora 
 tor, 75. 
 
 Gilmer,John A.,member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from North 
 Carolina, 74. 
 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 remedy, 74. 
 
 His wit, 74. 
 
 Attitude respecting Critten- 
 den compromise, 78. 
 
 Sketch of, 93. 
 
 Gilmore, Quincy A., services in 
 operations against Fort 
 Pulaski, 173. 
 
 Issues order annulling Gov. 
 Brown's proclamation of 
 May 3, 1865, 397. 
 
 Proclamations by,1865, 411,412. 
 Gist. Wm. H., governor South 
 Carolina, 108. 
 
 Recommends call of conven 
 tion to consider the mode 
 
 108. 
 
 Gleason, W. H., contest with 
 Governor Reed of Florida, 
 518. 
 Gold, coinage of, 670. 
 
 Standard of same, 670, 671. 
 
 Dollar standard unit of value, 
 
 671. 
 Goldsborough, Louis M., naval 
 
 services, 1862, 166. 
 Goodell, William, extract from 
 his work, Slavery and Anti- 
 Slavery, 39, 40. 
 Gordon, John B., 31. 
 
 Takes Fort Stedman, 213. 
 
 Attacks Fort Hascall, 213. 
 
 Testimony respecting state of 
 feeling in the South, 467, 
 468. 
 
 Candidate for governor of 
 
 Georgia, 510. 
 Governors of Southern States, 
 
 1861, 294 ; 1864, 295. 
 Grand Parish, La., outbreak in, 
 
 April, 1873, 565. 
 Granger, Gordon, at Mobile, 211. 
 
 His order respecting freed- 
 
 men in Texas, 400. 
 Granger, R. S., commander 
 sub-district of Richmond, 
 486. 
 Grant, General U. S., 31. 
 
 Attacks Confederates at Bel- 
 mont, Mo., 163. 
 
 Captures Fort Donelson, 175, 
 J76. 
 
 At Shiloh, 177. 
 
 His Mississippi campaign, 1863, 
 194. 
 
 Captures Vicksburg, 195. 
 
 At Chattanooga, 202. 
 
 General-in-chief, March, 1864, 
 203. 
 
 Letter of, April 19, 1861, 220. 
 
 Maxim on which he acted, 
 227. 
 
 Remark on complete desola 
 tion of the Shenandoah val 
 ley, 309, 310. 
 
 Letter to Judge Dent, 1839, 
 respecting parties in Missis 
 sippi, 529. 
 
 Dispatch to General Sheridan 
 respecting construction of 
 reconstruction acts, 546. 
 
7io 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Grant, General U. S., course of, 
 respecting difficulties in 
 Louisiana, 1872-3, 562-568. 
 Receives General Lee's sur 
 render, 578. 
 Appointed secretary of war 
 
 ad interim, 582. 
 
 Clemency of, in the agree 
 ment with Lee, 597. 
 Elected President, 1868, 634. 
 Elected President, 1872, 628. 
 Tribute to, 672, 673. 
 Great Britain recognizes the 
 
 Confederacy, 258. 
 Greeley, Horace, favored non- 
 coercion, 64. 
 
 Peace correspondence and 
 conference with Sanders, at 
 Niagara, 1864, 317. 
 Bondsman for Jefferson Da 
 vis, 579. 
 
 Causes of his selection for the 
 candidacy for the presi 
 dency, 597, 598. 
 Candidate for the presidency, 
 
 627, 628. 
 
 Green, Ashbel, counsel for Mr. 
 Tilden in the Louisiana case 
 before the electoral com 
 mission, 655. 
 
 Green, James S., senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 Opposed Douglas on the Le- 
 
 compton question, 71. 
 Asserted the vigor of the Con 
 stitution in its relation to 
 slavery, 89. 
 
 His ability in debate, 89. 
 Greenback party, platform of 
 1880, nomination of General 
 Weaver, 675. 
 
 Greene, Major-General Nathan 
 iel, statue of, 26. 
 Griffin, Charles, in command of 
 the fifth military district, 
 547. 
 
 In command of the sub-dis 
 trict of Texas, 572. 
 Grimes, James W., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 89. 
 Sketch of, 89. 
 
 Vote in committee on Jeffer 
 son Davis' proposition, 115. 
 Interview of, with President 
 Johnson during impeach 
 ment trial, 593. 
 
 Reasons for vote of, upon im 
 peachment trial, 593, 594. 
 Griswold, John A., votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 Groesbeck, Win. S., counsel for 
 President Johnson, in im 
 peachment trial, 587. 
 Grow, Galusha A., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Sketch of, 75. 
 
 Altercation with Keitt, 75, 77. 
 Grundy, Felix, 297, 298, 440. 
 Guizot, Francois P. G., favors 
 
 Swiss secessionists, 261. 
 Gurley, John A., at Bull Run, 
 
 157, 158. 
 Seeks removal of McClellan, 
 
 1861, 159. 
 
 Gustinel, Arthur, removed 
 from office by General Han 
 cock, 549. 
 
 Guthrie, James, remarks of, 28. 
 Proposed member of peace 
 
 commission, 1861, 315. 
 Personal appearance, 356. 
 Gwin, William M., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Sketch of, 90. 
 
 Habeas corpus, suspension of, 
 in 1862, 224. 
 
 Habeas corpus, suspended by 
 the Confederate govern 
 ment, 247. 
 
 Disregard of, in North Caro 
 lina, 458, 459. 
 
 Hahn, Michael, governor of 
 Louisiana, 295. 
 
 Inauguration, 427. 
 
 Sketch of, 427, 428. 
 
 Elected senator, 429. 
 
 Resigned governorship, 429. 
 Hale, John P., anti -slavery can 
 didate for the presidency, 
 1848, 48. 
 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 72. 
 
 His wit and humor, 86. 
 Hale, William, murdered in Al 
 abama, 1870, 466. 
 Halleck, General Henry W M in 
 command of the Western 
 department, 1861, 163. 
 
 At Corinth, 178. 
 
 Hallett, Benjamin F., member 
 of the Massachusetts consti 
 tutional convention of 1850, 
 586. 
 
 Hamburgh massacre, 467. 
 Hamilton, Alexander, views on 
 government, 680. 
 
 His system the foundation of 
 the Republican platform of 
 1884,680. 
 
 His scheme of internal reve 
 nue to discharge Revolu 
 tionary War debt, 129. 
 Hamilton, A. J., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress from 
 Texas, 74. 
 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 cure for Southern ills, 74. 
 
 Member of committee of 
 thirty-three, 77. 
 
 Sketch of, 98. 
 
 Provisional governor of Tex 
 as, 295. 
 
 Condition of affairs at the 
 time of his appointment as 
 governor, 399. 
 
 Declaration respecting the 
 freedmen, 399. 
 
 Leader of conservatives in 
 Texas constitutional con 
 vention, 574. 
 
 Candidate for governor, 1869, 
 
 576. 
 
 Hamilton, Morgan C., leader of 
 radicals in Texas constitu 
 tional convention, 574. 
 
 Elected senator from Texas, 
 
 1870, 577. 
 
 Hamlin, Hannibal, Republi 
 can candidate for the vice- 
 presidency, 1860, 60. 
 
 Vice-President, 86. 
 Hammond, James H., senator 
 Thirty-sixth congress, 87. 
 
 Author of the Pro-slavery 
 
 Argument, 87. 
 Hampton Roads couferenee,333. 
 
 Good faith at, 336. 
 Hampton Roads, naval battle in 
 
 168. 
 Hampton, Wade, 31. 
 
 Candidate for governor of 
 South Carolina, 1865, 413. 
 
 Advice by him to the freed 
 men, 1867, 501. 
 
 Hancock, W. S., at Williams- 
 burg, 181. 
 
 Seward's tribute to, 274. 
 
 Assigned to the command of 
 the fifth district, 296. 
 
 Assumes command of fifth 
 military district, November 
 28, 1867, 547. 
 
 Hancock, W. S., order of, on 
 
 assuming command, 547. 
 Nominated by the Democratic 
 party for President, 1880, 
 674. 
 
 Brilliant record of, 674. 
 Electoral vote for, 675. 
 Cause of his defeat for the 
 
 Presidency, 675. 
 Hardee, William J., evacuates 
 
 Savannah, 209. 
 Hardeman, Thomas, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 98. 
 Served in the Confederate 
 
 army, 90. 
 
 Harden, B., humor of, 365. 
 Harlan, James, attitude re 
 specting conciliation,1861,79. 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 89. 
 
 Secretary of the interior, 89. 
 Statement by,respecting Pres 
 ident Lincoln's opinion of 
 the Niagara peace negotia 
 tions, 318. 
 
 Harper's Ferry, loss of, 189. 
 Harris, Barry, murdered in 
 
 Alabama, 1870, 469. 
 Harris, Benjamin G., casts sole 
 vote against Green Clay 
 Smith's resolutions respect 
 ing the prosecution of the 
 war, 316. 
 Harris, Isham G., governor of 
 
 Tennessee, 1861, 120. 
 Message to legislature of Ten 
 nessee announcing military 
 league with the Confed 
 eracy, 120. 
 
 Personal sketch of, 297, 298. 
 Harris, J. Morrison, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 92. 
 Gave his efforts to the Union 
 
 party, 92. 
 Harris, Thomas L., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 63. 
 Efforts for peace, 63. 
 Hart, Ossian B., governor of 
 
 Florida, 523. 
 Hartranf t, John F., holds Fort 
 
 Hascall, 213. 
 Haskin, John B., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 Hastings, Warren, scene at trial 
 
 of, 355. 
 
 Hatteras, Fort, fall of, 1861, 165. 
 Hatton, Robert, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Confederate general, 95. 
 Hawkins, George S., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72 
 Cites the withdrawal of 
 Florida as ground for indif 
 ference to compromise, 72. 
 Declines to serve on commit 
 tee of one from each state, 
 December, 1860. 72, 82. 
 Sketch of, 99. 
 
 Hawkins, R. C., service in expe 
 dition against Hatteras, 1861, 
 164. 
 
 Hawley, Joseph R., his reason 
 for voting for the civil 
 rights bill, 629. 
 Hayes, R. B., declared elected 
 
 President, 666. 
 President de facto not de jure, 
 
 Sketch of, 669. 
 Administration of, 670-672. 
 Vetoed silver bill of 1878, 672. 
 Hay John, bearer of President 
 Lincoln's letter of July 18, 
 1864, 318. 
 
 Heintzelman, Samuel P., at 
 Williamsburg, 181. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 711 
 
 Hemphill, John, senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 89. 
 Confederate senator, 89. 
 Henderson, John B., counsel 
 for the State of Missouri in 
 the Cummings case, 251. 
 Interview of the author 
 with, relating to impeach 
 ment trial of President 
 Johnson, 594. 
 
 Considerations affecting vote 
 of, on impeachment trial. 
 591. 
 Hendricks, Thomas A., Seward's 
 
 tribute to, 1868, 274. 
 Senator from Indiana, 356. 
 Nominated Vice-President, 
 
 682. 
 
 Vice-President, 1885, 684. 
 Henry, Fort, capture of, 175. 
 Henry, Gustavus, member 
 Tennessee military league 
 commission, 1861, 120. 
 Henry, Patrick, attitude toward 
 
 slavery, 41, 43. 
 
 Herrick, Anson, votes for thir 
 teenth amendment, 326. 
 Herron, Andrew S., removed 
 from office by General Sher 
 idan, 544. 
 
 Cause of removal of, 544. 
 Hewitt, Abram S., leads move 
 ment against use of army 
 at the polls, 629, 631. 
 Chairman national commit 
 tee, 1876, 630. 
 In charge of the army bill in 
 
 the House, 1877, 630. 
 Speech of March 3,1879, re 
 specting the use of soldiers 
 at the polls, 631, 632. 
 Member of the committee on 
 
 the electoral count, 637. 
 Remarks in, 643, 644. 
 Submits a plan, 645. 
 Hickman, John, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Characterized, 75. 
 Hicks, T. H., as governor of 
 Maryland, endeavors to pre 
 vent passage of troops, 152. 
 Hill, Benjamin H., 303. 
 Advocates electoral commis 
 sion bill in the Senate, 649. 
 Hill, Elias, beaten by Ku-Klux, 
 
 466. 
 Hill, James, secretary of state, 
 
 Mississippi, 532. 
 
 Hill, Joshua, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from Geor 
 gia, 74. 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 
 remedy, 74. 
 A Union man, 96. 
 Billiard, George S., member of 
 the Massachusetts constitu 
 tional convention of 1850, 
 586. 
 
 Hilliard, H. W., Confederate 
 commissioner to negotiate 
 military league with Ten 
 nessee, 1861, 120. 
 Hilton Head, Union occupation 
 
 of, 166. 
 Hindman, Thomas C., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Attitude respecting the Crit- 
 
 tenden compromise, 78. 
 An irreconcilable, 96. 
 Hoar, George F., member of 
 committee of Congress to 
 compose affairs in Louisi 
 ana, 569. 
 Member of committee on 
 
 electoral count, 637. 
 Remarks in, 645. 
 
 Hoar, George F., approves final 
 
 result, 647. 
 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 Hoadley, George, counsel for 
 Mr. Tilden in the Louisiana 
 case before the electoral 
 commission, 635. 
 Hoge-Reed contested election 
 
 case, 465. 
 
 Hoge, S. L., chosen associate 
 justice supreme court of 
 South Carolina, 504. 
 Holcombe, James P., relation 
 of, to the Niagara peace 
 conference, 317. 
 
 Holden, William W., provision 
 al governor of North Caro 
 lina, 295. 
 Authority conferred on, as 
 
 such, 348. 
 
 Proclamation by, as provi 
 sional governor of North 
 Carolina, June 12, 1866, 384. 
 Sketch of, 386. 
 
 Career of, as provisional gov 
 ernor, 387. 
 
 His efforts against disorders 
 in North Carolina as gov 
 ernor by election, 457-459. 
 His disregard of the writ of 
 
 habeas corpus, 458, 459. 
 Impeachment of, 459. 
 Vote at his election as gov 
 ernor of North Carolina, 
 1868, 497. 
 
 Holland, Clark, murder of, 566. 
 Holman, William S., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 Homestead system, formulated 
 as a political issue by Free 
 Soil Democracy, 694. 
 Act establishing, 694. 
 Hood, John B., 31. 
 Confederate service in Geor 
 gia, 207, 208. 
 
 Tennessee campaign, 1864, 209. 
 Hooker, Charles E., attorney- 
 general, Mississippi, 527. 
 Hooker, Joseph, 31. 
 At Williamsburg, 181. 
 Commanding the army of the 
 
 Potomac, 196. 
 At battles of Wilderness and 
 
 Chancellorsville, 197, 198. 
 At Lookout Mountain, 202. 
 House of Representatives, com 
 position of, 695, 696. 
 House of Representatives, dedi 
 cation of new hall, 26. 
 Declares the Democratic can 
 didates elected, March 3, 
 1877, 668. 
 
 Houston, George S., 31. 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress from Alabama, 74, 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 remedy for Southern ills, 74. 
 Sketch of, 97. 
 
 Houston Samuel, attitude to 
 ward the Union, 98. 
 Governor of Texas, 1861, 116. 
 His ability, 296. 
 Biographical sketch of, 300- 
 
 802. 
 
 Howard, Francis Key, his ar 
 rest, 226. 
 
 Howard, Oliver O., at Chancel 
 lorsville, 198. 
 
 On the march to the sea, 208. 
 Commissioner of the Freed- 
 
 men's Bureau, 446. 
 Howell, W. T., murder of, 566. 
 Howe, Timothy O., speech in 
 Senate, Jan. 10, 1866, 350-352. 
 Sketch of, 354. 
 
 Howe, Timothy O., his debate 
 with Reverdy Johnson re 
 specting issues growing out 
 of the war, 355-361. 
 
 Compared with Thaddeus 
 
 Stevens, 365. 
 
 Huggins, A. P., Ku-Klux out 
 rage upon, 472, 473. 
 Hughes, George W., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Attitude respecting secession, 
 
 72. 
 
 Hughes, James, takes part in 
 debate on the Lecompton 
 constitution, Dec. 1857, 27. 
 Humphreys, West W., impeach 
 ment of, 685. 
 
 Humphries, B. G., elected gov 
 ernor of Mississippi, 1865, 
 392. 
 
 His recommendations respect 
 ing status of the negro, 392. 
 
 His career, 390. 
 
 Resists order removing him 
 from office of governor of 
 Mississippi, 527. 
 
 Hunnicutt, James W., radical 
 leader in Virginia, 488. 
 
 Charged with incendiary lan 
 guage, 489. 
 
 Hunter, Robert M. T., personal 
 sketch of, as senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 70. 
 
 Secretary of state for the 
 Confederate States, 87. 
 
 Vote in committee of thirteen 
 on Jefferson Davis' propo 
 sition, 115. 
 
 His instructions to Mason and 
 Slidell, 275. 
 
