THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES
RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION
1866-1876
BY
JOHN W. BURGESS, PH.D., LL.D.
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,
IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1905
COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
NEW YORK
To the memory
of
RICHMOND MAYO-SMITH,
pupil, colleague, and life-long friend,
with grief too deep for words at his loss,
this volume
is affectionately inscribed
by the Author
PREFACE
In my preface to "The Middle Period" I wrote that the re-establishment of a real national brotherhood between the North and the South could be attained only on the basis of a sincere and genuine acknowledgment by the South that secession was an error as well as a failure. I come now to supplement this contention with the proposition that a corresponding acknowledgment on the part of the North in regard to Reconstruction between 1866 and 1876 is equally necessary.
In making this demand, I must not be understood as questioning in the slightest degree the sincerity of the North in the main purpose of the Reconstruction policy of that period. On the other hand, I maintain that that purpose was entirely praiseworthy. It was simply to secure the civil rights of the newly emancipated race, and to re-establish loyal Commonwealths in the South. But there is now little question that erroneous means were chosen.
Two ways were open for the attainment of the end sought. One was that which was followed, namely, placing the political power in the hands of the newly emancipated; and the other was the nationalization of civil liberty by placing it under the protection of the Constitution and the national Judiciary, and holding the districts of the South under Territorial civil government until the white race in those districts should have sufficiently recovered from its temporary disloyalty to the Union to be intrusted again with the powers of Commonwealth local government.
There is no doubt in my own mind that the latter was the proper and correct course. And I have just as little doubt that it would have been found to be the truly practicable course. The people in the loyal Commonwealths were ready in 1866 to place civil liberty as a whole under national protection; and not half of the whites of the South entertained, at that moment, disloyal purposes or feelings. Even the solid Democratic South was yet to be made; and I doubt most seriously if it would ever have been made, except for the great mistakes of the Republican party in its choice of means and measures in Reconstruction.
I will not, however, enter upon the argument in reference to this question at this point. That belongs to the body of the book. I will only add that, in my opinion, the North has already yielded assent to this proposition, and has already made the required acknowledgment. The policy of Mr. Hayes's administration, and of all the administrations since his, can be explained and justified only upon this assumption. And now that the United States has embarked in imperial enterprises, under the direction of the Republican party, the great Northern party, the North is learning every day by valuable experiences that there are vast differences in political capacity between the races, and that it is the white man's mission, his duty and his right, to hold the reins of political power in his own hands for the civilization of the world and the welfare of mankind.
Let the South be equally ready, sincere, and manly in the consciousness and the acknowledgment of its share in past errors, and the reconciliation will be complete and permanent!
I have again to express my thanks to my friend and colleague, Dr. Cushing, for his aid in bringing this volume through the press. I desire also to acknowledge the courtesy of the New York Independent for allowing parts of my article on the Geneva Award, published some years ago in that esteemed journal, to be incorporated in the last chapter of this book.
JOHN W. BURGESS.
323 WEST 57TH ST., NEW YORK CITY,
January 22d, 1902.
CONTENTS
[CHAPTER I]
THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION
[CHAPTER II]
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD TO RECONSTRUCTION
[CHAPTER III]
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HIS PROCEEDINGS IN REALIZATION OF IT
[CHAPTER IV]
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION
[CHAPTER V]
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Continued)
[CHAPTER VI]
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Continued)
[CHAPTER VII]
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Completed)
[CHAPTER VIII]
THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS
[CHAPTER IX]
THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
[CHAPTER X]
RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED
[CHAPTER XI]
PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION
[CHAPTER XII]
"CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN 1868 AND 1876
[CHAPTER XIII]
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
[CHAPTER XIV]
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1867 AND 1877
RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION
RECONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER I
THE THEORY OF RECONSTRUCTION
[The Conception of a "State" in a System of Federal Government]—[The Different Kinds of Local Government Provided for in the Constitution of the United States]—[Local Government Under the Constitution of the United States]—["State" Destructibility in the Federal System of Government—The Effect on "State" Existence of the Renunciation of Allegiance to the Union]—[The Idea of "State" Perdurance]—[The Constitutional Results of Attempted Secession].
The key to the solution of the question of Reconstruction is the proper conception of what a "State" is in a system of federal government. This is
The conception
of a "State" in
a system of
federal
government.
It must be kept in mind that this is not the only kind of local government known in the constitutional law and practice of the United
The different kinds
of local government
provided for in the
Constitution of
the United States.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes and provides for all three of these species of local government, and vests in Congress the
Local government
under the
Constitution of
the United States.
Such being the nature of a "State" of the Union and such the method of its creation, what reason is there for speaking of the "States" in a
"State" destructibility
in the system of
federal government.
The effect on "State"
existence of the
renunciation of
allegiance to the
Union.
Neither is there any reason for holding that the old "State" organization perdures as an abstract something under the forms of
The idea of "State"
perdurance.
The acceptance of
this idea by the
Government of
the United States.
From the view which we take of the nature of a "State" in a system of federal government, and its possible destructibility, there is not much
The constitutional
results of attempted
secession.
If rebellion against the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States should not be committed by an existing "State" organization, but by a new organization claiming to be the "State" organization within the district concerned, the existing organization remaining loyal, but requiring the aid of the central Government to maintain its authority, then the withdrawal of that aid by the President after the accomplishment of its purpose would, of course, leave the old "State" organization with restored authority, and Congress would have no function to perform in the re-establishment of civil government in such a district, or in the readmission of its population to participation in the central Government. This was the course followed in Missouri and Kentucky, and it was the course, which, at first, was attempted in the case of Virginia. In the first two cases it was entirely correct. In the last it had to be abandoned, for reasons, and on account of conditions, which will be explained later.
What we have, therefore, in the theory and history of Reconstruction is the case of existing "State" organizations forcibly resisting the execution of the supreme law of the land, and stricken down by the executive power of the central Government in the attempt, that power being exercised at its own motion and in its own way.
CHAPTER II
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S VIEWS AND ACTS IN REGARD TO RECONSTRUCTION
[Did Mr. Lincoln Have any Theory of Reconstruction?]—[Mr. Lincoln's Plan]—[Mr. Lincoln's Oath of Allegiance, and the Loyal Class to be Created by the Taking of this Oath]—[The Proviso in this Plan]—[Seward's Idea of Reconstruction and the Views of Congress and the Judiciary]—[Ten Per Centum "State" Governments]—[Reconstruction in Louisiana under Mr. Lincoln's Plan]—[The New Orleans Convention—The Election of a Governor—The Constitutional Convention of April, 1864, and the Constitution Framed by it and Adopted by the Voters—Reconstruction in Arkansas]—[The Beginning of Resistance in Congress to the President's Plans—The Wade-Davis Bill]—[Analysis of this Measure]—[The President's Attitude toward the Bill—The President's Proclamation of July 8th, 1864]—[The Wade-Davis Protest against the President's Proclamation]—[The President's Message of December 6th, 1864]—[The Threatened Schism in the Republican Party and the Presidential Election of 1864]—[The Refusal of Congress to Count the Electoral Vote from any "State" which had Passed the Secession Ordinance]—[Reconstruction in Tennessee]—[The Twenty-second Joint Rule]—[Reconstruction in Tennessee Continued]—[Civil Government Re-established in Tennessee]—[The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States]—[The Proposition of Amendment as it Came from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate—The Passage of the Proposition by the Senate]—[The House Draft]—[Rejection of the Senate's Draft in the House]—[Reconsideration of the Senate's Measure in the House, and its Final Passage].
Some of the ardent admirers of Mr. Lincoln are disposed to dispute the proposition that he had any theory of Reconstruction. It seems,
Did Mr. Lincoln
have any theory
of Reconstruction?
This plan recognized, in the first place, the continued existence of the "States" in rebellion as "States" of, and in, the Union. More
Mr. Lincoln's plan.
In the second place, therefore, Mr. Lincoln's plan contained the principle that the work of Reconstruction was an executive problem. It was the work of the Executive, through the power of pardon, to create a loyal class in a "State" which had been the scene of rebellion, and it was the work of the Executive to support that class by the military power in taking possession of, organizing, and operating, the "State" government.
