Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee / Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University

by John Randolph Neal

Columbia University

NEW YORK

The Knickerbocker Press

1899

CONTENTS.
CHAPTER	PAGE
I.	Separation	[1]
II.	Responsibility for Separation	[12]
III.	Loyalty of East Tennessee	[16]
IV.	Restoration of Civil Government	[24]
V.	Recognition by Congress	[32]
VI.	Tennessee and the New Amendments	[39]
VII.	Financial Administration of the RadicalGovernment	[44]
VIII.	Radical Municipal Administration	[52]
IX.	Ku-Klux Outrages	[57]
X.	Close of the Radical Domination	[66]
XI.	Constitutional Convention of 1870	[74]

DISUNION AND RESTORATION IN TENNESSEE

---

CHAPTER I

SEPARATION

The vote of Tennessee in the presidential election of 1860 shows conclusively that at that time a majority of her citizens did not hold disunion sentiments. Her electoral vote was cast for John Bell and Edward Everett, who represented, as their platform expressed it, “no political principle other than the Constitution of the country, the Union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws.”