 Confederate commissioner at 
 the Hampton Roads confer 
 ence, 333. 
 
 Hunton, Eppa, member of com 
 mittee on the electoral 
 count, 637. 
 
 Remarks in, 647. 
 
 Member electoral commission, 
 650. 
 
 Proposition in the electoral 
 
 commission, 656. 
 Hunt-Sheldon contested elec 
 tion case, report in, explain- 
 ing falling off in Republican 
 vote in Louisiana, 552. 
 Huntsville, capture of, 178. 
 Hutchins, Wells A., votes for 
 thirteenth amendment) 326. 
 Impeachment of Wm. Blount, 
 583 ; of Judge Peck, 584 ; of 
 Judge Pickering, 684: of 
 Samuel Chase, 584 ; of West 
 W. Humphreys, 585. 
 Impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 581-594. 
 
 Vote of senators on trial of, 
 591. 
 
 Incidents of minor history 
 of, 591-594. 
 
 Considerations affecting votes 
 of senators upon trial of, 
 
 Imports, 1860-1883, 1884, 138-140. 
 Inauguration of Cleveland and 
 
 Jefferson contrasted, 684. 
 Industries, effect of legislation 
 
 upon, 691. 
 Insurrection, what constitutes 
 
 it, 145. 
 
 Overt acts of, 146. 
 Proclamation, Aug. 16, 1861, 
 
 declaring states in state of, 
 
 242. 
 Interest, joint resolution of 
 
 March 17, 1864, to provide 
 
 for payment of, 135. 
 
712 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Internal revenue, system of 
 for Revolutionary war debt 
 139. 
 
 Act of June 30, 1864, 140. 
 Interpellation of foreign pow 
 ers, Mr. Seward's instruc 
 tions respecting 1 , 262. 
 Intervention, foreign, appre 
 hension of, and causes of 
 prevention, 1861, 260. 
 Question of, in Swiss affair 
 
 1847, 260, 261. 
 
 Intimidation at presidential 
 election of 1808 in Louis 
 iana, 551, 552. 
 Iron-clad ships, 172. 
 Irrepressible conflict, 51. 
 Issues, political, 1864, 618. 
 1868, 619, 620. 
 1872, 627, 628. 
 1876, 628, 629. 
 Growing out of the war, con 
 stituting theme of debate 
 during second decade, 354. 
 Involved in the Trent affair, 
 
 288. 
 
 luka, battle at, 191. 
 Iverson, Alfred .personal sketch 
 of, as senator Thirty-sixth 
 Congress, 70. 
 Attitude respecting peace 
 
 settlement, 79. 
 Character and career, 87. 
 Iowa, surrender of fugitive 
 charged with crime refused 
 in, 109. 
 
 Ireland, the lesson of, 238. 
 Iredell, James, attitude respect 
 ing slavery, 41, 43. 
 Iron-clad oath, its character as 
 a prescriptive measure, 256, 
 257. 
 
 The author's fight for its re 
 peal, 257. 
 
 Enacted July 2, 1862,602. 
 Its terms, 602. 
 Modified form, 604, 605. 
 A peculiar feature of, 609. 
 Passed upon by the supreme 
 court in ex-parte Garland, 
 615. 
 
 Repealed, 616. 
 
 Jackson. Andrew, proclamation 
 of, 1832, against nullifica 
 tion, 145. 
 
 Jackson, Claiborne F., govern 
 or of Missouri, 1861, 294. 
 Jackson, Fort, capture of, 193. 
 Jackson, James, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 96. 
 Chief justice of Georgia, 96. 
 Jackson, Thomas J., 31. 
 In the Shenandoah valley. 183. 
 Flanks McClellan at battle of 
 
 Mechanicsville, 185. 
 At Cedar Mountain, 187. 
 At Chancellorsville, 197. 
 General Lee's letter to, 198. 
 Death from wounds in battle, 
 
 198, 199. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, attitude re 
 specting importation of 
 slaves into Virginia, 37. 
 His estimate of slavery, 41. 
 Position as to slavery exten 
 sion, 42. 
 President, 43. 
 
 Alarmed by the opposition to 
 the admission of Missouri, 
 45. 
 
 Authorship of Kentucky res 
 olutions of 1798, 102. 
 His views respecting state 
 
 rights, 102. 
 
 Questions involved in his elec 
 tion to the presidency, 105. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, sentiment 
 respecting continental 
 paper currency, 128. 
 
 Milton, Locke, and Algernon 
 Sidney prototypes of, 680. 
 
 Democratic platform of 1884 
 inherited from the days of, 
 680. 
 
 His inauguration a contrast 
 to that of Grover Cleveland, 
 684. 
 
 Jenkins, Albert G., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Attitude toward secession, 
 72, 74. 
 
 Confederate general, 93. 
 Jenkins, Charles J., elected 
 governor of Georgia during 
 reconstruction, 509. 
 
 Opposition of, to reconstruc 
 tion acts, 509. 
 
 Removed from office of gov 
 
 ernor by Gen. Meade, 510. 
 Jenkins. Horatio, effort by, to re 
 move Gov. Reed, of Florida, 
 by impeachment, 518. 
 Jocelyn, Simeon S., effort for 
 education of colored peo 
 ple, 40. 
 Johnston, Albert S., 31. 
 
 Killed at Shiloh, 177. 
 Johnson, Andrew, 31. 
 
 As President, endeavored to 
 blend reconciliation with 
 reconstruction, 34. 
 
 Personal sketch of, as senator 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 
 His devotion to the Union, 89. 
 
 Appointed military governor 
 of Tennessee, with the rank 
 of brigadier-general, 176. 
 
 Approves sentence of mili 
 tary commission in the 
 case of Milligan, 230. 
 
 Seward's tribute to, 1868, 274. 
 
 His reconstruction policy, 
 
 346. 
 
 Johnson, President, limitations 
 of amnesty in proclamation 
 of 1865, 346, 347. 
 
 Appoints W. W. Holden pro 
 visional governor of North 
 Carolina, 347, 348. 
 
 States constitutional grounds 
 of his reconstruction policy, 
 348. 
 
 Recognizes reconstructed gov 
 ernment of Louisiana, 349. 
 
 Proclamations raising block 
 ade, 349. 
 
 Recognizes reconstructed gov 
 ernment of Arkansas, 349. 
 Recognizes reconstructed gov 
 ernment of Virginia, 349. 
 
 Vetoes bill for negro suffrage 
 in the District of Columbia, 
 376. 
 
 Vetoes the reconstruction 
 act, 376, 377. 
 
 Sketch of, 381. 
 
 Remarks accompanying sig 
 nature of bill restoring 
 Tennessee to her Federal 
 relations, 382, 383. 
 
 His policy in North Carolina, 
 387. 
 
 Letters of, to Governor 
 Sharkey on plan of recon 
 struction of Mississippi, 391. 
 
 Urges ratification by South 
 Carolina of thirteenth 
 amendment, 414. 
 
 Vetoes Freedmen's Bureau 
 bill of Feb., 1866, 444, 445. 
 
 Condition of affairs at ac 
 cession to presidency of, 580. 
 
 Johnson, President, why se 
 lected for vice-presidency, 
 
 Political views of, 580. 
 
 Cause of Republican quarrel 
 with, 581. 
 
 Proceedings preparatory to 
 impeachment of, 581, 583. 
 
 Impeachment of, 585-594. 
 
 Interview of, with Senators 
 Johnson and Grimes during 
 impeachment proceedings, 
 593. 
 
 Johnson, Reverdy, testimony 
 as to Calhoun's views on se 
 cession, 101. 
 
 Views respecting belligerent 
 status of the insurgents, 
 
 Counsel for the plaintiff in 
 error in the Cummings case, 
 
 Of counsel in ex-parte Gar 
 land, 266. 
 Proposed member of peace 
 
 commission, 1861, 315. 
 Sketch of, 355. 
 
 His debate with T. O. Howe, 
 growing out of the war, 
 355-361. 
 
 Conferences at house of, dur 
 ing impeachment trial of 
 President Johnson, 592, 593. 
 John Brown raid, 50. 
 Johnson, Cave, postmaster-gen 
 eral in President Polk's 
 cabinet, 47. 
 Character as a member of 
 
 Congress, 297. 
 
 Johnson, Herschel V., nomi 
 nated Vice-President, 60. 
 Johnson, James, appointed by 
 President Johnson provi 
 sional governor of Georgia, 
 June 17, 1865, 397. 
 Calls convention, 1865, 397. 
 Johnson, Robert W., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 Attitude respecting secession, 
 
 71. 
 
 Johnston, Joseph E., 31. 
 At Bull Run, 155, 156. 
 In command in northern 
 
 Virginia, 179. 
 Seriously wounded, 185. 
 Georgia campaign, 1864, 206. 
 Surrenders, April, 1865, 212. 
 Jones, Charles W., senator 
 from Florida, sketch of, 
 524. 
 
 Jones, George "W., attempt to 
 cut off debate on Lecomp- 
 ton, 1857, 27, 57. 
 Jones, James C., 297. 
 Joyce, Charles H., takes part in 
 debate on decision of the 
 electoral commission, 657. 
 Juries, right to serve on, re 
 fused to f reedmen in Ten 
 nessee, 1866, 382. 
 Different policies of Generals 
 Sheridan and Hancock re 
 specting construction of, 
 548. 
 Disqualifications under act 
 
 June 17, 1862, 603. 
 Jurors, test oath for, 603. 
 Efforts to remove disqualifi 
 cations, 603, 604. 
 Test oath disqualification re 
 pealed, 616. 
 
 Jury, trial by, action of the 
 secretary of war respecting, 
 1862, 224 
 
 Fair jury trials obstructed 
 by test oath system, 603. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 713 
 
 Jury, trial by, Democracy of 
 America found in union of 
 public freedom with, 603. 
 In France, 604. 
 In Algiers, 604. 
 In Belgium, 604. 
 Cause and proof of civiliza 
 tion and liberty, 604. 
 Justice, James M., outrage 
 upon, by Ku-Klux, 460, 461 
 Kansas, attempt to force sla 
 
 very on, 56. 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill intro 
 duced, 1853, 49. 
 Kearney, Philip, at battle of 
 
 Williamsburg, 181. 
 Kearsarge, the, victory over 
 
 the Alabama, 211 . 
 Keitt, Lawrence M., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Sketched, 74, 94. 
 Altercation with Grow, 75, 97. 
 Utterances in South Carolina 
 
 secession convention, 110. 
 Meeting with John C. Breck- 
 
 enridge, 1855, 410. 
 Kelley, William D., objection 
 
 from, 660. 
 
 Kellogg -McEnery contest for 
 control of Louisiana gov 
 ernment, 563-510. 
 Kellogg, W. P., inaugurated 
 governor of Louisiana, 1873, 
 564. 
 
 Asked to abdicate, 567. 
 His police force routed, 567. 
 Takes refuge in the custom 
 
 house, 567. 
 Reinstated and supported by 
 
 United States tro9ps, 568. 
 Character of administration 
 
 of, 569. 
 
 Kennedy, Anthony, vote on the 
 Clark amendment to the 
 Crittenden compromise, 79. 
 Kentucky, feeling in, respect 
 ing secession, 1861, 153. 
 Military operations in, 186?, 
 
 174, 190, 191. 
 
 Resolutions of, 1798, bearing 
 upon the doctrine of seces 
 sion, 102, 104. 
 Key, David M., member of the 
 
 Hayes cabinet, 670. 
 King, Austin A., votes for thir 
 teenth amendment, 326. 
 King, Preston, devotee of anti- 
 slavery, 87. 
 Kingston, Jesse, Rev., shot by 
 
 Ku-Klux, 471. 
 
 King, William, statue of, 26. 
 Kinney, John F., urges prose 
 cution of the war, 1865, 314. 
 Kirk-Bergen rebellion, 458. 
 Knott, J. Proctor, offers posse 
 comitatus clause as amend 
 ment to the Hewitt army 
 bill, 630. 
 
 Moves for select committee on 
 the electoral count, 1876, 637. 
 Offers resolution of March 3, 
 1877, declaring Democratic 
 candidates elected, 668. 
 Ku-Klux, outrages by, 451-479. 
 
 Origin of, 453. 
 Methods 
 
 Is of, 455. 
 
 Outrages in North Carolina, 
 
 456, 457, 460-462. 
 Alabama, 468. 
 Mississippi, 472, 473. 
 Tennessee, 474. 
 Arkansas, 475. 
 Texas, 475. 
 
 In Louisiana, 1868, 552. 
 Attempts at suppression of, 
 
 in North Carolina, 457. 
 
 45 
 
 Ku-Klux, responsibility for 
 
 463, 475. 
 Kunkel, Jacob M., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Attitude toward secession, 72 
 Lakin, A. 8. Rev., his experi 
 
 ence with Ku-Klux, 471. 
 Lamar, L. Q. C., effect of his 
 
 oratory, 64. 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 
 gress, 74. 
 
 Character as a debater, 74. 
 Present at the Keitt-Grow al 
 
 tercation, 76. 
 Career after the war, 97. 
 Secretary of the interior, 303 
 In the Democratic conven 
 tion of Mississippi, 1875, 533 
 Land Public- 
 Its area, 692. 
 Acquisition of, 692. 
 Cost of, 692, 693. 
 Disposition of, 692, 693. 
 Receipts from, 692, 693. 
 Farm acreage. 693. 
 Area remaining. 693. 
 Pre-emption laws, 694. 
 Homestead system, 694. 
 Homestead law, 694. 
 Railroad land grant system. 
 
 694. 
 
 Unearned railroad grants, 695. 
 Proper disposition of same, 
 
 695. 
 Landrum, John M., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Lane, Henry S., genius of west 
 ern politics, 356. 
 Lane, James H., genius of west 
 ern politics, 356. 
 Lane, Joseph, nominated Vice- 
 
 President, 60. 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 
 gress, 72. 
 Delegate from Territory of 
 
 Oregon, 90. 
 
 Incident in the House, De 
 cember, 1857, 90. 
 Larrabee, Charles H.. member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 99. 
 Sketch of, 99. 
 
 Latham, M. W., senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 72. 
 Labored for peace, 72, 76. 
 Law of nations vs. the Constitu 
 tion, 244. 
 
 La wrence,Wm. member of com 
 mittee of investigation pre 
 liminary to impeachment of 
 President Johnson, 581. 
 Lawton, Alex. R., seized Fort 
 Pulaski by order of Gov 
 ernor Brown, 1861, 304. 
 Lazear, Jesse, favors an armis 
 tice and delegates, 1864, 317. 
 L<eake, Shelton F., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Member Confederate Con- 
 
 Leach, J. T., proposes, May 23, 
 1864, in Confederate Con 
 gress an armistice and com 
 missioners, 319. 
 Le Blonde, Frank, favors com 
 missioners, 1864, 317. 
 Lecompton constitution, au 
 thor's speech against, De 
 cember, 1857, 27, 56, 57. 
 Attempt to cut off debate, 
 
 December, 1857, 27, 56. 
 Lee, Robert E., 31. 
 At Mechanicsville, 185. 
 Brilliant movements at battle 
 
 of Chancellorsville, 197. 
 Crosses the Potomac, 200. 
 At Gettysburg, 201. 
 
 Lee, Robert E., his last efforts 
 before Richmond, 213. 
 
 Surrenders, 214. 
 
 In supreme command, 311. 
 
 Resemblance to Washington, 
 311. 
 
 His anxiety for peaceful, hon 
 orable settlement long be 
 fore surrender, 314. 
 
 Surrenders to General Grant, 
 
 578. 
 
 Letcher, John, as governor, 
 proclaims the secession of 
 Virginia, 119. 
 
 Biographical sketch of, 299, 
 
 Governor of Virginia, 1861, 
 
 294 ; 1864, 295. 
 
 Levee bonds of Louisiana, con 
 troversy respecting, 544. 
 Levy, William M., debates the 
 electoral commission,Louis- 
 iana decision, 657. 
 Liberty, constitutional opposi 
 tion to the administration 
 in a representative govern 
 ment a safeguard of, 28. 
 
 Attitude of the two great 
 parties during the war with 
 respect to personal, 219. 
 
 Contest for, after the war, 240. 
 
 Success of the party of, 240. 
 
 Muniments of, 698, 699. 
 Lincoln Abraham, planned a 
 peace administration, 30. 
 
 Desired to blend reconcilia 
 tion with reconstruction, 
 34. 
 
 Early theory as to disposition 
 to be made of emancipated 
 slaves, 53. 
 
 Republican candidate for the 
 presidency, 1860, 60. 
 
 Elected President, 61. 
 
 Inauguration of, 100. 
 
 Letters to A. H. Stephens, 
 1860, 114, 122. 
 
 Emancipation proclamation, 
 January 1, 1863, 123. 
 
 Proclamation calling for 75,- 
 000 men, April 15, 1861, 150, 
 
 Proclamation of blockade, 
 April, 1861, 152. 
 
 His spirit of regard for civil 
 liberty, 227. 
 