And so, Mr. Lincoln undertook to create such a class by constructing an oath of future loyalty and allegiance to the United States of the
Mr. Lincoln's oath
of allegiance, and
the loyal class to
be created by the
taking of this oath.
And he then undertook to put this class in possession of the functions and powers of the "loyal State governments" subverted by the rebellion, by proclaiming and declaring, "that whenever in any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less than one-tenth in number of the votes cast in such State at the Presidential election of the year A.D. 1860, each having taken the oath aforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election law of the State existing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall re-establish a State government which shall be republican and nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the Legislature, or the executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.'"
It is true that Mr. Lincoln was careful to say in this proclamation that "whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted
The proviso
in this plan.
And it is also true that there occurs in the proclamation another paragraph which appears to militate against the theory of the perdurance of a "State" through the period of its rebellion against the United States. It reads: "And it is suggested as not improper that in constructing a loyal State government in any State the name of the State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution and the general code of laws as before the rebellion be maintained, subject only to the modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not contravening such conditions which may be deemed expedient by those framing the new State government."
It certainly may appear from this language that while Mr. Lincoln regarded it as convenient and desirable that the new "State" should be considered a continuation of the old "State," yet that he did not look upon it as absolutely necessary. Still, it seems more probable that this was only his cautious habit of leaving open a way of escape out of any position when necessity or prudence might require its abandonment than that he doubted the correctness of his idea of the indestructibility of the "States" in spite of the rebellion of a part of their population, or even of the whole of their population.
Mr. Lincoln was not alone in this view of the nature of the "States" of the Union and the problem of Reconstruction. His able Secretary of
Seward's idea of
Reconstruction,
and the views
of Congress and
the Court.
Before treating of his reconstruction of Louisiana and Arkansas under this plan, however, there are two points of the proclamation which
Virginia not in need
of Reconstruction
according to President
Lincoln's view.
The other point is the proposition to found "State" government upon ten per centum of the population of the "State." Now we know that "State"
Ten per centum
"State" governments.
As far back as the first week in December of 1862 General Shepley, then Military Governor of Louisiana, had, by permission from the President,
Reconstruction in
Louisiana under
Mr. Lincoln's plan.
The election of
members of
Congress.
Things went no further than this, however, during the year 1863, the military situation requiring the whole thought and activity of the
The New Orleans
convention.
The election of a
governor.
The constitutional
convention of
April, 1864, and
the constitution
framed by it and
adopted by the
voters.
Congress was, however, by this time becoming convinced that Reconstruction was a legislative problem, that is, a problem to be
The beginning
of resistance in
Congress to the
President's plan.
The Wade-
Davis bill.
A brief analysis of this bill will show that Congress was nearer to some doctrine on the subject of Reconstruction than was the President.
Analysis of
this measure.
But he did not. He did not, it is true, veto the bill. He simply allowed the session to expire without signing it. This having happened
The President's
attitude toward
the bill.
The President's
proclamation
of July 8, 1864.
This was one of the boldest acts of Mr. Lincoln's career as President, and it is little wonder that men of so much intelligence, courage and
The Wade-Davis
protest against
the President's
proclamation.
Such denunciations of the President's purposes could have but one effect, viz., the strengthening of his hands by the support of the people, who so generally trusted him, in the election of 1864. It injured Mr. Davis so much that he failed of even a renomination for his seat in Congress.
The President, on the other hand, used his triumph with great tact and moderation. He made no reference, in his message of December 6, 1864,
The President's
message of
December 6, 1864.
It may be that Mr. Lincoln did not interpret his great victory at the polls in November preceding as a specific approval of his
The threatened schism
in the Republican
party, and the
Presidential election
of 1864.
The regular convention met June 7th at Baltimore, and adopted a platform which took no sides in regard to Reconstruction, but simply sought to rally all Union men around the President for the purpose of saving the Union and putting an end to the rebellion. Many war Democrats took part in it who favored Lincoln's ideas of Reconstruction, and many Republicans who did not. The Democratic convention met at Chicago August 27th and adopted a platform which virtually proclaimed the war a failure, and demanded a cessation of hostilities preparatory to a compromise with the Confederates. Their nominee, General McClellan, with whom was associated on the ticket Mr. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, repudiated the platform but accepted the nomination and made the race.
Under the condition of schism in the Republican ranks, his chances seemed at first fair. But on September 21st, Generals Frémont and Cochrane, the nominees of the radical Republicans, withdrew from the contest, and the reunion of the Republican party on the Baltimore platform was effected. It was thus a question whether the overwhelming electoral vote for Lincoln and Johnson, two hundred and twelve to twenty-one for McClellan and Pendleton, meant the approval of Lincoln's views and acts in Reconstruction, and it certainly behooved the President to exercise some caution in so interpreting it, especially as there was no such wide difference in the popular vote, the McClellan electors having received 1,835,985 votes to 2,330,552 for the Lincoln electors. There is no question, however, that the President still believed in the correctness of his method and was determined to pursue the course upon which he had entered.
Neither was there any sign manifested that Congress would desist from pressing its views of its own powers in the matter. Both Houses had
No change in the views
of Congress caused by
the Presidential election.
The refusal of Congress
to count the electoral
vote from any "State"
which had passed the
secession ordinance.
Louisiana, which had fulfilled the President's conditions of reconstruction, was thus included in this list, and also Tennessee,
Reconstruction
in Tennessee.
The case of Tennessee did not from this point of view appear as strong as that of Louisiana. But it is difficult to see how the Republicans could have consistently rejected the vote of Tennessee after having nominated and elected a citizen of Tennessee as Vice-President of the United States. It is certainly implied in the Constitution of the United States that no man is eligible to the office of Vice-President unless he be at the time of his election a citizen of a "State" of the Union. The Constitution implies that the Vice-President shall have the same qualifications as the President; and it distinctly says that in giving their vote, the electors in each "State" shall vote for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves." If an inhabitant of Tennessee could be lawfully Vice-President of the United States, it does certainly seem implied that Tennessee was, at the time, a "State" of the Union in regular standing.
However this may have been, the President was certainly correct in saying that Congress was vested with full power over the count of the electoral vote, and that the Executive had no control over it whatsoever. It was a bit of harmless good humor that he signed the resolution as a perfunctory matter, and it was calculated to improve the temper of the somewhat irritated members of Congress.
Congress was not, however, formally notified of the fact that he had signed the measure until after the counting of the vote had been
The twenty-second
joint rule.
Tennessee pursued, however, the course of reconstruction upon which she had set out. Her test oath, as we have seen, required virtually that
Reconstruction in
Tennessee continued.
Governor Johnson issued his proclamation on February 25th, 1865, declaring the adoption of the new constitution, and ordering the
Civil government
re-established in
Tennessee.
It remained now for Congress to show its attitude, when the Senators and Representatives from Tennessee should present themselves for admission to seats in the two Houses. As this could not happen until the following December, the history of this point must be deferred until the events between March 4th and December 4th are related.
The experiences of the year 1863 with the slavery problem had convinced the President and the leaders of the Republican party in Congress that
The Thirteenth
Amendment to the
Constitution of the
United States.
The language of the first article of Mr. Henderson's proposition read: "Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall not exist in the United States." When it came back from the Judiciary Committee, as reported by Mr. Trumbull, it was called Article XIII., and read: "Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It will be advantageous in our further consideration of this article to recall briefly the reasons for these divergencies. The language used by
The proposition of
amendment as it
came from the
Judiciary Committee
of the Senate.
The second section, giving to Congress special power to enforce this article, seems, at first, unnecessary, because according to the last paragraph of Section 8, Article I., of the Constitution, Congress is vested with the authority to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in any department or officer of the Government. This abolition of slavery was, however, a restriction on the "States." It laid a new limitation upon their powers, and hence it was thought that Section 8 of Article I. might not apply in the execution of such a provision against the "States." But if we regard the provision from the point of view of the rights of an individual to his freedom against any "State" law to the contrary, then we must see that the amendment does invest the United States courts with the power to impose the restriction in behalf of the individual seeking deliverance from the attempt of a "State" to enslave him or to continue his enslavement. And once the power vested in the courts to do this the general provision of Article I., Section 8, will certainly apply. The resolution offered by the Judiciary Committee passed the Senate by the requisite majority on the 8th of April, 1864.
