The sacrifices and sufferings of the loyal inhabitants of East Tennessee were indeed very great, but there is no evidence that they were treated by the Confederacy in any manner not necessary and justified by the usages of war. After the failure of its conciliatory policy, the Confederacy either had to permit the erection of a hostile State within the heart of its territory, or coerce the loyalists into submission. It naturally adopted the latter alternative. It is frequently stated that in thus adopting coercive methods it acted inconsistently with the principles under which it withdrew from the Union. Mr. Everett, in the same speech quoted above, said: “One would suppose that under the usurped rule of men who profess to go to war for self-government and State rights, the people of East Tennessee, if for any reason they saw fit to do so, had a right to burn their own bridges.”
The absurdity of such statements lies in the fact that they confuse the denial of coercive powers to federal government, with the denial of coercive powers to all government. The first is State rights, but the second is anarchy. It was in perfect harmony with the Southern theory of State sovereignty, that Tennessee should use any means it saw fit, to force its citizens into obedience to its laws. The Confederate army acted as the agent of the State in quelling insurrection and rebellion in East Tennessee.
After the intense excitement created by the bridge-burning had somewhat subsided, the Confederate and State authorities again manifested a desire to win over, or at least conciliate, the Union element. The commander at Knoxville issued a proclamation to the “Disaffected People of East Tennessee,” and assured “all those interested who have fled to the enemy’s lines, and who are actually in their army, that he will welcome their return to their homes and their friends; they are offered amnesty and protection, if they come to lay down their arms, and act as loyal citizens.” But these conciliatory measures again met with failure, as it soon became necessary to enforce the military drafts, which aroused the greatest opposition. In the summer of 1863, East Tennessee became the theatre of active war. Its history for the next three years is to be found in the military annals of the State.
[7] Hume’s, Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee.
[8] See Everett’s “Account of the Fund for the Relief of East Tennessee.”
CHAPTER IV
THE RESTORATION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT
While Tennessee escaped both executive and congressional reconstruction, it did not follow in the restoration of its civil government the plan laid down by President Lincoln. The most distinctive feature of Lincoln’s reconstruction policy lay in the fact that it made the old political people in each of the Southern States self-acting nuclei, which were to bring order out of chaos. According to this theory, neither the President nor Congress had the power to reconstruct a State government. The people within a State alone had the right to initiate and carry into effect measures for the rehabilitation of the deranged governmental machinery. It was the duty of the President under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, to see that their efforts in this direction did not prove abortive by reason of domestic violence.
The germs of this policy may be seen in the instructions sent to the military governors. It was more fully developed in the amnesty proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863. By the terms of this proclamation, a general pardon was granted to all “who directly or by implication had participated in the rebellion, with certain exceptions specified, upon their taking an oath to henceforth support the Constitution of the United States, and abide by the proclamations of the President and the acts of Congress in relation to slavery.” It was further promised, “that whenever a number of persons in any of the rebel States, equal to not less than one tenth of the votes cast in such State in the presidential election of the year 1860, each having taken the oath aforesaid, and not having 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 establish a State government which shall be republican in form, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the State.”
This was, substantially, Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction. It was not carried out in any of the Southern States. In all, except Tennessee, it was succeeded by executive reconstruction under Johnson, which was in turn supplanted by congressional reconstruction. In Tennessee an entirely original plan was adopted. This plan shut out from participation in the work of organizing civil government, all those who had taken part in secession. An oath of past loyalty was made the test of political capacity. In short, the restored civil government in Tennessee was based solely on that portion of its inhabitants that had remained loyal to the Union. These Union men, or Radicals as they chose to call themselves, composed about one third of the population of the State, and represented about one fifth of the taxpayers. It will be the object of this chapter to trace the steps by which this small minority seized the reins of government and exercised for three years absolute control of the State.