 Proclamation, August 16, 1861, 
 declaring the state of insur 
 rection, 242. 
 
 Scenes of assassination of, 290. 
 
 Response of, December 12, 
 1862, to Fernando Wood's 
 proposition to suspend mili 
 tary operations, 316. 
 
 Letter, July 18, 1864, respect 
 ing terms of peace, 318. 
 
 Disposition to end the war on 
 "liberal terms," 318. 
 
 His opinion of the Niagara 
 peace negotiations, 318. 
 
 Letter of, to F. P. Blair, Jan 
 uary 18, 1865, respecting 
 peace negotiations, 331. 
 
 At the Hampton Roads con 
 ference, 333. 
 
 Amnesty proclaimed by, 337. 
 
 Message of, Dec. 8, 1863, 837, 
 338. 
 
 Proclamation of, July 8, 1864, 
 causes dissatisfaction, 341. 
 
 Remarks respecting recon 
 struction, April 11, 1865, 342. 
 
 General amnesty his policy 
 of reconstruction, 346. 
 
 Opinion on permanence of 
 the Union, 352. 
 
THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham, with Seward 
 
 in the minority in asserting 
 
 states rights, 353. 
 
 His theory of the war, 363. 
 
 Letter of advice to Governor 
 Hahn, 391. 
 
 Letter of, January 20, 1864, 
 respecting reconstruction 
 of Arkansas, 436. 
 
 Kemarks respecting extension 
 of elective franchise to col 
 ored persons, 343, 344. 
 
 Remarks respecting question 
 of status of seceded states, 
 344. 
 
 Remarks respecting essen 
 tials to validity of constitu 
 tional amendment, 344. 
 
 The assassination of, 344. 
 
 Tribute to, 345. 
 
 His policy of charity, 599. 
 Lindsay, K. B., elected gov 
 ernor of Alabama, 469. 
 
 Statement by, respecting Ku- 
 Klux, 469. 
 
 Vote at election as governor 
 
 of Alabama, 516. 
 Littlefleld & Deweese, "lobby 
 
 lawyers," 498, 499. 
 Littlefleld, M. S., associate of 
 Governor Reed, of Florida, 
 524. 
 
 Livingston, Robert R., statue 
 of, 26. 
 
 Course in the negotiations for 
 the Louisiana purchase, 43. 
 Loan of January, 1847, 127. 
 
 March, 1848, 127. 
 Loan act of 1846, 127; 1837, 131; 
 1842, 131 ; 1857, 131 ; 1858, 131 ; 
 1860, 131, 132; Feb. 8, 1861, 
 132 ; March 2, 1861, 132 ; July 
 17, 1861, 132; August 5, 1861, 
 132; February 25, 1862, 133; 
 July 11, 1862, 134; March 3, 
 1863, 134, 135 ; March 3, 1864, 
 135 ; June 30, 1864, 135 ; March 
 3, 1865, 136. 
 Locke, John, a prototype of 
 
 Jefferson, 680. 
 
 Logan, John A., member of 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 
 Incident at the battle of Bel- 
 mont, 95. 
 
 At Bull Run, 157, 158. 
 
 One of the managers in the 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 585. 
 
 Long, Alexander, re-offers, 1864, 
 the peace resolutions of 
 fered by the author in 1861, 
 317. 
 Longstreet, James, 31. 
 
 At Mechanicsville, 186. 
 Lord, Eleazur, originator of 
 New- York free banking 
 system, 143. 
 
 Louisiana, question of acquisi 
 tion of, 43. 
 
 Convention and ordinance of 
 secession, 115. 
 
 Loyal government of, 341. 
 
 Recognition of, proposed, 342. 
 
 Remarks of President Lincoln 
 respecting recognition of 
 loyal government of, 343, 
 o44. 
 
 Reconstructed government 
 of, recognized by President 
 Johnson, 349. 
 
 Military rule in, 1862, 425. 
 
 Movements toward state re 
 organization, 426. 
 
 Convention, 1864. 428. 
 
 Gubernatorial election, 427. 
 
 New Orleans riot of 1866, 431. 
 
 Louisiana, outrages in, 1868, 433. 
 New Orleans riot of 1868, 433. 
 Confiscation in, 434. 
 Part of the fifth military dis 
 trict under the reconstruc 
 tion acts, 543. 
 Removal of civil officers in, 
 
 1867, 544, 545, 547, 549. 
 Registration in, 1867, 544. 
 Removal of Wells, governor 
 
 of, 545. 
 
 Classes excluded from regis 
 tration in, 546. 
 Meeting of constitutional 
 
 convention in, 548. 
 Constitution, 1868, provisions 
 
 of, 549. 
 Financial condition of, 1867-8, 
 
 550. 
 
 Readmission of, to represent 
 ation, 550. 
 Government of, 1868-1874, 550- 
 
 570. 
 Outrages and riots in, 551, 552, 
 
 565-567. 
 
 Difficulties between federal 
 officials and officials of state 
 of, 554-558. 
 Legislative expenses in, 558, 
 
 559. 
 
 Debt and liabilities of, 570. 
 J. S. Black's remarks upon 
 
 carpet-bag rule in, 625. 
 Returns from, in the electoral 
 
 count of, 1877, 637. 
 Electoral vote of, considered 
 by the electoral commis 
 sion, 1877, 655. 
 
 Decision of electoral com 
 mission upon electoral vote 
 of, 1877, 655. 
 Vote of, counted for Hayes, 
 
 660. 
 
 Case before electoral com 
 mission compared with that 
 of Florida, 660. 
 Its returning board, 660. 
 Love joy, Owen, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from Illinois, 
 75. 
 
 Personal sketch of, 75. 
 Love, Peter L., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 96. 
 Lowell, Charles W., postmaster 
 at New Orleans and mem 
 ber of custom-house faction, 
 554, 560, 561. 
 Loyal league, 454. 
 Lubbock, F. R., governor of 
 
 Texas, 295. 
 Luke, Win. C., murdered in 
 
 Alabama, 1870, 469. 
 Lumpkin, Joseph H., 113, 303. 
 Lyon, Nathaniel, services in 
 
 Missouri, 163. 
 
 Lyons, Lord, note in behalf of 
 prisoners in Fort Lafayette, 
 282. 
 British minister, dispatch on 
 
 the Trent affair to, 286-287. 
 Material progress, 685-699. 
 McAllister, Archibald.votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 McBride, Cornelius, Ku-Klux 
 
 outrage upon, 473. 
 McCall, George A., at Mechan- 
 
 iosville, 185. 
 
 McCardle, W. H., arrest of, 526. 
 McClellan.Geo. B., in command, 
 
 1861, 159. 
 
 Author's speech of January, 
 1862, in answer to strictures 
 upon, 159-162. 
 
 Reorganizes army of Poto 
 mac, 163. 
 Campaign of 1862, 179-192. 
 
 McClellan, George B., besieges 
 
 Yorktown, 180. 
 At Sharpsburg, 188. 
 At Antietam, 188. 
 Superseded by General Burn- 
 side, 192. 
 
 Seward's opinion of, ex 
 pressed in 1868, 274. 
 Candidate for the presidency, 
 
 617. 
 
 Reasons for selection of, by 
 the Democratic party for 
 the candidacy, 617. 
 McClernand, John A., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 In command army of the Ten 
 nessee, 194. 
 
 McCrary, George W., member 
 House committee on diffi 
 culties in Louisiana, 557. 
 Member of committee on elec - 
 
 toral count, 637. 
 Submits a plan, 638. 
 Remarks in, 647. 
 Member of the Hayes cabi 
 net, 669. 
 
 McCulloch, Ben., Confederate 
 
 service in Missouri, 1862, 174. 
 
 McCutcheon, J. A. Rev., driven 
 
 away by Ku-Klux, 471. 
 McDonald, Joseph E., one of 
 the counsel for Milligan 
 before the supreme court, 
 230. 
 McDowell, Irvin, at Bull Run, 
 
 154-156. 
 
 Service in Virginia, 183. 
 Assigned to the command of 
 
 the fourth district, 296. 
 Succeeds General Ord in com 
 mand of fourth military dis 
 trict, 527. 
 
 McEnery, John, inaugurated 
 governor of Louisiana, 1873, 
 564. 
 
 McEnery-Kellogg contest for 
 the government of Louis 
 iana, 562-570. 
 
 McEnery legislature, members 
 of, arrested by Kellogg 
 party, 565. 
 McFarland, E. I., and Eustis, 
 Geo., secretaries of Messrs. 
 Slidell and Mason, 279. 
 McFarland, E. I., taken from 
 
 Trent, 289. 
 
 Letter acknowledging cour 
 tesy of Captain Wilkes, 281. 
 McMahon, John A., debates in 
 the House the electoral 
 commission Louisiana ac 
 tion, 657. 
 McPherson, James B., com 
 manding army of the Ten 
 nessee, 206. 
 McQueen, John, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 94. 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 94. 
 
 McRae, John J., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Sketch of, 74, 97. 
 Mackey, O. G., presides at con 
 stitutional convention of 
 South Carolina, 1868, 502. 
 Macon, Fort, capture of, 168. 
 Madison, James, his attitude 
 
 toward slavery, 41, 43. 
 Authorship of the Virginia 
 
 resolutions of, 1798, 103. 
 His views on states rights, 103. 
 Exposition of the Kentucky 
 
 resolutions, 104. 
 Attitude in the constitutional 
 convention of 1787, respect 
 ing slavery, 117. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 715 
 
 Madison, James, American doc 
 trine on right of search laid 
 down by, 289. 
 
 Magna charta, 235. 
 
 Magoffin, Beriah, governor of 
 Kentucky, 1861, 294. 
 
 Magrath, A. G., as governor of 
 South Carolina, attempts 
 to re-establish civil order, 
 1865, 411. 
 
 Maine, first state to ratify the 
 thirteenth amendment.Feb. 
 7, 1865, 329. 
 
 Mallory, Robert, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Personal sketch of, 73. 
 Discusses question of limita 
 tions. January, 1865, 322. 
 
 Mallory, Stephen B., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Attitude as such respecting 
 
 secession, 72. 
 
 Services to the Confederacy, 
 89. 
 
 Malvern Hill, battle of, 187. 
 
 Mansfield, Jos. K. P., in com 
 mand department of Wash 
 ington, 155. 
 
 March to the sea, 207-209. 
 Desolation following thereon, 
 395. 
 
 Marcy, Wm. L., policy respect 
 ing the Declaration of Paris, 
 266, 267. 
 
 Maritime law, principles of, pro 
 posed by the United States, 
 1854, 266. 
 
 Maritime policy of the United 
 
 States, history of, 265-273. 
 Mr. Se ward's declaration of, 
 Sept. 7, 1861, 272. 
 
 Marshall, Humphrey, takes part 
 in debate in the House upon 
 the Lecompton constitution, 
 December, 1857, 27. 
 
 Marshall, John A,, author of 
 The American Bastile, 225. 
 
 Marshall, Samuel S., member of 
 committee of Congress to 
 visit Louisiana to effect 
 compromise between par 
 ties, 569. 
 
 Member of committee of in 
 vestigation preliminary to 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 581. 
 
 Marshal of the United States 
 for North Carolina, conflict 
 between, and the military 
 commander, 495. 
 
 Marston, Gilman, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 90. 
 Military service to the Union, 
 90. ' 
 
 Martial law declared in the 
 North necessary to success 
 ful prosecution of the war, 
 
 Sphere of, declared by the 
 
 supreme court, 231. 
 Martinsburg, loss of, 200- 
 Marvin, Wm., appointed by 
 President Johnson pro 
 visional governor of Florida 
 349. 
 Speech, proclamation, and 
 
 message, 419, 420. 
 Maryland, attitude respecting 
 
 secession, 153. 
 Invasion of, 1862, 188. 
 " 1863, 200. 
 Mason, George, attitude toward 
 
 slavery, 41, 43. 
 
 Mason, James M., personal 
 sketch of, as senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 70. 
 
 Mason, James M., associated 
 with Slidell in the affair of 
 the Trent, 87. 
 Commissioner of the Confed 
 erate States to England and 
 France, 1861, 275. 
 His instructions as such, 275. 
 Embarks on the Trent, 277. 
 Captured by Capt.Wilkes, 279. 
 Protest against arrest, 279. 
 Letter acknowledging cour 
 tesy of Capt. Wilkes, 281. 
 Imprisoned in Fort Warren, 
 
 281. 
 
 Negotiations following ar 
 rest of, 286-290. 
 Released, 292. 
 
 Mason, John Y., as minister to 
 
 France, participates in the 
 
 negotiations respecting the 
 
 Declaration of Paris, 269. 
 
 Massachusetts, constitution of, 
 
 1780, 38. 
 
 States rights in, 106. 
 Personal liberty bills of, 107. 
 Massacre near Coushatta, La., 
 
 August, 1874, 565. 
 Master and apprentice act, Mis 
 sissippi, 1865, 393. 
 Matthews, Stanley, counsel for 
 Mr. Hayes before the elec 
 toral commission, 655. 
 Maynard, Horace,member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Personal sketch of, 73. 
 Minister to Turkey and post 
 master-general, 95. 
 Meade, George G., 31. 
 In command third military 
 
 district, 510. 
 At Gettysburg, 201. 
 Assigned to the command of 
 
 the third district, 296. 
 Mechanicsville, battle of, 185. 
 Meigs, M. C., his services as 
 quartermaster-general, 214, 
 216. 
 
 Memminger, C. G., declaration 
 in the secession convention 
 of South Carolina, 110. 
 In council upon question of 
 firing upon Fort Sumter, 150. 
 Meridian riot, 472. 
 Merrick, Richard T., counsel 
 representing Mr. Tilden be 
 fore the electoral com 
 mission in the Florida case, 
 655. 
 Methodists, persecution of, in 
 
 Alabama, 471. 
 Mexican war, cause of, 48. 
 Ultimate effect of, on slavery, 
 
 48. 
 
 Cost of, 126. 
 
 Financial expedients for de 
 fraying expense of, 127. 
 Mexico, suggestions of combi 
 nation of North and South 
 with relation to, 331, 333, 335. 
 Michigan, personal liberty bill, 
 
 1855, 107. 
 Miles, W. Porcher, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Sketch of, 74, 94. 
 Offers resolution in Confeder 
 ate Congress that peace with 
 the states severally would 
 be revolutionary, 312. 
 Military commission, persons 
 arrested for disloyal prac 
 tices to be tried before, 1862, 
 224. 
 
 For the trial of Milligan, 228. 
 For the trial of the assassins 
 
 of President Lincoln, 232. 
 For Virginia, 485. 
 
 Military districts, commanders 
 
 of, 295, 296. 
 Established by act of March 
 
 2, 1867. 376. 
 Powers of the commanders, 
 
 376, 378, 480. 
 Military incarcerations, Ganson 
 
 resolution respecting, 233. 
 Military situation at the end of 
 
 the year 1864, 309-311. 
 Miller, S. F., delivers dissenting 
 opinion of the supreme 
 court in the Cuinmings 
 case, 252, 254, 255. 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 
 Milligan, Lambdin P., his incar 
 ceration and release, 227.232. 
 Millson, John S., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Union services of, 73. 
 Personal sketch of, 73, 74, 182. 
 Mills, Roger Q., opposes elec 
 toral commission bill in the 
 House, 649. 
 Milton, John, a prototype of 
 
 Jefferson, 680. 
 Governor of Florida, 1861, 294; 
 
 1864, 295. 
 
 Biographical sketch of, 417- 
 
 419. 
 Minnesota, the ship, fight with 
 
 the ram Virginia, 170. 
 Mint, act of April 2, 1792, estab 
 lishing, 670. 
 
 Mississippi, secession conven 
 tion, 114. 
 
 Ordinance of secession, 114. 
 
 Campaign in 1862, 191; 1863, 
 194, 195. 
 
 Military operations in, 1864, 
 203. 
 
 Temporary reorganization of, 
 389. 
 
 Provisional government of, 
 389. 
 
 Convention, August, 1865, 391. 
 
 The Johnson plan of reorgan 
 izing, 391. 
 
 Amendments to the state con 
 stitution of, 392. 
 
 Ku-Klux in, 472, 473. 
 
 Part of the fourth military 
 district under the recon 
 struction acts, 525. 
 
 Registration in, 526. 
 
 Constitutional convention in, 
 526. 
 
 Constitution defeated, 527. 
 
 Ratified, 529. 
 
 Elections in, 1868-1875, 528-532. 
 
 "National Union Republican" 
 party in, 529. 
 
 Admission of, to representa 
 tion, 531. 
 
 Taxes and expenditures, 532, 
 
 533. 
 Missouri, admission of, 45. 
 
 Sympathy with seceding 
 
 Military operations in, 1861, 
 163. 
 
 Campaign in, 1862, 174. 
 
 Proscriptive character of its 
 constitution as revised by 
 the convention of January, 
 
 1865, 250, 251. 
 
 The prescriptive oath of, 613- 
 
 615. 
 