During this same period, Mr. William Windom, of Minnesota, offered in the House of Representatives a resolution upon the subject in the
The House
draft.
The Senate resolution was sent into the House on the
Rejection of the
Senate's draft
in the House.
Foreseeing the failure of the resolution at that juncture, Mr. J. M. Ashley, of Ohio, voted against the measure, although a stanch friend of
Reconsideration of
the Senate's measure
in the House, and
its final passage.
The proposed amendment was then sent to the President, who signed it, February 1st, 1865. Whereupon the Senate immediately passed another resolution, declaring that it was through an inadvertency that the measure had been sent to the President for his signature, that asking the President of the United States to sign a proposed constitutional amendment was an error, was without precedent in the practice of the Government, and that the President's approval should not be communicated to the House. A concurrent resolution was then passed by the two Houses authorizing the President to submit the proposed article of amendment to the "States" for ratification. The Secretary of State immediately sent it to the legislatures of all the "States" which could be reached by him, and during the summer and autumn to the legislatures of all the "States;" and the new legislature of Tennessee ratified it on the 5th of April, 1865, that is, more than a week before Lincoln's death.
Such was the condition of things when the assassin's bullet ended the life of the great and good President and brought the Vice-President, Mr. Johnson, into the office.
CHAPTER III
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HIS PROCEEDINGS IN REALIZATION OF IT
[The Character of Mr. Johnson]—[The Radical Nature of Johnson's First Views on Reconstruction]—[The Retention of Lincoln's Cabinet by Mr. Johnson and the Modification of Johnson's Views by Mr. Seward's Arguments]—[Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of May 29th, 1865]—[The Excepted Classes]—[The Effect of these Exceptions]—[The President's Plan]—[The Realization of it—The Administering of the Oath]—[Reconstruction in North Carolina]—[The Identity of Johnson's Plan with that of Lincoln]—[Reconstruction in Mississippi—Reconstruction in Georgia—Reconstruction in Alabama, South Carolina and Florida]—[Reconstruction in Virginia]—[Reconstruction in Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee]—[The Constitutional Conventions of 1865]—[The Form of the Work Done in these Conventions, and its Substance]—[The Erection of "State" Governments and the Election of Members of Congress]—[The Orders of the President Putting the Civil Government of the United States into Operation Everywhere]—[The President's First Annual Message].
Mr. Johnson was a man who rose from very low estate through his own efforts. He was a man of considerable intellectual power and of great
The character
of Mr. Johnson.
With such a history behind him, and such a disposition impelling him, it is not to be wondered at that his policy in regard to Reconstruction
The radical
nature of Johnson's
first views on
Reconstruction.
Mr. Johnson retained Lincoln's Cabinet, and among them the conciliatory and persuasive Seward, who, in about six weeks from the night of the
The retention of
Lincoln's Cabinet
by Mr. Johnson, and
the modification
of Johnson's views
by Mr. Seward's
arguments.
On the 29th of May, he issued his proclamation of amnesty and pardon to all persons who, having engaged in rebellion, had failed to take the
Johnson's Amnesty
Proclamation of
May 29, 1865.
He, however, excepted the following classes of persons from the benefits of the offer: 1st. Those who held or had held, under the
The excepted
classes.
2d. Those who had left seats in the Congress of the United States or judicial stations under the United States to aid in the rebellion against the United States, and those who had resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;
3d. Those who had, in any way, treated persons found in the service of the United States, in any capacity, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war;
4th. Those who had been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States on the high seas, or upon the lakes and rivers separating the British Provinces from the United States, or in making raids from Canada into the United States;
5th. Those who were, or had been, absent from the United States, or had left their homes within the jurisdiction of the United States, and passed beyond the military lines of the United States into the pretended Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;
6th. Those who, at the time they might seek to obtain the benefits of the proclamation by taking the oath, were prisoners of war, or under civil or criminal arrest, and those who had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States since December 8, 1863, and had failed to keep it;
And, finally, those who had voluntarily participated in any way in the rebellion and were the owners of taxable property to the value of more than twenty thousand dollars.
These exceptions would have shut out almost all of the leading men of most of the "States" that passed secession ordinances from the benefits
The effect
of these
exceptions.
Briefly, the President proposed to pardon the rebel leaders, upon special personal application, as an act of high executive grace, and to
The President's plan
in a sentence.
In the first place, the machinery for administering the cleansing oath was made very simple and accessible. Any commissioned officer, civil,
The realization of it.
The administering
of the oath.
In the second place, and by a second proclamation, issued on the same day, May 29th, the President appointed a Provisional Governor for North
Reconstruction in
North Carolina.
This second proclamation also commanded the heads of the departments of the United States Government to put the laws of the United States into operation in North Carolina, the United States judges to open the United States courts and proceed to business, and the military officers in the district to aid the Provisional Governor in carrying the duties assigned to him into effect, and to abstain from hindering, impeding, or discouraging, in any manner, the organization of a "State" government as authorized by the proclamation.
It will thus be seen that Mr. Johnson's plan of Reconstruction was in substance the same as that of Mr. Lincoln. It rested upon the theory of
The identity
of Johnson's
plan with that
of Lincoln.
On the 13th of June, the President issued a proclamation of like tenor and containing similar orders for putting the laws of the United States
Reconstruction
in Mississippi,
Georgia, Alabama,
South Carolina
and Florida.
Already on May 9th, twenty days before the issue of his proclamation of amnesty, the President had issued an executive order putting the laws
Reconstruction
in Virginia.
Of course Mr. Johnson recognized the reconstruction of Louisiana,
Reconstruction
in Louisiana,
Arkansas and
Tennessee.
During the summer, autumn and early winter of 1865, the Provisional Governors of Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina,
The constitutional
conventions of 1865.
These bodies chose to do their work in the form of amendments to the old constitutions of the "States," whose constituent powers they
The form of the
work done in these
conventions, and
its substance.
Before the meeting of Congress also, elections of the members of the respective "State" legislatures and of "State" officers, and of the
The erection of
"State" governments
and the election of
Members of Congress.
During the same period, the President had by his several proclamations and orders declared the cessation of armed resistance, the restoration
The orders of the
President putting the
civil Government
of the United States
into operation
everywhere.
This was the situation when Congress met on the first Monday of December, and received President Johnson's first annual Message. This
The President's
first annual
Message.
Finally, this paper contained the official notice to Congress that the President had admitted the reconstructed "States"—and that would mean all that had passed the secession ordinance, except perhaps Texas, whose convention did not assemble until March of 1866—to participate in amending the Constitution of the United States. The President concluded his narration and argumentation upon this all-important subject in these words: "The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, it will remain for the States whose powers have been so long in abeyance to resume their places in the two branches of the National Legislature, and thereby complete the work of restoration. Here it is for you, fellow citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow citizens of the House of Representatives, to judge, each of you for yourselves, of the elections, returns and qualifications of your own members."
It is entirely evident from all this that the President denied the power of the Houses of Congress, either separately or jointly, to prevent the Senators and Representatives from the reconstructed "States" from taking their seats upon any other grounds than defects in the election and return, or in the personal qualifications, of the particular persons under consideration.
CHAPTER IV
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN OF RECONSTRUCTION
[The Stevens Resolution]—[Legislation of the Reconstructed "States" Concerning the Status of the Freedmen, and the Freedmen's Bureau]—[Vagrancy, Apprenticeship, and Civil Rights in the Reconstructed "States"]—[The View Taken of this Legislation by the Republicans]—[The Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution]—[The Demand of the Senators- and Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed "States" to be Admitted to Seats in Congress]—[The Joint Committee of the Two Houses of Congress on Reconstruction]—[Thaddeus Stevens's Ideas on Reconstruction]—[Mr. Shellabarger's Theory of Reconstruction]—[Mr. Sumner's Theory of Reconstruction].
