Of these States North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and possibly some of the other desolated States, will reverse their decision the present summer, and Nebraska, Iowa, and Colorado will also vote for it. On the other hand, New Jersey and Ohio, which have now Democratic Legislatures, have attempted, but in vain, to reverse their decisions and reject the Amendment. The votes of the reconstructed States will undoubtedly be sufficient to secure its adoption by the affirmative vote of the constitutional number (three fourths) of the States.
The commanders of the five military districts, Generals Meade, Sickles, Pope, Thomas, and Sheridan, after the passage of the Reconstruction Act, and its first supplement, issued their orders, insisting on obedience to its provisions, as according to the law they were required to do, but manifesting at the same time a disposition to interfere as little as possible with the existing civil government until the question of a constitutional convention could be voted on, and if called, a new constitution prepared and adopted, and the machinery of government set in motion under the new regime. Many leading citizens of the South, who had been prominent in the Rebellion, advised acquiescence in the Congressional plan, and while strong opposition was manifested in many quarters, it was hoped that there would be a general participation in the work of reorganization. The opposition was violent, and most strongly marked in the cities, where many of the leading papers, of Rebel antecedents, took an active part in abusing and berating Congress. The action of the military commander of the Fifth District, General Sheridan, in suppressing the violence of the Rebel opposition, was early and decided, as, indeed, was necessary. On the 27th of March, 1867, he removed from office Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of Louisiana, John T. Monroe, Mayor of New Orleans, and Edmund Abell, Judge of the first District Court of the city, and appointed in their places B. L. Lynch, Edward Heath, and W. W. Howe. In a note to General Grant, soon after, he assigned the following reasons for this action:—
“I did not deem it necessary to give any reason for the removal of these men, especially after the investigation made by the Military Board on the massacre of July 30, 1866, and the report of the Congressional Committee on the same massacre; but as some inquiry has been made for the cause of removal, I would respectfully state as follows: The court over which Judge Abell presided is the only Criminal Court in the city of New Orleans, and for a period of at least nine months previous to July 30, he had been educating a large portion of the community to the perpetration of this outrage, by almost promising no prosecution in his court against the offenders, in case such an event occurred. The records of this court will show that he fulfilled his promise, as not one of the guilty ones has been prosecuted. In reference to Andrew S. Herron, Attorney-General of the State of Louisiana, I considered it his duty to indict these men before this criminal court. This he failed to do, but went so far as to attempt to impose on the good sense of the whole nation by indicting the victims of the riot instead of the rioters—in other words, making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. He was, therefore, an abettor of and coadjutor with Judge Abell in bringing on the massacre of July 30. Mayor Monroe controlled the element engaged in this riot, and when backed by an attorney-general who would not prosecute the guilty, and a judge who advised the grand jury to find the innocent guilty and let the murderers go free, felt secure in engaging his police force in the riot and massacre. With these three men exercising a large influence on the worst elements of this city, giving to these elements an immunity for riot and bloodshed, the General-in-chief will see how insecure I felt in letting them occupy their present positions in the troubles which might occur in registration and voting in the reorganization.”
Monroe was mayor when New Orleans was captured by Farragut and Butler. He had been pardoned by the President and reëlected mayor.
Early in April, General Griffin, who was in command in Texas, wrote to General Sheridan, stating that, under the Military Bill, both the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of that State were disqualified to act, and that he desired the immediate removal of Governor Throckmorton. General Sheridan forwarded the letter to General Grant, with his favorable recommendation indorsed thereon, and added that he feared he would be compelled to remove Governor Wells, of Louisiana, who was impeding him all he could. To this General Grant responded, April 3, advising him not to remove the governors at present, the question of the powers of military commanders being under consideration in the Cabinet. This ended the matter for the time being. On the 6th of April, General Sheridan telegraphed General Grant that he was nearly ready to proceed with the work of registration, and that “an authoritative decision, as to what classes are disfranchised, is very important.” General Grant replied, that the questions had been submitted to the Attorney-General, and that no answer had been received, adding, “Go on giving your interpretation of the law until answer is given.” Breaches in the Mississippi levees were very disastrous in March and April, and there had been a serious conflict in regard to Levee Commissioners. General Sheridan removed those officers May 2, and appointed others in their places. June 3, General Sheridan removed Governor Wells, and appointed Thomas J. Durant in his stead. June 4, he informed General Grant of his action, saying, “He has embarrassed me very much since I came in command, by his subterfuge and political chicanery. This necessary act will be approved here by every class and shade of political opinion. He has not a friend who is an honest man. Nothing will answer here but a bold and strong course, and in taking it, I am supported by every class and all parties.” Mr. Durant declining the office, General Sheridan, on the 6th, appointed Benjamin F. Flanders in his stead. Governor Wells declining to vacate the office, General Sheridan, on the 7th, addressed a note to him, stating that he had been informed that he disputed his right to remove him from office, which right he had previously acknowledged and urged. He concluded his note as follows: “I therefore send Brevet Brigadier-General 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.” General Forsyth presented the communication on the 8th, when Governor Wells vacated, responding, “I surrender the office I hold only to the sword.” Governor Flanders went to New Orleans in 1842, was driven out of the city in 1861, by a body of Rebels, styling themselves a Vigilance Committee, for his devotion to the Union. He made his way to Cairo and Columbus, barely saving his life, and returned with Butler in 1862. In the fall of the same year he was elected a member of Congress. Upon his return, he was appointed City Treasurer, and shortly afterward was selected, by Secretary Chase, as supervising special agent for the Treasury Department for the District. He was connected with the Treasury Department from that time until his appointment as Governor. It having been reported that General Grant favored reprimanding Sheridan for the removal, the former telegraphed the latter, June 7, denying the report, saying, “There is not one word of truth in the story.” The bold action of General Sheridan caused great excitement, and rumors of his having been removed by the President were constantly set afloat.