 Persecutions in, 613, 615. 
 Missouri compromise, 45. 
 
 Measure for repeal of, 49. 
 Mitchell, Ormsby M., captures 
 
 Huntsville, 178. 
 
 Mixed schools in Louisiana, bill 
 for, 553. 
 
716 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Mobile Bay, naval victory in, 
 210. 
 
 Mob of 6th of March, 1873, in 
 New Orleans, 564. 
 
 Moderation, author's plea for, 
 479. 
 
 Monitor, the, battle with the 
 Virginia (Merrimac), 170,171. 
 
 Monroe, James, attitude toward 
 
 slavery, 41, 43. 
 
 Policy of his administration 
 in acquiring Florida, 44. 
 
 Monroe, John T., mayor of 
 
 New Orleans, 430. 
 His relation to the massacre 
 
 of July 30, 1866, 431. 
 Removed from mayoralty of 
 New Orleans by General 
 Sheridan, 544. 
 Cause of removal of, 544. 
 
 Montgomery, Wm., member of 
 Thirty- sixth Congress, 76. 
 
 Moore, Andrew B., governor of 
 Alabama, 1861, 294. 
 
 Moore, Sy denham , member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 97. 
 Killed in the Confederate mil 
 itary service, 97. 
 
 Moore, Thomas H., statement 
 respecting affairs in Geor 
 gia, 1865, 395. 
 
 Moore, Thomas O., governor of 
 Louisiana, 1861, 294. 
 
 Moore, Wm. G., private secre 
 tary of President Johnson, 
 591? 
 
 Morrill, Justin S.,member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Skill in tariff calculations, 75, 
 
 90. 
 Senator from Vermont, 90. 
 
 Morris, Edward Joy, efforts in 
 Thirty-sixth Congress to 
 avert war, 64. 
 
 Morris, George M., command 
 ing the Cumberland, 169. 
 
 Morris, Isaiah, at Bull Run, 157, 
 158. 
 
 Morse, Freeman H., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 90. 
 Consul to London, 90. 
 
 Moses, Franklin J., adjutant 
 and inspector-general South 
 Carolina, 503. 
 
 Chief -justice, South Carolina, 
 504. 
 
 Moses, Franklin J., Jr., elected 
 governor of South Carolina,' 
 1872, 506. 
 
 Morton, Marcus, member of the 
 Massachusetts constitution 
 al convention of 1850, 586. 
 
 Morton, Oliver P., energy as 
 
 governor, 297. 
 Member of committee on the 
 
 electoral count, 637. 
 Remarks and aspect in com 
 mittee, 642, 643. 
 Dissatisfied with the result, 
 
 648. 
 Opposes electoral commission 
 
 bill in the Senate, 649. 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 656. 
 
 Mower, Joseph A., in command 
 of the fifth military district, 
 547. 
 
 Munfordville, surrender of, 191. 
 
 Murphy, Isaac, elected govern 
 or of Arkansas, 1864, 436. 
 Vetoes pension bill, 438. 
 
 Murrah, Pendleton, governor 
 of Texas, 1864, 295. 
 
 Myers, Amos, urges persistent 
 prosecution of the war, 1865, 
 
 Myers, Joseph, attorney-gen 
 eral Mississippi, 527. 
 Nash, Beverly, statement by, at 
 mass meeting at Charleston, 
 1867, 501. 
 
 Nashville, battle of, 209. 
 National banks, act of July 12, 
 1870, for issuance of notes 
 to, 137. 
 
 Establishing acts, Feb, 25, 1863, 
 141. 
 
 June 3, 1864, 142. 
 Origin of system of, 143. 
 Report of Secretary Chase, 
 
 Dec., 1861, respecting, 143. 
 Letter of Orlando B. Potter 
 to Secretary Chase, Aug. 14, 
 1861, respecting system of, 
 
 National Union Republican 
 party in Mississippi, 529. 
 
 Navy of the United States, 
 class disqualified for com 
 mission in, 616. 
 
 Neagle, N. J., comptroller-gen 
 eral South Carolina, 503. 
 
 Negro, competent juror in Mis 
 sissippi, 528. 
 
 Nelson, Homer A., votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 
 Nelson, Thomas A. R., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Personal sketch of, 73. 
 Member of committee of 
 
 thirty-three, 77. 
 Counsel for President John 
 son in impeachment trial, 
 587. 
 
 Nesmith, James W., senator 
 from Oregon, 356. 
 
 Newbern, capture of, 167. 
 
 New Grenada, its blockade, 273. 
 
 New Jersey, legislation respect 
 ing fugitive slaves, 109. 
 
 New, John C., action in House 
 on electoral commission, 
 Louisiana decision, 657. 
 
 New Madrid, capture of, 176. 
 
 New Orleans, capture of, 193. 
 
 New-York, personal liberty 
 
 bill, 107. 
 
 Right of transit with slave 
 denied by the courts, 109. 
 
 Niagara, peace conference at, 
 317. 
 
 Niblack, William E., Seward's 
 tribute to, 1868, 274. 
 
 Nicholson, Alfred O. P., senator 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71, 
 89. 
 
 Nodine, John, whipped by Ku- 
 Klux, 461. 
 
 Noell, John W., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 96. 
 
 Norfolk, evacuation of, 181. 
 
 Notes, United States, redemp 
 tion of, in coin, 671. 
 
 North, the. strength of, 214. 
 Response of the, to call for 
 
 troops, 1861, 152. 
 Mechanical skill of, 215. 
 
 North Carolina, free colored 
 
 persons voters in, 1776, 42. 
 Convention and ordinance of 
 
 secession, 120. 
 Loyalty in western, 153. 
 Operations on coast of, 1861, 
 
 164 ; 1862, 166. 
 
 Dissatisfaction with adminis 
 tration of Confederacy near 
 end of war, 312. 
 Peace resolutions proposed in 
 
 legislature, 1864, 319. 
 Contest in, upon question of 
 
 secession, 1861, 383. 
 Provisional government, 384. 
 
 North Carolina, annulment of 
 ordinance of secession, 385. 
 
 Slavery abolished, 385. rrS 
 
 Act of the legislature, March, 
 1866, respecting the negro, 
 388. 
 
 Disorders in, 1868-1871, 455-463. 
 
 Part of second military dis 
 trict under the reconstruc 
 tion acts, 494. 
 
 Attempt to remove civil offi 
 cers in, by the military com 
 mander, 495. 
 
 Interference of the military 
 commander with U. S. mar 
 shal in execution of process 
 in, 495. 
 
 Colored persons admitted to 
 the jury box, 496. 
 
 Registration in, 496-497. 
 
 Constitutional convention in, 
 496. 
 
 Constitution formed under 
 the reconstruction acts in, 
 496. 
 
 Constitution ratified, 497. 
 
 State officers of, elected, 497. 
 
 Bribery and peculation in, 
 1867-1869, 497-499. 
 
 Bonds of, 499-500. 
 
 Restoration of, to full fed 
 eral relations, 507. 
 Northrup, Milton H., clerk of 
 House committee upon the 
 electoral count, 639. 
 Nullification, distinguishedfrom 
 secession, 53. 
 
 Advocated by Calhoun, 53. 
 
 In Ohio, 63. 
 
 Jackson's proclamation 
 
 against, 145. 
 Oath of allegiance, 338. 
 
 Iron-clad, its character as a 
 prescriptive measure, 256, 
 
 Of loyalty, no utility in, 250. 
 Presented by the Missouri 
 constitutional convention 
 of January, 1865, 251. 
 Oaths, mode of administering, 
 
 609. 
 
 Self-nullifying, 609, 610. 
 Abolition desirable, 610. 
 What is an, 611. 
 Forms of, 611. 
 Political, 602-616. 
 (See iron-clad oath and test 
 
 oaths.) 
 
 Remarks on familiar and fre 
 quent taking of, 604-612. 
 Ogbourne, William H., secre 
 tary of Alabama conven 
 tion, September, 1865, 404. 
 O'Gorman, Richard, effort in 
 behalf of Colonel Corcoran, 
 243. 
 
 " Ohio rebellion," 1857, 81. 
 Ohio, refusal to surrender fugi 
 tives, 109. 
 Threatened invasion of, 1862, 
 
 190. 
 
 Olds, Edson B., his arrest, 226. 
 Olmstead, Charles H., Confeder 
 ate service defending Fort 
 Pulaski, 174. 
 Opposition party necessary to 
 
 free government, 28. 
 Osborne, Thomas W., senator 
 
 from Florida, 522. 
 Ord, Edward O. C., assigned to 
 the command of the fourth 
 district, 295. 
 
 Assumes command of the 
 fourth military district 
 under the reconstruction 
 acts, 525. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 717 
 
 Ordinances of secession, solem 
 nity of proceeding's in con 
 ventions adopting, 64. 
 
 Question of validity of, dis 
 cussed, 359. 
 
 Ordinance of secession adopt 
 ed in South Carolina, 108. 
 
 Georgia, 111. 
 
 Mississippi, 114. 
 
 Florida, 115. 
 
 Louisiana, 115. 
 
 Alabama, 116. 
 
 Texas, 116, 117. 
 
 Arkansas, 119. 
 
 Virginia, 119. 
 
 North Carolina, 120. 
 
 Tennessee, 121. 
 
 Annulled in Tennessee, 382. 
 
 North Carolina, 385. 
 
 Mississippi, 392. 
 
 Georgia, 397. 
 
 Texas, 400. 
 
 Alabama, 406. 
 
 South Carolina, 412. 
 
 Florida, 420. 
 
 Arkansas, 436. 
 
 Action of Texas constitu 
 tional convention respect 
 ing, 574, 575. 
 " Oberlin" cases, 62, 93. 
 Ochsenbein, Ulrich, words in 
 the Swiss Diet respecting 
 threatened foreign recog 
 nition of seceding cantons, 
 1847- 260. 
 
 O'Conor, Charles, bondsman for 
 Jefferson Davis, 579. 
 
 Counsel representing Mr. Til- 
 den before the electoral 
 commission in the Florida 
 case, 655. 
 
 Odell, Moses F., speaks in favor 
 of thirteenth amendment, 
 Jan. 9, 1865, 321. 
 
 Votes for thirteenth amend 
 ment, 326. 
 Oregon, electoral vote of, 1877, 
 
 664. 
 
 Orr, James L., personal sketch, 
 27. 
 
 Speaker of Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 55. 
 
 One of the South Carolina 
 treaty commissioners, 1860, 
 110. 
 
 Effort of, in Confederate Con 
 gress toward peace, Jan 
 uary, 1865, 313. 
 
 Elected governor of South 
 Carolina, 1865, 413. 
 
 Address by him at Columbia, 
 S. C., 1867, 501. 
 
 Address at Charleston, S. C., 
 502. 
 
 Addresses constitutional con 
 vention, South Carolina, 
 1868, 502. 
 
 Address on retiring from the 
 
 governorship, 1868, 504. 
 Osterhous, Peter J., at Pea 
 
 Ridge, 174. 
 
 Outrages in North Carolina, 456, 
 457, 460-462. 
 
 In Alabama, 468. 
 
 In Tennessee, 475. 
 
 In Arkansas, 475. 
 
 In Mississippi, cause of, 532. 
 
 In Louisiana, 1868, 551, 552. 
 
 In Texas, report of General 
 Sheridan respecting, 572. 
 
 Report of committee of con 
 stitutional convention of 
 Texas respecting, 574, 575. 
 Packard, S. B., inaugurated 
 governor of Louisiana, 1873, 
 664. 
 
 Packard, S. B., contest with 
 
 McEnery, 562-570. 
 Packard legislature, Louisiana, 
 
 1872, 562. 
 
 Paper money, continental bills, 
 128. 
 
 United States notes, 133. 
 
 National bank notes, 141. 
 
 State bank notes, 142. 
 Pardon, conditions of, under 
 President Lincoln's am 
 nesty proclamation, 337. 
 
 Under President Johnson's 
 
 proclamation, 347. 
 Pardoning power and the four 
 teenth amendment, 601. 
 Parker, Niles G., treasurer 
 
 South Carolina, 503. 
 Parsons, Lewis E., statement 
 by, of condition of people 
 of Alabama, 1865, 402. 
 
 Appointed by President John 
 son, pro visional governor of 
 Alabama, June 21, 1865, 403. 
 
 Acts as governor, 403. 
 
 Superseded, Dec., 1865, 405. 
 
 His testimony respecting Ku- 
 
 Klux in Alabama, 469. 
 Parties, issues dividing Demo 
 cratic and Republican, 35. 
 
 Attitude of, respecting per 
 sonal liberty during the 
 war, 219-240. 
 
 Patton, Robert M., elected gov 
 ernor of Alabama, 1865, 406. 
 
 Address by, upon assumption 
 
 of duties, 407. 
 
 Payne, Henry B., supporter of 
 Douglas at Charleston con 
 vention, 60. 
 
 Chairman of select committee 
 H ouse of Representatives on 
 the electoral count, 1876, 637. 
 
 Remarks by him therein, 641, 
 643, 644, 645. 
 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 
 Proposition in the electoral 
 
 commission, 656. 
 Peace conference of 1861, re 
 sponsibility for its f ailure,80. 
 
 Commissioners from South 
 Carolina, December, 1860, 
 146. 
 
 Commissioners from the Con 
 federate States, 1861, 146, 147. 
 
 The outlook for the era of, 
 217, 218. 
 
 Obstacles to, 239. 
 
 Efforts of Democrats in favor 
 of, 314. 
 
 Resolutions looking toward, 
 proposed in Congress, 315- 
 317. 
 
 Plank in Democratic national 
 platform, 1864, 317. 
 
 Propositions in the Confeder 
 ate Congress, 318. 
 
 Resolutions favoring, pro 
 posed in the legislatures of 
 Virginia, Georgia and North 
 Carolina, and in the Confed 
 erate Congress in 1864, 319. 
 
 Correspondence respecting 
 negotiations for, between 
 Jefferson Davis and Z. B. 
 Vance, 1864-'65, 320, 331. 
 
 Commissioners from the Con 
 federate States, January, 
 1865, 327, 328. 
 
 The Blair negotiation for, 330- 
 332. 
 
 Negotiations for, denounced 
 by radicals in Congress, 332. 
 
 Conference at Hampton 
 Roads respecting, 333. 
 
 Peace conference of 1861, effect 
 of failure of negotiations 
 for, 335. 
 
 Resolution offered by the au 
 thor, Feb. 6, 1865, commend 
 ing negotiation for, 335. 
 
 Debate in the House, Jan. 10, 
 1865, respecting the negotia 
 tions for, 336. 
 
 Author answers speeches of 
 Brooks and Stevens respect 
 ing negotiations for, Jan. 10, 
 1865,336. 
 
 Gained, 336. 
 
 Pea Ridge, battle of, 174. 
 Pease, E. M., candidate for gov 
 ernor of Texas, 1866, 401. 
 
 Appointed governor of Texas, 
 
 Message to the constitutional 
 convention of Texas, 574. 
 
 Peck, E. W., presides at consti 
 tutional convention, Ala 
 bama, 1867, 513. 
 
 Pemberton, John C., surrender 
 of, 195. 
 
 Pendleton, George H., speech 
 opposing thirteenth amend 
 ment, Jan. 12, 1865, 321. 
 Discusses the power to amend 
 the constitution, January, 
 1865,323. 
 
 His civil service reform bill, 
 676. 
 
 Peninsular campaign, 179. 
 
 Penn, D. B., leads uprising 
 against Governor Kellogg, 
 of Louisiana, September, 
 1874, 567. 
 
 Pennington, William, speaker 
 of the House, Thirty-sixth 
 Congress. 75, 92. 
 Sketch of, 75, 92. 
 
 Pennsylvania, personal liberty 
 
 bill, 1847, 107. 
 Invasion of, 1862, 192. 
 Invasion of, 1863, 201. 
 
 Perry, Benjamin F., appointed 
 by President Johnson pro 
 visional governor of South 
 Carolina, 412. 
 
 Course of, as governor of 
 South Carolina, 412, 413. 
 
 Perry, M. S., as governor of 
 Florida, recommends steps 
 toward secession, 115. 
 
 Personal liberty bills, 106-109. 
 
 Petersburg, attack in front of, 
 213. 
 
 Pettus, John J., governor of 
 Mississippi, 1861, 294. 
 
 Phelps, John S., chairman ways 
 and means committee, Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 73. 
 Championed the Union senti 
 ment of Missouri, 73. 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 
 Phelps, William Walter, mem 
 ber of committee to investi 
 gate election of 1874 in 
 Louisiana, 569. 
 
 Phillips, Wendell, demands the 
 thirteenth amendment, 311. 
 
 Pickens, Francis W., governor 
 of South Carolina, 1861, 294. 
 
 Pickering, John, impeachment 
 of, 584. 
 
 Pierce, Franklin, proposed 
 member of peace commis- 
 sipn, 1861, 315. 
 
 Policy respecting the Declara 
 tion of Paris, 266, 267. 
 