So soon as the House of Representatives had elected its Speaker, Mr. Colfax, and other officers, and before the reception of the President's
The Stevens
resolution.
The view of the House was thus manifest from the start. It was that Reconstruction could not be effected by the Executive Department of the
The view of the House
that Reconstruction
could not be effected
by the Executive.
There is no question that in sound political science the House was entirely correct in its theory, and that the objection of the Senate to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided that no member should be received into either House from any of the so-called Confederate States until the report of the Committee on Reconstruction should have been finally acted on by Congress, as trenching upon the exclusive power of the Senate to judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members, rested upon a confounding of the function of Congress to admit "States" into the Union with the power of
Passage of the Stevens
resolution as a
concurrent resolution.
There were two other considerations which moved the Republicans in Congress to assume this attitude in regard to Reconstruction. One was
Legislation of the
reconstructed "States"
concerning the status
of the freedmen, and
the Freedmen's Bureau.
There is no question that this was a most humane measure. It would have been a moral outrage for the Government of the United States to have taken the slaves away from the support and protection accorded them by their masters, and to have thrown them upon their own resources
The administration
of the Freedmen's
Bureau.
When, now, the newly reorganized "States" came to assume jurisdiction over matters concerning the freedmen, they found themselves driven to
Vagrancy, apprenticeship
and civil rights in the
reconstructed "States."
It must be remembered, however, that at the time of the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House of Representatives, only two of Mr. Johnson's reconstructed "States" had passed any laws upon these
Examination of these
vagrancy acts, etc.
The acts to which this one was preliminary were not passed until the latter half of December, and could not have served, except by prevision, as grounds for the Stevens resolution. Moreover there was little in this Act which was really calculated to arouse any pronounced hostility at the North. It evidently recognized the emancipation of the former slaves, and the prohibition of future slavery, as fixed facts, and provided for substantial equality in civil rights between persons of color and white persons. The discriminations which it referred to, rather than made, were those of a social and political nature, matters which to that time had been controlled, if controlled at all, wholly by the "States," except of course in those parts of the country in which "States" had not been erected.
The Mississippi acts were all passed in November. They were the acts which were before the view of Congress and the country in the beginning
The Mississippi Acts.
The first Act provided that freedmen, free negroes, and mulattoes under the age of eighteen years, being orphans, or the children of parents who could not, or would not, support them, should be apprenticed by the clerk of the Probate court in the county where found to competent and suitable persons, and on such terms as the court should direct; under the restrictions, that the former owner of the minor should be selected by the court as the master or mistress if, in the judgment of the court, he or she were competent and suitable; that the terms fixed by the court should have the interest of the minor particularly in view; and that the apprentice should be bound by indenture, to run, in the case of males, until the completion of the twenty-first year, and, in the case of females, until the completion of the eighteenth year.
This Act further provided that in the management and control of apprentices, the master or mistress should "have power to inflict such moderate corporal chastisement as a father or guardian is allowed to inflict on his or her child or ward at common law," but that in no case should "cruel or inhuman punishment be inflicted."
It furthermore provided, that in case of desertion by the apprentice, he might be apprehended and brought before a justice of the peace, who might remand him to his master or mistress, and might, on the refusal of the apprentice to return, commit him to jail, on failure to give bond, until the next term of the County court, which court should inquire into the matter, and determine whether the apprentice had left the service to which he was bound without good cause or not, and should, in the one case, compel the return to service by ordering the infliction of the necessary penalties, and in the other, should order the discharge of the apprentice, and enter "judgment against the master or mistress for not more than one hundred dollars, for the use and benefit of the apprentice."
The second Act provided, that "all free negroes and freedmen in the State, over the age of eighteen years, found on the second Monday in January, 1866, or thereafter, with no lawful employment or business, or found unlawfully assembling themselves together, either in the day or night time, and all white persons so assembling with freedmen, free negroes, or mulattoes, or usually associating with freedmen, free negroes, or mulattoes on terms of equality, or living in adultery or fornication with a freedwoman, free negro or mulatto, shall be deemed vagrants, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined in the sum of not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free negro or mulatto, fifty dollars, and in the case of a white man, two hundred dollars, and imprisoned, at the discretion of the court, the free negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months."
It further provided, that in case the freedman, free negro or mulatto should not pay the fine within five days from the time of its infliction, the sheriff of the proper county should hire him or her out to any person who would for the shortest period of service pay the fine and all costs, giving the preference, however, to the employer of the freedman, negro or mulatto, if there should be any, and, if no person would hire the same, should hold him or her to be dealt with as a pauper. It also provided that the freedman, free negro, or mulatto refusing or failing to pay a tax should be dealt with by the sheriff in the same manner.
And it provided, finally, that the same duties and liabilities existing among white persons in the "State" to support indigent whites should attach to freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes in regard to the support of colored paupers, and that in order to carry out the same a poll tax, not exceeding one dollar a head, should be levied on every freedman, free negro, and mulatto, between the ages of eighteen and sixty years, and should be collected and paid into the hands of the treasurers of the counties to be used in the support of colored paupers.
The third Act provided, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes might acquire, hold, and dispose of, personal property in the same manner and to the same extent as white persons, and might sue and be sued in all the courts of the "State" as white persons, but that they should not rent or lease lands or tenements except in incorporated towns or cities, and under the control of the corporate authorities.
It provided, further, for the intermarriage of freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes, and for the legalization of all previous and existing cohabitations between them, and the legitimation of the issue therefrom; but it forbade intermarriage between them and white persons, under penalty of life imprisonment, and it defined freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes as comprehending all of pure negro blood, and all descended from negroes to the third generation inclusive, although one parent in each generation should have been white.
It provided, further, that freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes should be competent as witnesses in all civil cases, in which they themselves or other freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes were parties or a party to the suit, and in criminal cases where the crime charged was alleged to have been committed by a white person or persons upon or against the person or property of a freedman, free negro, or mulatto.
It provided, further, that every freedman, free negro and mulatto should have a lawful home and employment, and should have written evidence thereof in the form of a license from the police authorities to do irregular or job work, or in the form of a written contract for labor. It required that all contracts made with freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes for labor for a longer period than one month should be in writing, a copy of which should be furnished to each party, and that if the laborer should quit the service of the employer before the expiration of the term fixed in the contract, he should forfeit his wages for that year up to the time of quitting.
It provided, further, for the arrest of any freedman, free negro, or mulatto quitting the service of an employer, and for the determination of the question whether the quitting was for good cause or not, and for the disposition to be made of the deserter.
It provided, further, that enticing or persuading freedmen, free negroes or mulattoes to desert from their legal employment, or employing deserters from contract labor knowingly, or giving or selling them food, raiment or other thing knowingly, should be a misdemeanor punishable by fine, or by imprisonment in case the fine should not be paid.
It provided, further, that no freedman, free negro or mulatto, unless in the military service of the United States, or licensed thereto by the police authorities, should keep or carry arms, ammunition or murderous weapons, and that every civil and military officer should arrest any such person found in possession of such articles, and commit him for trial.
It provided, further, that "any freedman, free negro, or mulatto committing riots, affrays, trespasses, malicious mischief and cruel treatment to animals, seditious speeches, insulting gestures, language or acts, or assaults on any person, disturbance of the peace, or exercising the functions of a minister of the gospel without a license from some regularly organized church, or selling spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or committing any other misdemeanor," should be fined or imprisoned, and, upon failure to pay the fine in five days' time after conviction, should be publicly hired out to the person who would pay the fine and costs for the shortest term of labor from the convict.
And it provided, finally, that "all the penal and criminal laws now in force in this State, defining offences, and prescribing the mode of punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free negroes or mulattoes, be and the same are hereby re-enacted, and declared to be in full force and effect, against freedmen, free negroes and mulattoes, except so far as the mode and manner of trial and punishment have been changed or altered by law."