In the Second District, Charleston was the scene of one or two interesting incidents in the earlier days of the enforcement of the Reconstruction Act. During the last ten days in March, the freedmen, who had been denied equal privileges in the cars, undertook to secure them by force, and several of them were arrested. Commissioner R. K. Scott, of the Freedmen’s Bureau, issued a circular, warning them that such attempts would only retard the acknowledgment of their rights, and that their only remedy was through legal process. The question was finally settled May 3, by the directors resolving to admit all classes alike. The arrested persons were released.
An annual parade of the Charleston fire department was to have taken place at ten o’clock on the morning of the 27th of April. As it was about starting, it was observed that it did not bear the American flag. General Sickles thereupon addressed the chief engineer a note, stating that, at the previous parade, regrets had been expressed at the absence of the national emblem, and ordering that the Stars and Stripes be borne at the head of the column; that an escort of honor be detailed to escort it, and that each person in the procession salute it. The order was obeyed, the procession being delayed until the ensign was procured.
General Sickles issued an order, April 10, known as General Order No. 10, designed to relieve the destitute, which attracted considerable attention. It prohibited imprisonment for debt, except for fraud; directed that judgments on actions arising during the Rebellion should not be enforced; sheriffs’ sales on process prior to December 19, 1860, were suspended for a year; allowed process to continue judgments entered since May 15, 1865; suspended all proceedings for the recovery of money in the purchase of negroes; protected advances of moneys and materials for agricultural purposes, and made wages a lien; provided a homestead exemption of $500; declared United States currency legal tenders; property of an absent debtor should not be taken under foreign attachment, but aliens should not be disturbed; other provisions relative to criminal proceedings were set aside; the carrying of deadly weapons was prohibited; corporeal punishment was abrogated; the punishment of death in cases of burglary and larceny was abolished, and terms of imprisonment substituted; the governors of North and South Carolina were authorized to reprieve or pardon criminals sentenced by civil courts. The order closed with these words: “Any law or ordinance heretofore in force in North Carolina or South Carolina, inconsistent with the provisions of this general order, are hereby suspended and declared inoperative.” It gave great satisfaction in South Carolina, on account of the features staying executions in civil cases.
In an opinion addressed to the President, June 12, Attorney-General Stanbery strongly objected to the issuing of this and other orders, which he said began to assume the dimensions of a Code. He said that under it the commanding general assumed, “not only a power to suspend the laws, but to declare them generally inoperative, and assuming full powers of legislation by the military authority.” The Attorney-General proceeded: “The ground upon which these extraordinary powers are based is thus set forth in military order No. 1, issued in this district: ‘The civil government now existing in North Carolina and South Carolina is provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.’ Thus far the provisions of the Act of Congress are well recited. What follows is in these words: ‘Local laws and municipal regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the proclamations of the President, or with such regulations as are or may be prescribed in the orders of the commanding general, are hereby declared to be in force, and, in conformity therewith, civil officers are hereby authorized to continue the exercise of their proper functions, and will be respected and obeyed by the inhabitants.’ This construction of his powers under the act of Congress places military commanders on the same footing as the Congress of the United States. It assumes that ‘the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede,’ is invested in him as fully as it is reserved to Congress.”
The Attorney-General conceded that the orders were issued under an honest belief they were necessary or expedient, and warranted by the act of Congress, but he protested against the assumption of such powers, as full of evil and mischief.