 Pierce, Henry L., opinion of 
 the action of the electoral 
 commission, 660. 
 
7 i8 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Pierpont, Francis H., recog- 
 nized governor of Virginia, 
 
 His government, 433. 424. 
 Pillow, Gideon J., at Fort Don- 
 
 elson, 175. 
 
 Pinchback, P. B. S., assumes 
 the office of governor of 
 Louisiana, 562. 
 Platform, Democratic party, of 
 
 1884, characterized, 680. 
 Republican, 680. 
 Poland, Luke P., report respect 
 ing affairs in Arkansas, 541. 
 Polk, James K., his campaign 
 
 of 1844, 47. 
 His cabinet, 47. 
 
 Polk, Trusten, senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 71. 
 Governor of Missouri, 71. 
 His amiability, 89. 
 Poor-convict oath, the only 
 charitable statutory oath 
 since the war, 612. 
 Pope, John, takes New Madrid 
 
 and Island No. 10, 176. 
 At Corinth, 178. 
 Placed in command of the 
 
 army of Virginia, 187. 
 In command of third military 
 
 district, 508. 
 Popular sovereignty, doctrine 
 
 of, 119. 
 Population, statistics of, 687, 
 
 Relation to representation, 
 
 695, 696. 
 Porter, David, his cruise in the 
 
 Porter, David D., 31. 
 At New Orleans, 193. 
 At Vicksburg, 195. 
 At Arkansas Post, 195. 
 Red River expedition, 210. 
 His operations against Fort 
 
 Fisher, 211, 212. 
 Porter, Fitz John, at Malvern 
 
 Hill, 187. 
 
 Port Hudson, capture of, 196. 
 Port Royal, expedition against, 
 
 1861, 175. 
 
 Posse comitatus clause, 631. 
 Potter, Clarkson N., member of 
 committee to investigate 
 election of 1874 in Louis 
 iana, 569. 
 Potter, John F., member of 
 
 Congress, 76. 
 
 Present at the Grow-Keitt al 
 tercation, 76. 
 
 Potter. Orlando B., plan for 
 national paper currency, 
 143. 
 Powell, Lazarus W., senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Opposed military interference 
 
 with elections, 88. 
 Vote in committee of thirteen 
 on Jefferson Davis' proposi 
 tion, 115. 
 Efforts against use of army at 
 
 the polls, 629. 
 Prentiss, Benjamin M., at Shi- 
 
 loh, 177. 
 
 Press, freedom of, violated, 229. 
 Price, Sterling, Confederate ser 
 vice in Missouri, 1861, 163. 
 Confederate service in Mis 
 souri, 1862, 174. 
 Proceedings in rem, part of the 
 
 vindictive policy, 249. 
 Proclamation of emancipation, 
 
 123. 
 
 Of the President, Aug. 16, 
 1861, declaring state of in 
 surrection, 242. 
 
 Proclamation of amnesty, Presi 
 dent Lincoln's, 337, 338. 
 
 Of amnesty, President John 
 son's, 346. 
 
 Progress, material, in three dec 
 ades, 685-699. 
 
 Of the nation, 125. 
 Proscriptions, object of, on the 
 part of the Republican 
 party, 250. 
 (See test oaths.) 
 
 Of fourteenth amendment 
 
 obsolete, 601. 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 military interference with, 
 in Alabama, 408. 
 Provisional governments, leg 
 islation for, 339. 
 
 Operation of, 380. 
 
 Course of, in Tennessee, 381- 
 383. 
 
 North Carolina, 384-388. 
 
 Mississippi, 389-392. 
 
 Georgia, 397-398. 
 
 Texas, 399-401. 
 
 Alabama, 403-406. 
 
 South Carolina, 412, 413. 
 
 Florida, 419, 420. 
 
 Louisiana, 425-128. 
 Pryor, Roger A., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Sketched, 72, 74, 94. 
 
 Speech at Charleston urging 
 
 attack on Sumter, 149. 
 Pugh, George E., personal 
 sketch, 59. 
 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con- 
 
 Sress, 72. 
 , 
 
 Pugh, James L., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 97. 
 
 Pulaski, Fort, bombardment 
 and surrender of, 174. 
 
 Quarles, James M., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Confederate general, 95. 
 
 Quartermaster's department, 
 services of, during the war, 
 214-216. 
 
 Quincy, Josiah, opposes admis 
 sion of Louisiana, 44. 
 
 Quitman, John A., attempts to 
 cut off debate on the Le- 
 compton constitution, 1857, 
 27, 57. 
 
 Radford, Wm., votes for thir 
 teenth amendment, 326. 
 
 Railways, employment of, dur 
 ing the war, 215. 
 
 Raleigh, N. C., capture of, 212. 
 
 Randall, S. J., opposes force 
 
 bill, 257. 
 
 Course as speaker during the 
 electoral count, 1877, 664. 
 
 Randolph, John, his part in im 
 peachment of Samuel Chase, 
 584. 
 Attitude respecting slavery, 
 
 Opposes war of 1812, 53. 
 Ransom, Matt W., member of 
 committee on the electoral 
 count, 637. 
 
 Rebellion, the Ohio, 1857, 81. 
 Reagan John H., estimate of 
 
 duration of secession, 65. 
 At battle of Seven Pines, 92. 
 Sketch of, 98. 
 
 Recognition of Confederacy, 
 proclaimed by Great Brit 
 ain, 258. 
 Secretary Black's effort to 
 
 prevent, 258, 259. 
 Secretary Seward's effort to 
 prevent, 259, 260. 
 
 Reconstruction, not of states 
 but of the Union, 30. 
 
 Championship of slavery a 
 principal obstacle to, 36. 
 
 President Lincoln's mode of, 
 338. 
 
 Proposed legislation for, 339, 
 
 House bill for, passed, 340. 
 
 Comparison between House 
 bill for, and President Lin 
 coln's policy, 340, 341. 
 
 President Lincoln's signature 
 withheld from House bill 
 for, 341. 
 
 Measure for, reported by 
 James M. Ashley, Dec. 10, 
 1864, 342. 
 
 Speech of President Lincoln, 
 April 11, 1865, respecting, 
 342,344. 
 
 Republican party dissatisfied 
 with President Johnson's 
 measures of, 349. 
 
 Party positions on, 357. 
 
 Principles of, according to 
 Thaddeus Stevens, 367. 
 
 Acts of March 2 and March 
 23, 1867, 376. 
 
 Acts of March, 1867, author's 
 views upon question of con 
 stitutionality of, 378, 379. 
 
 Provisions of, 480-483, 497. 
 
 Question of construction of, 
 in Louisiana, 546. 
 
 Of March 21, 1867, operation 
 of section 5 of, in Alabama, 
 514. 
 
 In Virginia, 484-493. 
 
 In North Carolina, 495-500, 507. 
 
 In South Carolina, 500-506, 507. 
 
 In Georgia, 509-512. 
 
 In Alabama, 512-516. 
 
 In Florida, 517-524. 
 
 In Mississippi, 525-534. 
 
 In Arkansas, 534-542. 
 
 In Louisiana, 544-570. 
 
 In Texas, 572-577. 
 Rector, Henry M., 1861, 294. 
 Red Cross Flag of Geneva, 614. 
 Red River expedition, 210. 
 Reed, Harrison, elected gov 
 ernor of Florida, 1868, 517. 
 
 Impeachment of, 518. 
 
 Second attempt to remove, 
 by impeachment, 521. 
 
 Third attempt to remove, by 
 
 impeachment, 522. 
 Registration of voters under the 
 reconstruction acts, Vir 
 ginia, 487, 488. 
 
 North Carolina, 496, 497. 
 
 South Carolina, 502. 
 
 Georgia, 509. 
 
 Alabama, 513. 
 
 Florida, 517. 
 
 Mississippi, 526. 
 
 Arkansas, 534. 
 
 Texas, 574. 
 
 Louisiana, 544-546. 
 
 General Sheridan's dispatch 
 to General Grant respecting 
 same, 544. 
 
 Period of same ordered ex 
 tended, 545. 
 
 Classes excluded from, 546. 
 
 Texas, 574. 
 Relay House, occupation of, by 
 
 General Butler, 153. 
 Religious teachers, persecution 
 
 of, in Missouri, 613, 614. 
 Representation, basis of, 695. 
 
 Our system of, vindicated, 
 696-698. 
 
 In Congress, causes of delay 
 in admitting the South to, 30. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 719 
 
 Republican movement in Eu 
 rope, 1848, effect of, upon 
 tendency toward foreign in 
 tervention, 1861,260. 
 Republican party, methods of 
 constitutional construction, 
 35,36. 
 
 Rise of, 50. 
 
 Attitude of, toward Critten- 
 den compromise, 80. 
 
 Its theory of status of seced 
 ing states, 123. 
 
 The destruction of slavery 
 the main object of, during 
 the war, 221, 222. 
 
 Its theory of status of the 
 Southern States, 246. 
 
 Object of, in proscriptions, 
 250. 
 
 Its theory of constitutional 
 construction, 356, 357. 
 
 In Virginia, division in, 1867, 
 488. 
 
 In Mississippi, platform and 
 ticket of, 1869, 529. 
 
 In Louisiana, quarrels in, 
 554,558. 
 
 Cause of quarrel of, with 
 President Johnson, 581. 
 
 Its course in the South, 624. 
 
 Stand of, 1876, 629. 
 
 Attitude of, Dec., 1876, 636. 
 
 Conventional Chicago, 1880, 
 673. 
 
 Platform and nominations, 
 1880, 673, 674. 
 
 Dissensions in, during the ad 
 ministration of President 
 Garfleld, 675. 
 
 Indictment of, 681. 
 Resolution, joint, of Congress, 
 Jan. 17, 1863, authorizing 
 the issue of legal tenders to 
 pay the army, 135. 
 
 In Congress proposed by the 
 author with purpose of 
 peace, July 29, 1861, 314, 315. 
 
 Proposed by Garrett Davis 
 with the purpose of peace, 
 Dec. 3, 1862, 315. 
 
 Favoring peace, proposed by 
 C. B. Calvert of Maryland, 
 Aug. 5, 1861, 315. 
 
 In the interest of peace, pro 
 posed by C. H. Vallandig- 
 ham, 315. 
 
 For appointment of peace 
 commissioners and for an 
 armistice, proposed by 
 Henry May, 1861, 315. 
 
 Proposed by Senator Sauls- 
 bury, Dec. 4, 1861, favoring 
 peace, 315. 
 
 Concurrent, of Dec. 13, 1865, 
 with respect to representa 
 tion of the seceded states, 
 349, 350. 
 
 Of July 24, 1866, restoring 
 Tennessee to her relations 
 to the Union, 382. 
 
 Of Senate, July 3, 1867, calling 
 for information respecting 
 execution of reconstruction 
 acts, 483. 
 
 President's answer to, 483, 484. 
 
 Of United States Senate, Jan. 
 14, 1873, inquiring into af 
 fairs in Louisiana, 564. 
 
 Of March 7, 1867, directing for 
 mal inquiry into grounds 
 for impeachment of Presi 
 dent Johnson, 581. 
 
 Reports under, 581, 582. 
 
 Declarative of our republican 
 system proposed by the au 
 thor, 600. 
 
 Resolution , declaring the Demo 
 cratic candidates elected, 
 March 3, 1877, 668. 
 Restoration of the states to 
 complete federal relations, 
 importance of, 570-572. 
 Of seceded states to full fed 
 eral relations,Tennessee,382. 
 Virginia, 493. 
 North Carolina, 507. 
 South Carolina, 507. 
 Georgia, 510. 
 Alabama, 514. 
 Florida, 517. 
 Mississippi, 531. 
 Arkansas, 535. 
 Louisiana, 550. 
 Texas, 577. 
 Resumption act, January, 1875, 
 
 671. 
 
 Of specie payment accom 
 plished Jan. 1, 1879, 672. 
 Of constitutional state gov 
 ernment in the South dur 
 ing the Hayes administra 
 tion, 672. 
 Returning board of Louisiana, 
 
 660. 
 
 Revels, Hiram R., elected sena 
 tor from Mississippi, 1870, 530. 
 Revolutionary war, efforts to 
 defray expenses of, 128, 129. 
 Revenue, the surplus, 141. 
 Reynolds, Dean, beaten by Ku- 
 
 Klux, 471. 
 Reynolds, J. J., in command of 
 
 fifth military district, 549. 
 Course of, as commander of 
 
 fifth military district, 576. 
 
 Senator from Texas, 1871, 577. 
 
 Rice, Alexander H., member 
 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 90. 
 Governor of Massachusetts,90. 
 Rice, Americus V., debates in 
 the House the electoral com 
 mission Louisiana action, 
 657. 
 
 Rice, Henry M., senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 72, 90. 
 Votes in committee of thir 
 teen on Jefferson Davis' 
 proposition, 115. 
 Rice, John H., urges prosecu 
 tion of the war, 1865, 314. 
 Richardson, William A., dele 
 gate to Charleston conven 
 tion, 60. 
 
 Member Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 63. 
 
 At Bull Run, 157, 158. 
 Richmond, evacuation of, 213. 
 Times, censured by General 
 
 Schofield, 485. 
 Riddle, Albert G., at Bull Run, 
 
 157, 158. 
 Account of the flight from 
 
 Bull Run, 158. 
 
 Right of search, not an Ameri 
 can doctrine, 283. 
 England an advocate of, 283. 
 American position as to doc 
 trine of, stated, 289, 290. 
 Rights of the negro, their se 
 curity, 679. 
 
 Risley, Miss Olive, at dinner 
 given by Secretary Seward 
 after Trent affair, 291. 
 Roanoke Island occupied, Feb 
 ruary, 1862, 166. 
 
 Robertson, Thomas J., elected 
 senator from South Caro 
 lina, 504. 
 
 Robinson, James F., governor 
 of Kentucky, issues procla 
 mation to repel E. Kirby 
 Smith's raid, 190. 
 
 Rogers, Andrew J., offers peace 
 resolution in the House, 
 1864, 317. 
 Commanding gun-boats at 
 
 Fort Pulaski, 1T3. 
 Rollins, James Sidney, votes for 
 thirteenth amendment, 326. 
 Roman, Andre B., peace com 
 missioner of the Confed 
 eracy, 1861, 146. 
 Rosecrans, William S., at luka 
 
 and Stone River, 191. 
 Holds Chattanooga, 201. 
 Rowan, Stephen C., command 
 ing Pawnee in expedition 
 against Hatteras, 1861, 164. 
 Commanding naval forces in 
 operation against Newbern, 
 1862, 187. 
 
 RuflSn, Thomas, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Died of wounds, 93. 
 Runnymede, 235. 
 Rusk, Thomas J., senator from 
 
 Texas, 1845, 302. 
 
 Russell, Earl, course in nego 
 tiations with the United 
 States, respecting the Paris 
 declaration, 270, 271. 
 Respecting our blockade, 1861, 
 
 273. 
 In correspondence on the 
 
 Trent affair, 281, 286. 
 Urged by Li verpool merchants 
 
 to break the blockade, 282. 
 Dispatch on Trent affair, 286, 
 
 287. 
 
 Rust, Albert, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from Arkan 
 sas, distrustful of secession 
 as a remedy, 74. 
 Member committee of thirty - 
 
 three, 77. 
 
 Confederate general, 96. 
 Sketch of, 96. 
 
 Sanders, George N., his part in 
 the Niagara peace negotia 
 tions, 317. 
 Sketch of, 317. 
 
 San Jacinto, the battle of, 302. 
 U. S. Steamship, Capt. Charles 
 Wilkes in command of, 276. 
 Santa Anna, defeated by Hous 
 ton at San Jacinto, 302. 
 Saulsbury, Willard, senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 71. 
 Sawyer, Frederick A., elected 
 senator from South Caro 
 lina, 504. 
 
 Schenck, Robert C., urges pros 
 ecution of the war, 1865, 314. 
 Extract from speech of, 314. 
 Schofield, John M., command 
 ing army of the Ohio, 206 
 Services in Tennessee, 1864, 
 
 209. 
 Appointed secretary of war, 
 
 296. 
 
 Military commander first re 
 construction district, 484. 
 Schurz, Carl, at Chancellors- 
 
 ville, 198. 
 Member of the Hayes cabinet, 
 
 670. 
 
 Schofield, Glenni W., member 
 of House committee, 1872, 
 respecting diflBculties in 
 Louisiana, 557. 
 
 Scott, Charles L., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 99. 
 Scott, Richard K., elected gov 
 ernor of South Carolina, 
 1868,503. 
 
 Re-elected, 1870, 505. 
 Search, right of, the doctrine 
 advocated by England, 283. 
 
720 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Search, right of, denied by the 
 
 United States, 286, 290. 
 Sebastian, William K., senator 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 71. 
 
 Expelled from Senate, 71. 
 
 Expulsion revoked, 71. 
 Secession, denounced by the 
 author in 1861, 31-34. 
 
 Theory of, 34. 
 