This is a fair sample of the legislation subsequently passed by all the "States" reconstructed under President Johnson's plan. In fact, in the
The Mississippi legislation
a fair sample of the
subsequent legislation in
other "States."
As yet, we must remember, the Thirteenth Amendment had not been proclaimed as adopted, in fact had not been adopted, on the basis of the calculations of Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, the officer who alone could proclaim adoption; and the abolition of slavery rested upon the military power of the President, and on the acts of the "States" themselves, the first of which is temporary as to its effects, and the second of which might be reversed by the "States" at pleasure.
The Northern Republicans professed to see in this new legislation at the South the virtual re-enslavement of the negroes. This was an
The view taken of this
legislation by the
Republicans.
This legislation from
the point of view of
natural justice.
The law of vagrancy was severer. But it is easy to see that a reasonable execution of that law had as much help as harm in it for the former slave. It would have preserved him against idleness, drunkenness, and thievery, although it did curtail largely his liberty of action. It was, undeniably, the third act, which came so near to the re-enactment of the old slave code in regard to crimes and misdemeanors committed by negroes, that gave the greatest offence. Almost every act, word, or gesture of the negro, not consonant with good taste and good manners, as well as good morals, was made a crime or misdemeanor, for which he could first be fined by the magistrates, and then consigned to a condition almost of slavery for an indefinite time, if he could not pay the fine. There is no question that the "States" of the Union had at that moment the power under the Constitution of the United States to do these things. At that time the determination of the criminal law, both as to the definition of crime, the fixing of penalties, and the fashioning of procedure, was almost entirely a function of the "States," and there was no provision in the Constitution of the United States which required the "States" to treat their own inhabitants with equality in regard to their civil rights and obligations.
Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising that the Republicans of the North strongly felt that the freedom of the negro had not yet been sufficiently guaranteed to render the acknowledgment of the resumption of "State"-powers by the communities so lately in rebellion against the United States for the upholding of negro slavery safe and wise.
It was certainly natural, and it was just and right, that the party in power in Congress should have considered it their duty to so amend the
Correctness of
the Republican
position.
Just two weeks after the passage of the Stevens resolution by the House of Representatives, Mr. Seward announced the adoption of the Thirteenth
The ratification of the
Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution.
It is to be remarked, however, that had he counted none of the "States" that had passed secession ordinances, either in the whole number, or in the three-quarters necessary to adopt, the Amendment would in that case also have been adopted. There would have been, in that case, twenty-five "States" in the Union, and of these nineteen had adopted the Amendment. And if any controversy had arisen over the use of fractions in making nineteen three-fourths of twenty-five, this would have been quickly overcome by the fact that the legislatures of four more of the loyal "States" adopted the Amendment soon after Mr. Seward's declaration, making twenty-three out of twenty-five. It will not, of course, be disputed that, if the "States" that passed secession ordinances should have been counted in arriving at the whole number of "States" in the Union, those of them adopting the Amendment should also have been counted in making out the three-fourths majority necessary to adoption, and that if, on the other hand, they should have been excluded in arriving at the whole number, they should also have been excluded in making up the three-fourths majority. In other words, it does not matter from which point of view we regard the subject, the Amendment was regularly and lawfully adopted. It must be admitted, however, that Mr. Seward followed in this most solemn procedure, the amending of the Constitution, the Presidential plan of Reconstruction, and gave great encouragement to the Senators- and Representatives-elect from these reconstructed "States" to expect that they would have the aid and influence both of the Democrats in Congress, and of the Administration, in securing their seats.
They had gone to Washington and, bearing themselves confidently from the first, they now became defiant in demanding their rights. Many of
The demand of the
Senators- and
Representatives-elect
from the reconstructed
"States" to be admitted
to seats in Congress.
This was the situation in the last week of February, 1866, when the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent with the Stevens resolution in the House, denying seats to any of the claimants from the "States" lately in insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon. Four of the Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Dixon and Norton went against their party associates in this question, but there was still a two-thirds majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to combat the Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to construct and enforce a Congressional plan.
As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred with the House in regard to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided for the
The Joint Committee
of the two houses
of Congress on
Reconstruction.
This Committee sat for about six months before making its final report. During this period, however, several propositions issued from it, and
The activity of Congress
in the interim between the
appointment of the Committee
on Reconstruction and the
Report of the Committee.
Mr. Stevens opened this debate in the House on the 18th of December (1865). In a powerful speech, he developed anew his doctrine that the
Thaddeus Stevens's
ideas on
Reconstruction.
This was the extreme doctrine on the one side. It was in blunt contradiction to the doctrine upon which the Administration was acting,
Contradiction between
Stevens's view and
the view of the
Administration.
But while the Republicans of the House repudiated entirely Mr. Raymond's principles, the great mass of them were not able to accept Mr. Stevens's view of the temporary validity of secession, and the temporary existence of the Southern Confederacy as a foreign power. Their feelings and instincts required a principle of reconstruction which, at the same time that it did not recognize secession as having any validity for the shortest moment, yet regarded the "States" in which it was attempted, as having thereby become something other than "States" of the Union, and as requiring the assent of Congress to the rightful resumption of that status.
It was Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, who did more than anybody else to give the proper logical interpretation to these feelings and invent the
Mr. Shellabarger's
theory of
Reconstruction.
This was sound political science and correct constitutional law. It could not fail to command the assent of the great majority of the
Mr. Sumner's theory
of Reconstruction.
The Republicans in
Congress almost
unanimously in favor
of the Shellabarger-
Sumner plan.
There is no doubt that the Sumner-Shellabarger theory of Reconstruction was correct. The only question was how exacting Congress would be in realizing it. Under such a situation it behooved the President to act with great caution and moderation, and to do nothing to provoke a conflict in which he was certain to be worsted. And it also behooved the people of the South to make no opposition to the bestowal of a large measure of civil liberty upon the freedmen, nor to such an adjustment of the basis of political representation as would not necessitate negro suffrage, and not to insist upon sending to Congress, at the outset, the men who had made themselves particularly obnoxious to loyal feeling. How both the President and the persons in authority at the South disregarded these considerations of prudence, and how the position assumed by them upon these subjects drove Congress into more and more radical lines, is the further subject of the next three chapters.
CHAPTER V
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Continued)
[The Freedmen Codes in the South]—[The Reports of Grant and Schurz in Regard to the Status in the South]—[The Freedmen's Bureau Bill of 1866]—[The President's 22d of February Speech]—[The Civil Rights Bill]—[The Veto of the Bill]—[The Veto Overridden]—[The Fourteenth Amendment]—[The Discussion of the Propositions in Congress]—[The President's Attitude toward the Proposed Amendment]—[Mr. Seward's Acts in Regard to Ratification]—[The Requirement that the Ratification of the Proposed Amendment should be the Condition of the Admission of the Senators- and Representatives-elect to Seats in Congress]—[The Tennessee Precedent].
We have reviewed the acts of the new legislature of Mississippi concerning the civil status of the freedmen. It is sufficient to say
The Freedmen codes
in the South.
The President had sent General Grant and General Carl Schurz on tours of inspection and inquiry through the South, during the late summer and
The reports of Grant
and Schurz in regard to
the status in the South.
Mr. Schurz, on the other hand, reported that his conclusions from his observations were that there was no loyalty among the leaders and the mass of the people in the South, except such as consisted in submission to necessity; that they were consciously attempting in their new legislation to establish a new form of slavery, distinct only from the old chattel slavery; and that this could be prevented only by national law and national control, at least for many years to come.
General Grant's visit had been a flying one, and his inquiries upon the subject were secondary only to his other business. On the other hand, General Schurz had journeyed deliberately, and his inquiries were the chief, if not the sole, purpose of his visit. Moreover, General Schurz was a keener observer in regard to such matters than General Grant, and a much better reasoner.
Despite, therefore, the great popularity and influence of General Grant, Congress was inclined to place more credence in the report of
The attitude of
Congress toward
the reports.
The first measure it attempted was one to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau. This supplementary project originated with the
The Freedmen's
Bureau bill of 1866.
First, While the law of March 3d, 1865, provided for the appointment of a commissioner and ten assistants as the entire personnel of the Bureau, the new bill authorized the appointment of a commissioner, twelve assistant commissioners, and the appointment or detail of an agent for each county or parish throughout the section where the Bureau might operate.
Second, While in the law of March 3d, 1865, the Bureau rather appeared to be under the civil administration of the President, the new bill placed it distinctly under the military administration of the President, and authorized the President to extend "military jurisdiction and protection over all of the officers, agents, and employees of the Bureau."
Third, While the law of March 3d, 1865, confined the powers of the Bureau to the giving of aid to refugees and freedmen and the distribution of abandoned and confiscated lands among them, the new bill proposed, in addition to this, to vest in the Bureau the power to build school houses and asylums for the freedmen, and the most wide-reaching jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases where equality in civil rights and status, and in the application of penalties, was denied, or the denial thereof attempted, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and it authorized military protection in all such cases to be extended to the suffering party. In a single sentence, this bill provided a sort of palatine jurisdiction over the freedmen in the section lately the scene of rebellion.
It was a stiff measure even for the transition period from war to peace. It cannot be justified constitutionally as anything but a war measure. It is true that the Thirteenth Amendment, just adopted, could be interpreted as giving Congress the power to prohibit inequalities in civil rights and in criminal punishments, as the incidents of slavery or involuntary servitude, and to extend the ordinary jurisdiction of the constitutional courts of the United States over all cases where the attempt to apply such inequalities should be made. But it certainly did not give Congress the power, under any ordinary circumstances, to create a new system of courts, subject to the Executive, officered by military men, and armed directly with military power to enforce decisions. It was, as has been said, a war measure, and nothing else. The question was reduced simply to this: Ought the Congress of the United States to enact a new war measure, after armed resistance had ceased everywhere, except perhaps in some parts of Texas? Was it sound policy, was it good morals, to do so, when the people in the sections lately in rebellion were settling down into the pursuits of peace, even
The passage
of the bill.
On the 10th of February (1866) it was sent to the President for his signature. In a Message, dated the 19th of February, the President put
The veto
upon it.
For this once the President's arguments convinced enough of the Senators to deprive the bill of the support of the necessary majority
The veto
effective.
On the evening of the 22d of February, three days after his successful veto, the President made a most important speech from the steps of the
The President's 22d
of February speech.
As a part of the same plan for securing the civil rights of the freedmen against the hostile legislation of the President's
The Civil
Rights Bill.
The purpose of it was simply to establish equality in the enjoyment of civil rights for all citizens of the country and to make all persons born in the country and not subject to any foreign power citizens. The substantial part of the bill, as perfected, read: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."
This is simply equality for all before the law. It conferred no political privilege and no social equality. It was fairly within the power of Congress to pass such a measure, by interpreting broadly the Thirteenth Amendment, without having any recourse to the idea of war powers. Slavery was nothing but extreme inequality in civil rights between master and servant. The prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude could, therefore, most certainly be held to be the prohibition of all of these incidents.
The remaining provisions of the bill did nothing more than fix penalties for violating, or attempting to violate, civil equality as thus defined, designate the officers charged with the duty of prosecuting the offenders, and establish the jurisdiction for the trial of such cases.
The penalties were somewhat grave. They might be as severe as a fine of one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for a year, or both, in the discretion of the courts. But they were not cruel or unusual, and were, therefore, within the power of Congress to prescribe. The officers authorized and required to institute proceedings against violators of the law were the district attorneys, marshals and deputy marshals of the United States courts, the commissioners appointed by the Circuit and Territorial courts of the United States, the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, and every other officer whom the President might see fit to empower thereto. And the jurisdiction established for the trial of such cases was that of the United States courts, upon which was conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction in any case under the law, and to which any case touching these subjects commenced in a "State" court could be removed on motion of the defendant. But all these things were authorized by a liberal construction of the Thirteenth Amendment, which expressly vests in Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper to enforce the prohibition of slavery throughout the whole country.
It was, indeed, a great change in the system of the jurisprudence of the United States that the central Government should define and protect
The measure sound
from the points of
view of modern
jurisprudence and
modern political
science.
On the 27th of March, he sent his veto of the bill into the Senate. It was a weak argument throughout. He objected to making the freedmen
The veto
of the bill.
Now all this was easily answered from the point of view which Congress and the North had now firmly taken, viz.: that the eleven former "States" in which rebellion had for so long prevailed were not "States," although the territory formerly occupied by them, and the population formerly inhabiting them, were within the United States and were subject to the jurisdiction of the central Government; that the rebellion had demonstrated that the central Government must be intrusted with a large increase of powers in protecting civil equality and civil liberty; and that the sovereign Nation had willed this in the enactment and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Really there was but one thing in the bill susceptible of successful criticism, and that could be explained so as to avoid it. It was the
Criticism
of the bill.
The President most decidedly lost his chance of rehabilitating himself with his party, and leading it in the work of Reconstruction, by not
The
President's
blunder.
The veto
overridden.
While, as we have seen, the President did not exactly deny the constitutionality of the bill, the Democrats in Congress, and the
The Fourteenth
Amendment.
In the first place, it was seen that the emancipation of the slaves would increase the representation in Congress and in the Presidential electoral college from the old slave "States" by two-fifths whenever the Southern communities should be recognized as "States" again, and that too without the admission of the emancipated persons to the exercise of political suffrage. It was certainly to be apprehended that, with such increased representation, the Southern members and the Northern Democrats would constitute a majority in Congress and in the electoral college, and might proceed not only to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and all acts in behalf of the freedmen, but also to throw the Confederate debt or a part of it upon the United States, or establish pensions for Confederate soldiers, or even repudiate the debt of the Union made in defence of its own life. While the danger of these things was, probably, somewhat exaggerated, still it would not have been becoming for men of prudence and patriotism to have failed to provide against them. Really there was but one thing to do, and that was to enact, and secure the adoption of, another amendment to the Constitution covering these points, while the power to do so still existed.
It would be an agreeable thing to the writer of this period of American history, were he able to record that the principal matter which
The political
provision in
the proposed
Fourteenth
Amendment.
It was Monday, April 30th, before the Committee was ready to report the entire article, which took the name of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The article as presented to the Houses of Congress by the Joint Committee on that day read as follows:
"Sect. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Sect. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.
"Sect. 3. Until the 4th day of July in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.
"Sect. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.
"Sect. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this Article."
The chief difficulties with these provisions were, first, that they did not define who were the citizens of the United States; second, that
Defects in the
first draft of the
Amendment.
The discussion in Congress upon these provisions lasted through the month of May and well into June. At last in the second week of June,
The discussion of the
propositions in Congress.
The first section had been modified by the incorporation into it of a sentence which defined citizenship of the United States. It reads: "All
The final draft
agreed upon.
The language of the second section had been revised so as to make its meaning more clear, but it had not been changed at all as to its meaning. It reads in its perfected form: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
For section third, denying suffrage until 1870 to all persons who had given aid voluntarily to the rebellion, Congress had substituted an entirely new resolution, which rendered the Confederate chieftains ineligible to office instead of disqualifying the rank and file for suffrage. It reads as follows: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This was certainly a wise change. It certainly could not be contended that disqualifications for holding office and legislative mandate violated any so-called natural right. It was better that whatever punishments of a political nature might fall upon the Confederates should strike the leaders, rather than the followers. And it was not a severe punishment which required that, for a time at least, the people inhabiting the communities lately in rebellion should choose as their representatives to the National legislature and to the Presidential electoral college, and as their "State" officers, men not identified with the rebellion so closely as to have been among its leaders. It is difficult to see how the Confederate leaders could have been required to suffer less, and have been rebuked at all for their acts.
Finally, section four was supplemented by a sentence which declared that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." The last words of the section were also somewhat modified in the direction of greater emphasis, but the meaning remained the same. As thus perfected, the section declared the validity of all the existing obligations of the United States, and repudiated all obligations whatsoever assumed in aid of rebellion, and all claims for the loss or emancipation of any slave. This covered the ground completely in regard to the security of the public obligations of the United States both from the positive and negative side, and it prevented both Congress and the "States" from ever recognizing, in the future, the claim for any relief from the natural consequences of unsuccessful rebellion, and the right to any compensation for deprivation of property in man.