 Design of the movement, 51. 
 
 Distinguished from nullifica 
 tion, 53. 
 
 Doctrine of, repudiated by 
 Calhoun, 53,101. 
 
 Doctrine of, not in the Ken 
 tucky resolutions of 1798,102. 
 
 Southern views in 1861, as to 
 seriousness and permanen 
 cy of, 65. 
 
 Doctrine of, not in the Vir 
 ginia resolutions of 1798, 103. 
 
 The South Carolina declara 
 tion of causes of, discussed, 
 109. 
 
 Protests in the Southern 
 States against, 121. 
 
 Question of validity of, 123. 
 
 Theories of effect of, upon sta 
 tus of states, 123. 
 
 Is it war or insurrection, 145, 
 
 Sympathy with, in Kentucky, 
 
 Maryland, and Missouri, 153. 
 
 In the Swiss republic, 1847, 
 
 260, 261. 
 
 From the Confederacy, right 
 of, mooted in the Southern 
 States, 313. 
 
 From the Confederacy, posi 
 tion of Jefferson Davis re 
 specting right of, 319. 
 Question of actuality of, de 
 bated, 357-361. 
 Author's views on question of 
 
 validity of acts of, 361-364. 
 Invalidity of, recognized by 
 Congress and the supreme 
 court, 361. 
 
 Ordinances of, adopted and 
 annulled. (See ordinances 
 of secession.) 
 
 Ordinances of, state conven 
 tions adopting. (See con 
 ventions.) 
 Opposition to, in the South, 
 
 622. 
 Secret societies, 453. 
 
 In foreign countries, 476-478. 
 Sectional hostility, causes of, 
 
 1856, 51. 
 Sectionalism, consequences of, 
 
 27. 
 
 Sectional strife, stand of Re 
 publican party on memories 
 of, 1876, 629. 
 
 Seddon, James A., Confederate 
 secretary of war, his rejoin 
 der to Governor Brown, 305. 
 Sedition act of 1798, 105. 
 Sedgwick, Charles B., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 Honored his profession, 91. 
 Sedgwick, John, at Chancellors- 
 
 ville, 197. 
 
 Sedgwick, Theodore, held that 
 
 slavery was abolished by the 
 
 Massachusetts constitution 
 
 of 1780, 38. 
 
 Seizure, right of, upon the high 
 
 seas, 265-272. 
 Senate of worthies, 26. 
 Seelye, Julius H., speech in 
 House on counting Florida 
 electoral vote, 1877, 657. 
 Opinion of the action of elec 
 toral commission, 660. 
 
 Senter, DeWitt C., governor of 
 
 Tennessee, 298. 
 
 Sequestration of property enac 
 ted by the Confederate Con 
 gress, 246. 
 
 Seven Pines, battle of, 184. 
 Seymour, Horatio, candidate of 
 the Democratic party for 
 the presidency, 1868, 619. 
 
 Union sentiments of, during- 
 
 the war, 620. 
 
 Seward, Mrs. Frederick W., at 
 dinner given by Secretary 
 Seward after Trent affair, 
 291. 
 
 Seward, William H., declares 
 the "irrepressible conflict," 
 51. 
 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 72. 
 
 Vote in committee of thir 
 teen on Jefferson Davis' 
 proposition, 115. ' 
 
 Secretary of state, 147. 
 
 Corresp9ndence with peace 
 commissioners of the Con 
 federacy, 147, 148. 
 
 His administration of state 
 department criticised, 227. 
 
 Circular of March 9, 1861, 
 respecting recognition of 
 the Southern States as a 
 belligerent power, 259. 
 
 Instructions of March 26, 
 1861, respecting foreign in 
 terference, 262. 
 
 Letter, April 6, 1861, to Mr. 
 Corwin, minister to Mexico, 
 respecting foreign inter 
 ference, 262, 263. 
 
 Circular of April 24, 1861, re 
 specting the Declaration of 
 Paris, 279. 
 
 Letter to Minister Adams, 
 Sept. 7, 1861, respecting the 
 Declaration of Paris, 271, 
 272. 
 
 Letter to Minister Adams, 
 July 21, 1861, respecting the 
 blockade, 273. 
 
 Speech at Auburn, Oct. 31, 
 1868,274. 
 
 Tribute to, 274. 
 
 Reply to Lord Lyons, on de 
 tention of British subjects 
 in Fort Lafayette, 282. 
 
 Could Wilkes' act in the Trent 
 affair be disavowed by ? 283. 
 
 Author's confidence in, 285. 
 
 Vindicated the freedom of 
 the seas, 286. 
 
 Reply to British dispatch on 
 Trent affair, 287, 289. 
 
 Agrees to surrender the con 
 federate commissioners, 289. 
 
 House occupied by, during 
 time of Trent affair, 290. 
 
 Table-talk at dinner given by, 
 after Trent affair, 291, 292. 
 
 Points out Captain Wilkes' 
 mistake in the Trent affair, 
 281, 288, 289. 
 
 His policy and course in the 
 affair of the Trent, 281, 284, 
 293. 
 
 The victory won by him in 
 the Trent affair, 292, 293. 
 
 Merits of his course in Trent 
 affair considered by Mr. 
 Sumner, 293. 
 
 Thought an amendment to 
 the Constitution abolishing 
 slavery absolutely neces 
 sary, 310. 
 
 At the Hampton Roads con 
 ference, 333. 
 
 Seward, William H., letter to 
 Minister Adams, Feb. 9, 1865, 
 respecting the Hampton 
 Roads conference, 335. 
 
 Held states indestructible, 352. 
 
 Declares allegiance due to 
 states as well as to the 
 Union, 353. 
 
 Correspondence with Gov. 
 Perry respecting ratifica 
 tion of thirteenth amend 
 ment, 414. 
 
 Attempted murder of, 578. 
 Shaftesbury, Lord, action on 
 
 Trent affair, 283. 
 Sharkey, William L., 31. 
 
 Provisional governor of Mis 
 sissippi, 389. 
 
 Biographical sketch of ,389,390. 
 Sharpsburg, battle of, 188. 
 Shaw, Lemuel, member of the 
 Massachusetts constitution 
 al convention of 1850, 586. 
 Shellabarger, Samuel, political 
 campaign, 1862, 190. 
 
 Counsel for Mr. Hayes before 
 
 electoral commission, 655. 
 Shepley, George F., appointed 
 governor of Louisiana, 1862, 
 425. 
 Sheridan, Philip H., 31. 
 
 Assumes" command of the 
 fifth military district under 
 the reconstruction acts, 543. 
 
 Dissents from attorney-gen 
 eral's interpretation of re 
 construction acts, 546. 
 
 Statement of, respecting his 
 course as military com 
 mander of the fifth district, 
 573. 
 
 Sherman, John, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 
 Influence upon our financial 
 policies, 75. 
 
 His manner, 356. 
 
 Opposes electoral commission 
 bill in the Senate, 649. 
 
 Member of the Hayes cabinet, 
 
 669. 
 
 Sherman, Thomas W., service 
 in expedition against Port 
 Royal, 1861, 165. 
 
 Sherman, Roger, statue of, 26. 
 Sherman, William T., 31. 
 
 At Vicksburg, 195. 
 
 At Arkansas Post, 195. 
 
 At Shiloh, 177. 
 
 In command army of the Ten 
 nessee, 202. 
 
 Services in Mississippi, 1864, 
 203. 
 
 Georgia campaign, 206. 
 
 Capture of Atlanta, 207. 
 
 March to the sea, 208, 209. 
 
 March through the Carolinas, 
 212. 
 
 Fights Gen. J. E . Johnston at 
 Bentonville, 212. 
 
 Maxim on which he acted, 207. 
 
 Effect of his successes, 310. 
 
 Clemency of, in his agreement 
 
 with Johnston, 597. 
 Shields, James, services in Vir 
 ginia, 184. 
 
 Shiloh, battle of, 177. 
 Sidney, Algernon, a prototype 
 of Jefferson, 680. 
 
 Influence of his teachings 
 
 upon our institutions, 652. 
 
 Sickles, Daniel E., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 
 Organizer of the Excelsior 
 brigade, 91. 
 
 His military and diplomatic 
 services, 91. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 721 
 
 Sickles, Daniel E., order re 
 specting f reedmen, 416. 
 
 Assumes command of second 
 military district, March 21, 
 1867, 494. 
 
 Advice to the freedmen in 
 South Carolina, 501. 
 
 Address to board of trade, 
 
 Charleston, S. C., 503. 
 Sigel, Franz, service at Carth 
 age, Mo., 163. 
 
 At Pea Ridge, 174. 
 Silver, remonetization of, 670- 
 672. 
 
 Coinage of, 670-672. 
 
 Standard for same, 670, 671. 
 
 Trade dollar, 671. 
 Silver dollar, restoring act, 
 Feb. 28, 1878, 671, 672. 
 
 Coinage of, thereunder, 672. 
 
 Simmes, William E., member 
 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 72. 
 
 Confederate senator, 72. 
 Singleton, Otho R., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 97. 
 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 97. 
 
 Sisters of charity, persecu 
 tion of, in Missouri, 614. 
 Sixth Massachusetts regiment, 
 mobbed in Baltimore, April 
 19, 1861, 152. 
 
 Slavery, early irreconcilable 
 with northern sentiment, 36. 
 
 Its championship the chief 
 obstacle to reconstruction, 
 36. 
 
 Origin and spread of, 37. 
 
 Abolition in other countries, 
 37. 
 
 Colonial, 37-39. 
 
 Strengthened by the cotton- 
 gin, 38. 
 
 Spread in the South of senti 
 ment favoring, 41. 
 
 Territorial question concern 
 ing, 42. 
 
 Question of, as affecting ac 
 quisition of Louisiana, 
 Florida, and Texas, 43-45. 
 
 Agitation against, attending 
 the admission of Missouri 
 and annexation of Texas, 
 45. 
 
 Support of its claims to rec 
 ognition by the Constitu 
 tion, the political touch 
 stone in the South, 45. 
 
 Success of friends of exten 
 sion in 1844, 47. 
 
 Southern views of its consti 
 tutionality, 49. 
 
 Northern and southern views 
 of, 52. 
 
 Calhoun's views of, 54. 
 
 The extreme southern doc 
 trine, 55. 
 
 Question of extension of, 55. 
 
 Question of, in the Charleston 
 convention, 59. 
 
 Its ultimate extension be 
 lieved in by the supporters 
 of the Crittenden compro 
 mise, 219. 
 
 Death of, recognized by R. E. 
 Lee and Jefferson Davis, 
 313. 
 
 Constitutional right to abol 
 ish, 322. 
 
 Author's view of, 325. 
 
 Status of, January, 1865, 326. 
 
 Abolition of, declared by 
 Tennessee, 382. 
 
 North Carolina, 385. 
 
 Mississippi, 392. 
 
 Slavery, abolition of, declared 
 
 by Georgia, 398. 
 Texas, 401. 
 Alabama, 404. 
 South Carolina, 412. 
 Florida, 420. 
 Louisiana, 428. 
 Arkansas, 437. 
 Slaves, Confederate Congress 
 
 resolves to arm, 213. 
 Slidell, John, senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 70. 
 Sketch of, 70, 88. 
 Diplomatic agent of the Con 
 federacy, 275. 
 His instructions, 275. 
 Embarks upon the steamer 
 
 Trent, 267. 
 Captured by Captain Wilkes, 
 
 279. 
 
 Protests against arrest, 279. 
 Letter acknowledging cour 
 tesy of Capt. Wilkes, 281. 
 Imprisoned in Fort Warren, 
 
 281. 
 Questions involved in capture 
 
 Of, 286-290. 
 Released, 292. 
 Slocum, Henry W., on the 
 
 march to the sea, 208. 
 Social equality, impracticabil 
 ity of, 54. 
 Bill to insure, in Louisiana, 
 
 553. 
 
 Southern Confederacy, forma 
 tion of, 117. 
 Constitution, 117, 118. 
 South, the, its grievance, 63. 
 Withdrawal of states of, 64. 
 Attitude of the people to ward 
 
 peace in, 1861, 223. 
 The radical proscription of 
 the people of, violative of 
 the Constitution, 248, 249. 
 Effect of delay of full amnes 
 ty upon, 596. 
 Resumption of constitutional 
 
 state government in, 672. 
 Entire electoral vote of, cast 
 for Hancock and English, 
 675. 
 Character of its people before 
 
 and since the war, 678. 
 Its complete restorati9n, 679. 
 Smith Charles, credentials as 
 senator from Louisiana re 
 ported, Feb. 18, 1865, 342. 
 Smith, E. Kirby, Confederate 
 
 service in Kentucky, 190. 
 Smith, Gerrit, demands the thir 
 teenth amendment, 311. 
 Smith, Green Clay, urges prose 
 cution of war, 1865, 814. 
 Proposes resolutions declar 
 ing prosecution of the war a 
 duty, 316. 
 
 Smith, H. Boardman, member 
 House committee, 1872, on 
 difficulties in Louisiana, 557. 
 Smith, J.Brenton,testimony re 
 specting Governor H olden 's 
 conduct, 459, 460. 
 Smith, Joseph B., commanding 
 
 the frigate Congress, 170. 
 Smith, Samuel A., member of 
 
 Congress, 1857, 27. 
 Smith, William, member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Personal sketch of, 73, 92, 93. 
 Smith, Wm. H., governor of 
 
 Alabama, 515. 
 Smith, Wm. N. H., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 93. 
 Chief -justice North Carolina. 
 
 South Carolina, leads secession 
 movement in 1860, 108-110. 
 
 Ordinance and declaration of 
 causes of secession, 108. 
 
 Debate in secession conven 
 tion, 110. 
 
 Election of delegates to 
 Southern Congress, 110. 
 
 Treaty commission, 1860, 110, 
 146. 
 
 Operations on coast of, No 
 vember, 1861, 165. 
 
 Military operations in, in 1862, 
 173. 
 
 Sherman's march through ,212. 
 
 Colored population of, 409. 
 
 Her sufferings from the war, 
 411. 
 
 Provisional government of, 
 412. 
 
 Ordinance of secession an 
 nulled, 412. 
 
 Intimidation in, at elections, 
 464. 
 
 Ku-Klux outrages in, 466. 
 
 Hamburgh massacre, 467. 
 
 Part of second military dis 
 trict under the reconstruc 
 tion acts, 494. 
 
 Negro population of, 501. 
 
 Attitude of the freedmen, 
 
 1867, 501. 
 
 Registration of voters, 1867, 
 502. 
 
 Constitutional convention un 
 der reconstruction acts, 502. 
 
 Provisions of constitution of, 
 
 1868, 503. 
 
 Constitution of, ratified, 503. 
 
 Election in, for state officers 
 and legislature, 1868, 503. 
 
 Legislation in, 1868-1871, 504, 
 505. 
 
 Mtegovernment in, 504-506. 
 
 Indebtedness of, 506. 
 
 Restoration of, to full federal 
 relations, 507. 
 
 Presidential returns from, in 
 the electoral count of 1877, 
 637. 
 
 Electoral vote counted, 1877, 
 for the Republican candi 
 date, 664. 
 Sovereignty, popular, 49. 
 
 State, stand respecting taken 
 by Governors Brown and 
 Vance, 1864, 305. 
 
 Author's speech in Congress, 
 1865, respecting, 322. 
 
 Calhoun's doctrine of, 322. 
 Spanish - American republics, 
 Mr. Seward's policy respect 
 ing, 263. 
 
 Sparks, William A. J., in con 
 ference committee insists 
 upon repeal of power to 
 use army at the polls, 631. 
 Spaulding, Elbridge G., mem 
 ber Thirty-sixth Congress, 
 91. 
 
 Connection with our banking 
 
 system, 91. 
 
 Specie payments, question of, 
 in politics, 629. 
 
 Act for resumption of, 671. 
 
 Resumption of, 672. 
 Speed, James, attorney-gen 
 eral, 230. 
 
 Counsel in the Milligan case, 
 230. 
 
 Counsel in ex-parte Garland, 
 
 256. 
 
 Speer, R. Milton,member House 
 committee, 1872, on difficul 
 ties in Louisiana, 557. 
 
722 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Spinner, Francis E., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 His integrity and his signa 
 ture, 91. 
 
 Sprague, John T., in command 
 sub-district of Florida, 517. 
 Springer, William M., member 
 of committee on the electo 
 ral count, 637. 
 Opposes "lot" plan, 641. 
 Remarks in committee, 643. 
 Squatter sovereignty, 55. 
 " Squirrel " campaign, 190. 
 St. Philip, Fort, capture of, 193. 
 Stall worth, James A., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 97. 
 Took no part in the war, 96. 
 Stanbery, Henry, counsel 
 against Milligan in the su 
 preme court, 330. 
 Counsel in ex-parte Garland, 
 
 356. 
 
 Opinion construing the recon 
 struction acts, 378. 
 Counsel for President John 
 son in the impeachment 
 trial, 587. 
 