As Congress passed these propositions by the necessary two-thirds majority they were not submitted to the President at all, it being considered that his disapproval, if given, would avail nothing against such a majority. This has been the custom from the first in Congressional propositions of amendment, and it is now too late to dispute its regularity. But it is easy to see that the President might support a veto of such propositions by such reasoning as to make it at least possible that sufficient votes might be changed from affirmative to negative upon them, to finally defeat them; and it is certainly true that the Constitution requires that every bill, order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President and is subject to his approval or veto, no matter by what majority it may have been passed.
However, President Johnson had no opportunity to express himself officially or make himself officially felt in regard to this Amendment.
The President's attitude
toward the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Seward issued his notification of the passage of the amendment by Congress to the "State" legislatures for their ratificatory action on
Mr. Seward's
acts in regard to
ratification.
On the other hand, the Reconstruction Committee of Congress had reported a bill along with the Article of Amendment, which virtually
The requirement that
the ratification of the
proposed Amendment
should be the condition
of the admission of
the Senators- and
Representatives-elect
to seats in Congress.
No matter how it might have been stated, it was an absurdity. The true theory on this point was that held by Mr. Stevens, viz., to consider
The absurdity of
the condition.
The amended Constitution would then have the same power over them as if the Amendment had been ratified by them. In fact, their petition for admission or recognition as "States" of the Union with the amended Constitution would imply their assent to the Amendment as well as to every other part of the Constitution. The more moderate Republicans feared that the Southern communities would not feel obligated by a Constitution amended in this way. It is difficult to see why they should not. The Southern statesmen knew that Congress had no power under the Constitution to require of new "States" obedience to anything as a condition of their admission to the Union, but the Constitution as it was at the moment of their admission. Looked at from the point of view of the present, it would certainly appear that the exaction of such an unlawful promise, imposing such a degrading discrimination, would have been far more exasperating than anything else which could have been invented or imagined.
Enough of them saw this to prevent Congress from enacting the bill proposed by the Reconstruction Committee into a law, and when the proposed Amendment went to the legislatures of the "States," there was no requirement attending it which appeared to deprive any legislature, or body claiming to be a legislature, of its discretion in dealing with the subject.
As a matter of fact, however, the legislature of Tennessee ratified the proposed Amendment within about a month after receiving the Article
The precedent set
by Tennessee.
These proceedings made it certain that, while Congress had failed to pass any formal act making the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth
The Tennessee
precedent.
The President signed the resolution, but accompanied the same with a short message in which he made a rather telling criticism upon the
The President's message in
regard to the rehabilitation
of Tennessee.
CHAPTER VI
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Continued)
[The Reports of the Committee on Reconstruction]—[The Idea of a New Electorate as the Basis and Condition of Reconstruction]—[The Freedmen's Bureau Act of July 16th, 1866]—[The Disaffection in the Cabinet]—[The New Orleans Riot]—[The Issue of Reconstruction in the Campaign of 1866]—[The Congressional Election of 1866]—[The President's Final Proclamation Declaring the Civil War Ended—The October Elections]—[The President's Message of December 3d, 1866]—[Rejection of the Proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the Legislatures of the Reconstructed "States."]
Two days after the transmission of the Fourteenth Amendment to the "State" legislatures, the Joint Committee of Congress on
The reports of the Committee
on Reconstruction.
The majority report was an able defence of the view, that by rebellion and attempted secession the eleven "States" in which these things
The majority
report.
Based upon this doctrine, the majority report naturally vindicated the exclusive right of Congress in the work of Reconstruction, which work was virtually the admission of new "States" into the Union. It, furthermore, demonstrated that the situation in these disorganized sections was one largely of exhausted disloyalty only, and that all that the inhabitants of them had done under the President's Reconstruction policy was directed toward putting the same men in power who had led in the rebellion and toward denying civil, to say nothing of political, rights to the freedmen.
And its final conclusion was, "that Congress would not be justified in admitting such communities to a participation in the government of the country without first providing such constitutional or other guarantees as would tend to secure the civil rights of all citizens of the Republic; a just equality of representation; protection against claims founded in rebellion and crime; a temporary restoration of the right of suffrage to those who have not actively participated in the efforts to destroy the Union and overthrow the Government; and the exclusion from positions of public trust of at least a portion of those whose crimes have proved them to be the enemies of the Union, and unworthy of public confidence."
As we have seen, the proposed Fourteenth Article of Amendment had provided for all of these things, except the direct conferring of suffrage on anybody. With this exception, it had gone even further, in its provision declaratory of citizenship, and in its protection of the public debt of the Union.
The report of the minority, that is of the three Democrats, was written by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland. It was, as a lawyer's brief, an
The minority
report.
The majority report indicated, at least, that Congress might require something more than adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by the communities lately in rebellion before they would be recognized as having been restored to their proper relations in the Union as "States," and entitled to representation in Congress. At the moment, however, it is probable that a prompt adoption of the proposed Amendment by any of the reconstructed legislatures would have been followed by a joint resolution on the part of Congress similar to that
The idea of a new
electorate as the
basis and condition
of Reconstruction.
A few weeks later Congress scored another victory over the President, one which did much toward wiping out the defeats of February 19th and
The Freedmen's
Bureau Act of
July 16th, 1866.
The President could not, however, see much difference between them. He claimed that his objections to the first bill were valid against the
The veto of
the measure.
From the point of view of to-day it is difficult to see why the President was not right. There is no doubt that the Freedmen's Bureau
Correctness of the
President's views.
The veto of the bill was dated July 16th, and the two Houses repassed it over the veto on the same day. The new law was to be executed
The veto
overridden.
Besides Stanton, three other members of the Cabinet had showed their disaffection toward the President's policy. They were Mr. Speed, the
Disaffection
in the Cabinet.
Stanton's
attitude
toward the
President.
The President knew of this difference of feeling between himself and his War Secretary at the time of his reorganization of the Cabinet in July, and would undoubtedly have been glad to receive his resignation, but he did not ask for it. The newspapers which sustained the Administration did, however, and predicted that it would be forthcoming. The Republican leaders, on the other hand, encouraged Stanton to hold on to the office, and represented to him that the welfare of his country demanded the sacrifice of his personal feelings in the matter.
It was now generally proclaimed throughout the North that the rebel chieftains had repossessed themselves of the reconstructed "State"
The opinion and feeling
in the North concerning
the condition of things
in the South.
At this moment a horrible tragedy was enacted in New Orleans which seemed to give verification to some, if not all, of these statements.
The New
Orleans riot.
Of course, when the constitution framed by the convention was adopted by popular vote and a "State" government was set up under it, common sense and common honesty would hold that the convention had been finally dissolved, no matter how the wording of the resolution might be forced in the opposite direction. The men of "'64" saw in this wording their only chance, however, to rescue the "State" government from the hands of the amnestied electorate, and in their desperation they were determined to attempt to make use of it. A number of the members of the old convention got together informally on the 26th of June. The president of the old convention did not call them together, and he would not preside at the informal meeting. He made some trivial excuse; but there cannot be much doubt in regard to his real reason. This informal meeting then proceeded to elect a pro tempore president, Judge Howell, an office-holder under the constitution of 1864. It was this man who issued the proclamation of July 7th, reconvoking the old convention of 1864. The time appointed by him was the 30th of July at noon, and the place designated by him was the Mechanics' Institute Building at New Orleans. The men called together were the members of the old convention, but to provide for any vacancies that might have happened or might happen in the former membership of this old body, Judge Howell called on the Governor, Mr. Wells, to issue writs of election. The governor did so, and ordered an election of such delegates to be held September 3d. He thus manifested his approval of the movement.