 Sketch of, 587, 588. 
 Speech of, in impeachment 
 
 trial, 589, 590. 
 Stanbery, William, his affair 
 
 with Houston, 301. 
 Standard silver dollar, 671. 
 Stanton, Benjamin, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 Stanton, Edwin M., secretary of 
 
 war, 159. 
 Seeks removal of McClellan, 
 
 1861, 159. 
 
 Characterized, 200. 
 Order against disloyal prac 
 tices, 233, 334. 
 
 Requested by President John 
 son to resign, 583. 
 Declines, 582. 
 Suspended, 582. 
 Dismissed, 582. 
 Star of the West, sent to supply 
 
 Fort Sumter, 146. 
 States, indestructibility of, 30. 
 States of the South, temporary 
 organization of, Tennessee, 
 881-383. 
 
 North Carolina, 383-388. 
 Mississippi, 389-395. 
 Georgia, 395-398. 
 Texas, 399-403. 
 Alabama, 402-409. 
 South Carolina, 409-416. 
 Florida, 416-421. 
 Virginia, 421-424. 
 Louisiana, 425-431. 
 Arkansas, 435-439. 
 States rights, the Calhoun doc 
 trine of, 53. 
 
 A doctrine of Abolitionists, 63. 
 Doctrine of the, Kentucky 
 resolutions of 1798, respect 
 ing, 103. 
 Position of Massachusetts and 
 
 Connecticut, 106. 
 Relation of treaty of 1873 to 
 
 ultra theory of, 363. 
 In the Confederacy, 305. 
 Assertion of, in Southern 
 States against Confederate 
 government, 312. 
 States, the seceded, theories of 
 
 their status, 123. 
 Conditions of rehabilitation 
 of, proposed by President 
 Lincoln, 338. 
 
 Union of, recognized by acts 
 of Congress, notwithstand 
 ing secession, 360, 361. 
 
 States, the seceded, remarks of 
 
 President Lincoln respect 
 
 ing status of, 344. 
 Debate upon the question of 
 
 their status under the Con 
 
 stitution, 356, 357. 
 Author's view of their status, 
 
 361-364. 
 Thaddeus Stevens' theory of 
 
 status of, 366-374. 
 Statuary hall in the capitol, 36. 
 Stay law in North Carolina, 
 
 course of military com 
 
 mander respecting, 495. 
 In South Carolina, 503. 
 Stearns, M. L., governor of 
 
 Florida, 524. 
 Steele, John B., votes for thir 
 
 teenth amendment, 326. 
 Stephens, Alexander H., oppo 
 
 sition to secession in Geor 
 
 gia legislature and conven 
 
 tion, 111, 112. 
 Sketch of, 113, 114. 
 Chosen Vice-President of the 
 
 Confederacy, 118. 
 Confederate commissioner at 
 
 the Hampton Roads confer 
 
 ence, 333. 
 Stevens, Isaac I., delegate in the 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 99. 
 Sketch of, 99. 
 Service against Port Royal, 
 
 1861,165. 
 Stevens, J. W., murder of, by 
 
 Ku-Klux, 457. 
 Stevens, Thaddeus, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 75. 
 The Metternich of Republi 
 
 canism, 75. 
 Theory as to status of seceded 
 
 states, 123. 
 Financial course as chairman 
 
 of committee of ways and 
 
 means, 1861, 132. 
 Moves reconsideration of 
 
 Ganson resolution respect 
 
 ing military incarcerations, 
 
 ing 
 233. 
 
 His indebtedness to Vattel, 
 
 315. 
 Participates in debate of Jan. 
 
 10, 1865, respecting the peace 
 
 negotiations, 336. 
 Attitude toward President 
 
 Johnson's measures of re 
 
 construction, 349, 350. 
 Sketch of, 365. 
 
 Policy and theories of, 365-374. 
 Speech by, 367-372. 
 Position of, with respect to 
 
 admission of Alabama, 514. 
 One of the managers in the 
 
 impeachment of President 
 
 Johnson, 585. 
 Stevenson, John W., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 Stewart, James A., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 92. 
 Judicial service, 92. 
 Stewart, Joseph, commander 
 
 sub-district of Alexandria, 
 
 486. 
 Stone, Charles P., sketch of, 
 
 164. 
 Stockton, Robert F., his man 
 
 ner, 356. 
 Stoneman, George, commander 
 
 sub-district of Petersburg, 
 
 486. 
 Military commander first re 
 
 construction district, 489. 
 Biographical sketch of, 490, 
 
 491. 
 Stone River, battle of, 192. 
 
 "Stonewall Jackson, "death of 
 198. 
 
 Stoughton, Edward W., counsel 
 for Mr. Hayes before elec 
 toral commission, 655. 
 
 Stringham, Silas H., command 
 ing naval forces in expedi 
 tion against Hatteras, 1861, 
 164, 166. 
 
 Strong, G. P., counsel for the 
 state of Missouri in the Cum- 
 mings case, 251. 
 
 Strong, William, member elec 
 toral commission, 650. 
 
 Stuart, John T., interview (holi 
 days of 1864; of Stuart and 
 author with President Lin 
 coln, with a view to nego 
 tiations, 310. 
 
 Stuart, J. E. B., raid across the 
 
 Chickahominy, 185. 
 Raid into Pennsylvania, 192. 
 
 Sub-districts of Virginia, 486. 
 
 Suffrage, educational qualifica 
 tion of, proposed by W. D, 
 Keliey, 342. 
 
 The oath of allegiance, the 
 condition of, in states un 
 dergoing reconstruction, 
 349. 
 For the negro, movement 
 
 toward, 376. 
 
 Right of, refused to the 
 freedmen in Tennessee* 
 
 Proposed constitutional pro 
 visions in Mississippi, 527 . 
 
 In Louisiana, under constitu 
 tion of 1868, 549. 
 
 Questions relating to, an is 
 sue in the campaign of 1876. 
 628. 
 
 Defense of liberty of, 629. 
 
 Author's speech on freedom 
 
 of, 1871, 633. 
 Suicide of states, question of 
 
 possibility, a r >l- 353. 
 Sumner, Charles, appeal to Sen 
 ate to erase names of battle 
 fields of the civil war from 
 the battle-flags, 31. 
 
 Senator Thirty-sixth Con 
 gress, 72. 
 
 Representative of the Puri 
 tan and progressive ele 
 ment of New England, 86. 
 
 Theory of status of the se 
 ceded states. 123. 
 
 On the maritime policy of the 
 United States, 265. 
 
 Speech on Trent affair, 293. 
 
 Proposes to make the eman 
 cipation proclamation a 
 statute, 340. 
 
 His opinion of the improvised 
 state government of Vir 
 ginia, 341. 
 
 Personal aspect of, 356. 
 Sumner, Edwin V., service in 
 
 Virginia, 185. 
 Sumter, Fort, occupancy of, by 
 Major Anderson, 146. 
 
 Attempt to furnish supplies 
 to, 146. 
 
 Evacuation of, urged by 
 Southern commissioners, 
 146-148. 
 
 Fired on, 149. 
 
 Evacuation of, 149. 
 
 Effect on the country, 149. 
 
 Policy of Confederate gov 
 ernment in attacking, 150. 
 Supreme court, United States, 
 decision in Cummings vs* 
 the State of Missouri, 252. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Supreme Court, dissenting opin 
 ion in Cu minings vs. the 
 State of Missouri, 253, 254. 
 Union of the states recog 
 nized by, in orders of 1862 
 and 1865, 361. 
 Surrender of the Confederate 
 
 cause, 214, 578. 
 
 Swayne, Noah H., dissents from 
 opinion of the supreme 
 court in the Cummine-s 
 case, 252. 
 
 Swayne, Wager, report of, 
 
 upon affairs in Georgia, 467. 
 
 In charge of sub-district of 
 
 Alabama, 1867, 512. 
 Swepson, George W., testimony 
 respecting corruption in 
 North Carolina legislature, 
 1868-1869, 498. 
 Letter to Governor Reed, of 
 
 Florida, May, 1869, 520. 
 Switzerland, the secession in, 
 
 1847, 260, 261. 
 Sykes, George, at battle of Me- 
 
 chanicsville, 185. 
 Tailly, John W. Rev., driven 
 
 away by Ku-Klux, 471. 
 Tappan, Arthur, effort for edu 
 cation of colored people, 40. 
 Tappan, Mason W., member 
 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 77. 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 
 Led a regiment to the field, 90. 
 Tariff, question of, 691. 
 True test of character of, 139. 
 Commission, fruits of, 140. 
 The Morrill, 282. 
 Question of, in politics, 629. 
 Of 1846, 126 ; 1861, 137 ; 1872, 139 ; 
 
 1883, 140. 
 Taylor, George, Rev., whipped 
 
 by Ku-Klux, 471. 
 Taylor, Miles, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from Louis 
 iana, 74. 
 Distrustful of secession as a 
 
 remedy, 74. 
 
 Member of committee of thir 
 ty-three, 77. 
 
 Member Confederate Con 
 gress, 94. 
 
 Taylor, Zachary, elected Presi 
 dent, 1848, 48. 
 Telegraphs, extensive use of, in 
 
 the civil war, 215. 
 Territories, question of exclu 
 sion of slavery from, 1784, 
 42. 
 
 Missouri compromise, 45. 
 Slavery question in Charles 
 ton convention, 58, 59. 
 Magnitude of the conflict re 
 specting slavery in, 1859, 63. 
 Suffrage bill for, 376. 
 Terry, Alfred H.. his operations 
 
 against Fort Fisher, 212. 
 Test oaths, delay in repealing, 29. 
 No utility in, 250. 
 Of the Missouri constitution, 
 as revised by the conven 
 tion of January, 1865, 251. 
 Joint resolution of Congress, 
 March, 1869, respecting re 
 quirement of, 528. 
 The system of, 602, 616. 
 Feature of reconstruction 
 
 A device for repression of 
 republican form of gov 
 ernment, 602. 
 
 The iron-clad oath, 602, 615. 
 
 Oath required as a qualifica 
 tion of jurors, 603. 
 
 Test oaths, author's efforts for 
 
 repeal, 603. 
 
 To eradicate whole system, 604. 
 
 General question discussed by 
 the author, Feb. 1, 1871, 604. 
 
 Act of Feb. 15, 1871, modify 
 ing iron-clad oath, 604. 
 
 A mockery, 605. 
 
 Tendency to produce demor 
 alization, 605. 
 
 In England, 605-609. 
 
 The Missouri prescriptive 
 oath, 613-615. 
 
 Two-thirds vote in the House 
 for author's bill for repeal 
 of, 616. 
 
 Repeal of, May 13, 1884, 616. 
 
 Repeal of, an issue in the 
 
 campaign of 1876, 628. 
 Texas, question of annexation 
 of, 45-48. 
 
 Growth of, 45-46. 
 
 Ultimate results of annexa 
 tion of, 48. 
 
 Convention and ordinance of 
 secession, 116, 117. 
 
 Opposition to the secession 
 movement in, 116. 
 
 Steps toward reorganization, 
 1865, 399. 
 
 Provisional government, 399. 
 
 Convention of 1866, 401. 
 
 Part of the fifth military dis 
 trict under the reconstruc 
 tion acts, 572. 
 
 Disordered condition of af 
 fairs in, at beginning of 1867, 
 572. 
 
 Financial condition of, 1866- 
 1867, 572. 
 
 General Griffin in command 
 of sub-district of, 572. 
 
 Registration in, 574. 
 
 Convention in, under recon 
 struction acts, 574. 
 
 Constitution for, adopted by 
 convention, Dec., 1868, 575. 
 
 Constitution ratified, 1869. 576. 
 
 Provisions of constitution of, 
 1868-1869, 575, 576. 
 
 Provisions of constitution of, 
 1876, 575. 
 
 Readmitted to representation, 
 577. 
 
 Conditions of readmission of, 
 577. 
 
 Debt of, 577. 
 
 Tennessee, military league with 
 the Confederate States, 120. 
 
 Ordinance of secession, 121. 
 
 Union sentiment of eastern, 
 153. 
 
 Military operations in,1862,175. 
 In 1863, 202. 
 In 1864, 209. 
 
 Loyal government in, set up 
 during the war, 341. 
 
 Recognition of same pro 
 posed, 342. 
 
 Secedes from the Confeder 
 acy, 381. 
 
 Continued loyalty in eastern, 
 381. 
 
 Andrew Johnson appointed 
 military governor of, 381. 
 
 State convention, Jan. 9, 1865, 
 382. 
 
 State convention nominates 
 William G. Brownlow gov 
 ernor, 382. 
 
 Adopts amendments to state 
 constitution, 382. 
 
 Amendments ratified, 382. 
 
 Restored to her federal rela 
 tions, 382. 
 
 Tennessee, Ku-Klux in, 453, 454, 
 
 474. 
 
 Thayer, Eli, member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 75. 
 Characterized, 75, 91. 
 Thayer, M. Russell, takes part 
 in debate upon the power of 
 amending the Constitution, 
 January, 1865, 323. 
 Thirteenth amendment, sketch 
 of course of, in Congress, 
 320-327. 
 
 Explanation of the author's 
 vote upon the final passage 
 of, 327. 
 Attitude of author toward, 
 
 328,329. 
 
 President Lincoln's view re 
 specting ratification of, 344. 
 Thomas, Benjamin F., views 
 respecting relation of na 
 tional and state powers, 
 82. 
 Words about magna charta, 
 
 235. 
 
 Thomas Francis, member of 
 committee of investigation 
 preliminary to impeach 
 ment of President Johnson, 
 581. 
 Thomas, George H., at Webb's 
 
 Cross Roads, 174. 
 In command army of the 
 
 Cumberland, 202. 
 Services in Tennessee, 1864, 
 
 209. 
 Assigned to the command of 
 
 the third district, 295. 
 Effect of his successes, 310. 
 Directs suspension of Bishop 
 Wilmer from his functions, 
 408. 
 Thomas, James H., member of 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 95. 
 Sketch of, 95. 
 
 Thomas, Lorenzo, appointed 
 secretary of war ad interim, 
 582. 
 
 Thompson, Jeff., Confederate 
 service at Belmont, Mo., 163. 
 Thompson, Richard W., mem 
 ber of the Hayes cabinet, 
 669. 
 
 Throckmorton, J. W., senti 
 ments respecting the Union, 
 98. 
 Elected governor of Texas, 
 
 1861, 401. 
 Removed as governor of 
 
 Texas, 1867, 573. 
 
 Thurman, A. G., his bill for re 
 lief from test oaths, 603. 
 Member of the committee on 
 
 the electoral count, 637. 
 Remarks in said committee, 
 
 644, 647. 
 
 Member electoral commis 
 sion, 650. 
 
 Tilden, Samuel J., 635. 
 Tilghman, Lloyd, Confederate 
 service at Fort Henry, 175. 
 Toombs, Robert, personal 
 sketch of, as senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 70. 
 Member of the committee of 
 
 thirteen, 77. 
 Attitude toward the Critten- 
 
 den proposition, 77-80. 
 Urging secession of Georgia, 
 
 Character and services to the 
 Confederacy, 87. 
 
 Speech in the Georgia legisla 
 ture, setting forth griev 
 ances, 111. 
 
724 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Toombs, Robert, vote in com 
 mittee of thirteen on Jeffer 
 son Davis' proposition, 115. 
 Totten, A. O. W., member of 
 military league commission 
 of Tennessee, 1861, 130. 
 Tourgee, A. W., member of 
 North Carolina convention 
 of 1867, 498. 
 Trade dollar, authorized, 671. 
 
 Abolished, 671. 
 Trade, effect of restrictions 
 
 upon, 69. 
 Train, Charles R., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 91. 
 Attorney-general of Massa 
 chusetts, 91. 
 
 Treaty with Great Britain of 
 
 1783, a confederacy not a 
 
 union of states recognized 
 
 in, 262. 
 
 Trent, our flag not lowered in 
 
 the affair of the, 289. 
 Affair, author's opinion on, 
 
 284. 
 
 British sentiment on the af 
 fair of the, 283. 
 American feeling on the af 
 fair of the, 283. 
 
 The search of the, inoppor 
 tune, 281, 282. 
 
 Irritating remarks of the offi 
 cers of the, 280. 
 Legal liabilities of the, 276, 
 
 277. 
 
 Removal of the Confederate 
 commissioners from the, 
 280. 
 
 Search of the, 279. 
 The arrest of the, 278. 
 The, takes on board Mason 
 
 and Slidell, 276. 
 Affair of the, 275-293. 
 Mr. Sumner's speech on the 
 
 affair of the, 293. 
 Secretary Seward's policy and 
 course in the affair of the, 
 281-293. 
 Author's speech on the affair 
 
 of the, 285, 286. 
 Legal aspect of the affair of 
 
 the, 288. 
 
 Trimble, William H., at Har 
 per's Ferry, 189. 
 Trollope, Anthony, guest at 
 dinner of Secretary Seward 
 after Trent affair, 291. 
 Troup, George Mclntosh, 303. 
 Trumbull, Jonathan, statue of, 
 
 26. 
 
 Trumbull bill, invoked in the 
 Milligan and Vallandigham 
 
 Trumbull, Lyman, senator 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Reports measures, Feb.18,1865, 
 for recognition of Louis 
 iana, 342. 
 
 Attitude toward President 
 Johnson's administration, 
 356. 
 
 Counsel for Mr. Tilden in the 
 Louisiana case before the 
 electoral commission, 655. 
 
 Turreted ironclads, 172. 
 
 Twitchell, Homer G., murder 
 of, 566. 
 
 Two-thirds rule in Democratic 
 conventions, 46, 59. 
 
 Tybee Island, Union occupa 
 tion of, 166. 
 
 Tyler, Daniel, at BuU Run, 155. 
 
 Uncle Tom's Cabin, effect of, 
 48, 49. 
 
 Underwood, John C., presides 
 at Virginia constitutional 
 convention, 1867, 489. 
 
 Underwood, J. W. H., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 96. 
 Attitude toward secession, 96. 
 
 Union Reform party of South 
 Carolina, 505. 
 
 Usurpation of 1877, causes of ,124. 
 
 Van Brunt, Gershom J., com 
 manding Minnesota in expe 
 dition against Hatteras,1861, 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, opposes 
 
 annexation of Texas, 46. 
 Presidential campaign of 1844, 
 
 Presidential candidate on 
 Free Soil ticket, 1848, 48. 
 
 Proposed member of peace 
 
 commission, 1861, 315. 
 Vallandigham, C. L., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 
 Biographical sketch of, 80-85. 
 
 Arrest of, 197. 
 
 Address from prison, 229. 
 
 Predicts surrender of Mason 
 
 and Slidell, 284. 
 
 Vance, Robert B., Jun., mem 
 ber of Congress, 307. 
 Vance, Robert B., Sen., member 
 
 of Congress, 307. 
 Vance, Z. B., member Thirty- 
 sixth Congress from North 
 Carolina, distrustful of se 
 cession as a remedy, 74. 
 
 Attitude respecting the Crit- 
 tenden compromise, 78. 
 
 His voice never heard at 
 Washington for disunion, 
 93. 
 
 Governor of North Carolina, 
 1864, 295. 
 
 His ability, 296. 
 
 His letter of Sept. 23, 1864, re 
 specting conscription, 305. 
 
 Proposes meeting of govern 
 ors, 1864, 306. 
 
 Biographical sketch of, 306- 
 308. 
 
 Letter to Jefferson Davis,Dec. 
 30, 1863, 319. 
 
 Elected governor of North 
 Carolina, 1861, as anti-seces 
 sionist, 384. 
 
 Efficiency of ,as war governor, 
 
 Appeal by, in favor of law 
 
 and order. April 28, 1865, 384. 
 
 Vandever, William, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 99. 
 Military service, 99. 
 Van Dorn, Earl, at Pea Ridge, 
 
 174. 
 
 At Holly Springs, 194. 
 Vagrant act of Mississippi, 1865, 
 
 393. 
 
 Veazie bank, the, vs. the collec 
 tor, centralizing tendency 
 of decision in, 143, 144. 
 Vermont, personal liberty bills, 
 
 107. 
 Count of electoral vote of, 
 
 1877, 664. 
 Vernon, T. O. P., impeachment 
 
 of, 505. 
 
 Vicksburg, capture of, 195. 
 Viele, Egbert S., service against 
 
 Port Royal, 1861, 165. 
 Virginia, convention and ordi 
 nance of secession, 119. 
 Military league with the Con 
 federate states, 119. 
 Partition of, 122. 
 
 Virginia, campaign in, 1862, 179- 
 
 188 ; 1863, 196, 200. 
 Military operations in, 196, 200. 
 
 1864, 203-206. 
 Peace resolutions prepared in 
 
 senate of, 1864, 319. 
 Loyal government of, 341. 
 Recognition of, proposed, 342. 
 Reconstructed government 
 
 of, recognized by Johnson, 
 
 349. 
 Steps toward state organiza 
 
 tion in eastern, 421. 
 Alexandria constitution, 423. 
 Attempt at unification, 424. 
 Constitutes first military dis 
 
 trict, 480. 
 Military commander retains 
 
 provisional officers in, 484. 
 Military commissioners ap 
 
 pointed for, 485. 
 Sub-districts established in, 
 
 486. 
 Convention for constitution 
 
 for, authorized, 487. 
 Registration of votes in, 487, 
 
 488. 
 Constitutional convention of, 
 
 489. 
 
 Constitution of, ratified, 492. 
 State officers for, elected, 492. 
 Readmission of, to represent 
 
 ation, 493. 
 
 Financial condition of, 493. 
 Resolutions of 1798 give no 
 
 sanction to secession, 103. 
 Resolutions of 1798, Mr. Mad 
 
 ison's paper respecting, 104. 
 Virginia, the ram, 168-172. 
 
 Destruction of, 182. 
 Voorhees, D. W., speech in the 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Feb. 18, 1863, denouncing 
 licy of arbitrary arrest, 
 
 poli 
 224. 
 
 Speech on the state of the 
 
 Union, March, 1864, 239. 
 Speech and position of, re 
 
 specting thirteenth amend 
 
 ment, Jan. 9, 1855, 321. 
 Wade, Benjamin F., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Characterized, 88. 
 Vote in committee of thir 
 
 teen on Jefferson Davis' 
 
 proposition, 115. 
 At Bull Run, 157, 158. 
 Seeks removal of McClellan, 
 
 1861, 159. 
 Reports House reconstruction 
 
 bill with amendment strik 
 
 ing out the word white, 
 
 339. 
 Protests against President 
 
 Lincoln's conduct in de 
 
 clining to sign the recon 
 
 struction bill, 341. 
 Purpose of the Republican 
 
 majority of the House rela 
 
 tive to, 1868, 582. 
 Right of, to sit on the im 
 
 peachment trial of Presi 
 
 dent Johnson challenged, 
 
 586. 
 Waite, M. R., proposed as 
 
 member of electoral com 
 
 mission, 638. 
 Wales, Josiah T., elected rep 
 
 resentative in' Congress 
 
 from Florida, 1870, 522. 
 Walker, David S., elected gov 
 
 ernor of Florida, 1865, 420. 
 Walker, Gilbert C., elected gov 
 
 ernor of Virginia, 492. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 725 
 
 Walker, L. P., Confederate sec 
 retary of war, 150. 
 
 Hesitates to order an attack 
 
 on Fort Sumter, 150. 
 Walker, Robert J., position re 
 specting the Lecompton 
 bill, 58. 
 Wallace, Lew, at Shiloh, 177. 
 
 In command at Cincinnati, 
 
 190. 
 Wallace-Simpson contested 
 
 election case, 465. 
 War, what are acts of. 145. 
 
 Whether necessary, 217, 218. 
 
 Existence of, not recognized 
 in theory by the United 
 States, 242. 
 War, the civil, cost of, 214-217. 
 
 Avoidable by the adoption of 
 theCrittenden compromise, 
 219. 
 
 Causes of continuance, 226. 
 
 Conditions immediately pre 
 ceding the breaking out of, 
 241. 
 
 Act of Confederate provi 
 sional congress, May 6, 1861, 
 respecting conduct of. 242. 
 
 The theory upon which it 
 was prosecuted, 245. 
 
 Persistent prosecution of, 
 urged in Congress, 1865, 
 314. 
 
 Jefferson Davis' views of the 
 purpose of, January, 1864, 
 
 Issues growing out of, the 
 theme for debate during 
 the second decade, 354. 
 Purpose of, 362, 363. 
 Warden, William W., statement 
 of facts by, relating to im 
 peachment trial of Presi 
 dent Johnson, 592, 593. 
 Warmoth, Henry C., sketch of, 
 
 429, 560. 
 
 Delegate to Congress, 429. 
 Elected governor of Louis 
 iana, 432, 550. 
 
 Statement by, concerning leg 
 islative corruption in Louis 
 iana, 553. 
 
 Power conferred on, as gov 
 ernor in Louisiana, 558. 
 Exposure by. of legislative 
 
 profligacy, 558, 559. 
 Warner, Hiram, 303. 
 Washburn, Cadwalader C., con 
 gressman, major-general, 
 and governor, 99. 
 Washburne, Elihu B., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 76. 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 Washburn, Israel, Jr., member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 90. 
 Governor of Maine, 90. 
 Washington, defenses of, 153- 
 
 Washington, George, his esti 
 mate of slavery, 41. 
 
 Watterson, H., discusses in the 
 House of Representatives 
 the action of the electoral 
 commission in the Louis 
 iana case, 657. 
 
 Watts, Thomas H M governor of 
 Alabama, 295. 
 
 Weaver, James B., presidential 
 nominee of the Greenback 
 party. 1880, 674. 
 
 Weber, Max, service in expedi 
 tion against Hatteras, 1861, 
 164. 
 
 Webb, Alexander S., in com 
 mand of the first reconstruc 
 tion district, 296, 492. 
 Webb's Cross Roads, battle at, 
 
 174. 
 
 Webster, Edward H., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress from 
 Maryland, 92. 
 Gave his efforts to the Union 
 
 party, 92. 
 
 Weed, Thurlow, his statement 
 of the Seward-Campbell cor 
 respondence, 148. 
 Weitzel, Godfrey, in command 
 in Richmond, April, 1865, 
 422. 
 
 Wells, H. H., governor of Vir 
 ginia, his removal and rein 
 statement, 296. 
 Reason for removal, 492. 
 Wells, J. Madison, governor of 
 
 Louisiana, 349, 429. 
 Removal of, from governor 
 ship by Gen. Sheridan, 545. 
 Expression of opinion by Gen. 
 
 Sheridan respecting, 545. 
 West Virginia, recognition of, 
 an extra-constitutional mea 
 sure, 341. 
 
 Formation of state of, 122. 
 Abnormal character of its 
 
 creation. 421. 
 
 Wheeler, William A., member 
 of committee of Congress 
 sent to New Orleans to ef 
 fect a compromise, 56y. 
 Declared elected Vice-Presi- 
 
 dent, 666. 
 
 Whig party disbanded, 50. 
 Whipple, W. D., report by, of 
 disorder in Mississippi, Ala 
 bama, and Georgia, Novem 
 ber, 1866, 471. 
 
 Whiteley, William G., member 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 77, 92. 
 Member committee of thirty- 
 three, 77. 
 
 Whitefleld, George, Rev., rela 
 tion of, to early slavery in 
 Georgia, 37. 
 
 Whiting, William, view of con 
 nection of slavery with the 
 civil war, 36. 
 
 Whitney, Ely, influence of his 
 invention of cotton-gin, 37. 
 Whittlesey, Elisha, 66. 
 Wickliffe, G. M., impeachment 
 
 of, 554. 
 
 Wigfall, Louis T., senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 69. 
 Personal sketch, 69. 
 Attitude toward the Critten- 
 
 den compromise, 79. 
 Military and civil service to 
 
 the Confederacy, 89. 
 Wilcox, O. B., commander sub- 
 district of Lynchburg, 486. 
 Wilderness, battle of the, 197. 
 Wilkes, Charles, action in case 
 of Mason and Slidell, 276-281. 
 Character of, 276. 
 Commands United States 
 steamship San Jacinto, 276. 
 Views of, on the legal position 
 
 of the Trent, 276. 
 Determines to seize the Trent, 
 
 277. 
 Considers Siidell and Mason as 
 
 contraband, 277. 
 Or, as conspirators, 278. 
 Intercepts the Trent, 278. 
 Takes off Mason and Slidell, 
 
 279. 
 Releases the Trent, 280. 
 
 Wilkes, Charles, secretary of 
 the navy approves the action 
 of, in the Trent affair, 281. 
 Letter acknowledging the 
 
 courtesy of, 281. 
 Mistake of, in the Trent affair, 
 
 281, 288, 289. 
 British cabinet on action of, 
 
 286. 
 Independence of his action in 
 
 Trent affair, 287. 
 Thanked by House of Repre 
 sentatives, 290. 
 
 Willard, A. J., chosen associate 
 justice supreme court of 
 South Carolina, 504. 
 Willard, George, member of 
 committee on the electoral 
 count, 637. 
 
 Williams, Roger, statue of, 26. 
 Williams, Thomas, member of 
 committee of investigation 
 preliminary to impeach 
 ment of President Johnson, 
 581. 
 
 One of the managers in the 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 585. 
 Sketch of, 586. 
 Williamsburg, battle of, 181. 
 Williamson, Hugh, attitude re 
 specting slavery, 41, 43. 
 Willis, M. E., murder of, 566. 
 Wilmer, Richard, as bishop of 
 Alabama, instructs clergy 
 to omit the prayer for the 
 President, 408. 
 Controversy between, and 
 
 General Woods, 408, 409. 
 Wilmot proviso, 55. 
 Wilson, Henry, senator Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, 72. 
 Representative of Puritan 
 and progressive element of 
 New England, 86. 
 Wilson, James F., reports elec 
 toral bill from House judi 
 ciary committee, Jan. 30, 
 1865, 342. 
 
 Member of committee of in 
 vestigation preliminary to 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 581. 
 
 One of the managers in the 
 impeachment of President 
 Johnson, 585. 
 Sketch of, 586. 
 
 Wilson, James H., devastation 
 of Alabama by, 1865, 402, 
 403. 
 
 Wilson's Creek, battle of, 163. 
 Winchester, investment of, by 
 
 Lee, 1863, 200. 
 Windom, William, in Congress 
 
 and the cabinet, 99. 
 Winslow, John A., sinks the Al 
 abama, 211. 
 Winslow, Warren, member 
 
 Thirty-sixth Congress, 77. 
 Member of committee of 
 
 thirty-three, 77. 
 Sketch of. 93. 
 Winthrop, Robert C., 66. 
 Winthrop, John, statue to, 
 
 26. 
 His protest against the taking 
 
 of slaves to Georgia, 37. 
 Wisconsin, personal liberty 
 
 bill, 1858, 107. 
 
 Objection to count of electo 
 ral vote of, 1877, 664. 
 Vote counted, 665. 
 Walcott, C. P., attorney-gen 
 eral of Ohio, 63. 
 
726 
 
 THREE DECADES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
 
 Wood, Fernando, letter of, to 
 President Lincoln on the 
 subject of peace, 31fi. 
 Motion of, for commissioners 
 and recognition, Dec. 14, 
 1863, 316. 
 
 Calls for an Investigation of 
 the administration of the 
 Freedmen's Bureau, 447. 
 
 Woodbridge, Frederick E., 
 member of committee of 
 investigation preliminary 
 to impeachment of Presi 
 dent Johnson, 581. 
 
 Woods, Charles A., issues or 
 der suspending Bishop Wil- 
 mer from his functions, 408. 
 
 Woodson, Samuel H., member 
 Thirty -sixth Congress, 96. 
 
 Wool, John E., occupies Nor 
 folk, 181. 
 
 Wooley, Charles W., interview 
 of author with, relating to 
 impeachment trial of Presi 
 dent Johnson, 594. 
 
 Worden, John L., commanding 
 the Monitor, 170, 171. 
 
 Worth, Jonathan, elected gov 
 ernor of North Carolina, 
 
 Sketch of, 385. 
 Re-elected governor, 388. 
 Superseded by the military 
 
 commander, 388. 
 Wright, Horatio G., service 
 against Port Royal, 1861, 
 165. 
 
 Wright, J. J., chosen chief jus 
 tice supreme court of South 
 Carolina. 505. 
 
 Wright, John V., member Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 74. 
 Encourages secession, 74. 
 Sketch of, 95. 
 
 Wright, Silas, honorable course 
 in presidential nominating 
 convention, 1844, 47. 
 A Cato, 683. 
 Compared to Cleveland, 683. 
 
 Wythe, George, attitude toward 
 slavery, 41, 43. 
 
 Yancy, William L., slavery ad 
 vocated in the Charleston 
 convention by, 59. 
 
 Teaman, George H., favors 
 thirteenth amendment, Jan. 
 9, 1865, 331. 
 
 Votes for thirteenth amend 
 ment, 326. 
 
 Yerger, Edward M., kills 
 Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph 
 Crane, 531. 
 
 Yorktown, siege of, 180. 
 Yulee, David L., senator Thir 
 ty-sixth Congress, 72. 
 Sketch of, 89. 
 
 Zollicoffer, Felix K., killed at 
 Webb's Cross Roads, 174. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE 
 RECALL 
 
 MAR 2 5 1963 
 APR 18 1963 
 
 DEC 1 ? ' 
 
 
 IND 
 MAY 1 3 1964' 
 
 * /965 
 
 f, APR b 1 9fi5 
 DEC 1 2 1" 
 
 LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 
 
 Book S1ip-20m.8,'61(C1623s4)458 
 
 WPY 1 
 
G 
 
 Cox, S.S. 
 
 Union disunion 
 
 OX, 
 
 Call Number: 
 
 E661 
 C6 
 
 232549