Naturally the party of the amnestied viewed this scheme for depriving them of the "State" government by means of a new constitution, framed by a defunct convention, and certain to contain a provision for negro suffrage, with the most intense hostility. They were not placated either by being referred to the consideration that the constitution framed by this convention must be submitted to the suffrages of the existing electorate, and must be ratified by a majority of the same, before it could be put into operation. They had a suspicion that the whole thing was instigated by the wicked Republicans at the North, and that the voting upon such a proposed constitution would be controlled by them through the military of the United States Government.
They, therefore, resolved to nip the plan in the bud by preventing the assembly of the convention, or forcing it to disperse if it did assemble. The mayor of the city, Mr. Monroe, the same who was mayor when the Union army entered the city in 1862, applied to the General in command of the United States troops in Louisiana, General Absalom Baird, to know what attitude the military authorities would take toward the convention, and informed General Baird that he intended to disperse the convention if it should attempt to assemble without having the approval of these authorities. General Baird was acting for General Sheridan, who was absent from his post, and he replied with much more caution than he would probably have done had he been alone responsible. He told Mayor Monroe that he thought the Governor of the "State," rather than the mayor of the city, was the man to interfere with the assembly of a body professing to be a "State" convention, if there was to be any interference at all, and he gave the mayor to understand that his proposed course might be perilous. This was the 25th of July. Two days later the mayor went again to the General, this time accompanied by the Lieutenant-Governor, who was of the party of the amnestied. He now told General Baird that the police would not undertake to prevent the assembly of the convention, or disperse its members when assembled, but that its members would be indicted by the grand jury and arrested by the sheriff. The General seemed to think that the convention could lawfully assemble, but agreed with the mayor and Lieutenant-Governor that both he and they would request instructions from Washington.
The General applied to the Secretary of War, and the mayor applied to the President. The General informed the Secretary of the movement to assemble a convention; that it had the approval of the Governor; that the Lieutenant-Governor and the municipal authorities considered it unlawful and proposed to prevent it by arresting the delegates; that he had declared to them that he would not permit them to do this, unless the President should so instruct him; and he asked for orders, in the premises, by telegraph. The Lieutenant-Governor and the Attorney-General of the "State" informed the President of the movement to assemble the old convention; informed him that negroes were assembling, incendiary speeches were being made calling them to arm themselves, and the President was being denounced; that the Governor was in sympathy with the movement; that the matter was before the grand jury; and that it was contemplated to have the members of the convention arrested by criminal process; and they asked the President to inform them whether the military authorities would interfere to prevent the execution of the processes of the criminal court.
Secretary Stanton did not reply to General Baird's application at all. He did not even communicate the General's application to the President. He afterward explained that he did not consider that Baird's telegram required any reply. Baird had said in his despatch that he had informed the Lieutenant-Governor and the city authorities that he would not allow them to arrest the delegates and break up the convention unless instructed to do so by the President. The Secretary did not propose to send the General any such orders, or to allow any such to be transmitted to him from the President through the War Department, and so the Secretary thought it best to let the matter rest where the General had placed it. He did not know that the President had been applied to by the other side, and the President did not inform the Secretary of the despatch which he had received. The confidence between the two men had been already so largely destroyed as to prevent even consultation upon these grave subjects.
The President, on the other hand, answered the application made to him. He telegraphed to the Lieutenant-Governor that the military would be expected to sustain, and not to obstruct, or interfere with, the proceedings of the criminal court. He did not send any orders to General Baird, however. Whether the Lieutenant-Governor showed his telegram from the President to General Baird or not is not positively known, so far as the writer of these pages has been able to discover, but it is probable that he did.
It was certainly then the understanding on all sides, at least, that the "State" and municipal authorities would deal with the delegates to the convention, if they interfered with them at all, through the grand jury and the officers of the criminal court, and not through the police. This did not mean, of course, that the police should not be present in the neighborhood of the convention for the purpose of keeping the public peace. They were ordered to assemble at the stations on the morning of the 30th (July) and to bring their arms. According to General Sheridan's report to the President, the riot was occasioned by the marching of a procession of negroes, about one hundred strong and partly armed, through several of the streets to the locality of the convention. It occurred about an hour after the members of the convention had assembled. Naturally a number of people, mostly of the lower orders, gathered on the sidewalks of the streets through which the procession passed. Hooting and jeering followed. Then a shot was fired, probably by a negro in the procession. Then other shots followed and the crowd rushed after the procession, which soon arrived in front of the building in which the convention sat. Brickbats now flew from each side and the riot was in full progress when the police appeared on the scene. The procession rushed into the building, leaving a few of its members outside. One of these and a policeman came to blows, when another shot was fired, upon which the policemen began firing through the windows of the building. After a few moments a white flag was displayed from one of the windows, whereupon the firing ceased and the policemen rushed into the building. Once in the building they fired their revolvers upon the persons present indiscriminately and with terrible effect. The persons who succeeded in escaping from the building were also fired on by the police and by citizens, and many were killed or wounded. Nearly two hundred persons were killed or injured, mostly negroes, but some whites, and among them some members of the proposed convention. There were no United States troops in the city at the hour of the riot, their barracks being outside. General Baird had ordered four companies to take position near the place of the convention, but owing to the fact that he had got the impression that the convention would assemble at 6 P.M., he had ordered them to repair to the assigned position at 5 P.M. They, consequently, did not arrive until the riot was over and the convention was dispersed.
Each party considered the other the aggressor. The Republicans of the North viewed the massacre as a new rebellion, while the amnestied Southerners considered the riot the result of a justified resistance to an attempt to force negro suffrage and then negro rule upon them. It is very nearly certain that the first shot was fired by a negro, but this would not justify the wholesale massacre executed by the police. It could, therefore, be held by the Republicans with a great show of truth that the public authorities of the reconstructed "State" government of Louisiana not only would not extend the equal protection of the laws to all persons, but would themselves deprive persons even of life without due process of law.
The issue of the campaign of 1866 was thus made up. It was simply whether Congress should reconstruct the President's reconstructed
The issue of
Reconstruction
in the campaign
of 1866.
Although it was not a Presidential year, the election of the members of the House of Representatives with such a problem to deal with, and the election of "State" legislatures which would consider the question of adopting the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, made the canvass of 1866 a truly national one. Four National Conventions were held during the summer and early autumn, two of each party.
The Administration party led off with their great meeting in Philadelphia on the 14th of August. There were a few prominent
The National
Conventions
of the summer
of 1866.
Inasmuch as there had been a great display of harmony between the leading men of the South and the Northern delegates in the convention of the 14th of August, making it appear that the Democrats were the party of peace and reunion, while the Republicans were in favor of a continuation of the hostile status, the Southern Republicans, or as they called themselves the loyal Union men of the South, assembled in considerable numbers in Philadelphia on the 3d of September, for the purpose of conferring with the leading Republicans of the North in regard to the condition of things in the South. Such men as John Minor Botts, William G. Brownlow, George W. Paschal, Thomas J. Durant, M. J. Safford, Thomas H. Benton, Lewis M. Kenzie, G. W. Ashburn, and many more of almost equal reputation came to counsel with the leaders of the Republican party. Many of the most important of these were there, Trumbull, Greeley, Morton, Chandler, Schenck, Schurz, Matthews, Curtin, Cameron, Gerry, Speed, the ex-Attorney-General, and Creswell. These are only a few names of the eminent men who were present.
The delegates separated into two bodies, one body comprehending the representatives from the South, and the other those from the North. This was done in order to leave the Southerners free from undue Northern influence. Mr. Speed presided over the Southern assembly, and in his opening words declared the purpose of the convention to be to determine and proclaim whether the assertion of the late Confederates that their constitutional rights were being denied them in not admitting their Representatives- and Senators-elect to seats in Congress was true, or whether, on the other hand, the claim of the emancipated that their civil and natural rights were being denied them was true. He soon left no doubt upon the minds of his hearers as to his own view and belief, and he denounced the President's reconstruction work, both in principle and results, most roundly. On account of the intimate relation in which he had stood to the President as his legal adviser, and on account of the fact that he was a citizen of one of the old slave-holding "States," his words had tremendous effect in steeling the purpose of the Republicans of the North.
Under the inspiration of Mr. Speed's speech, the Southern convention framed and fulminated an address which arraigned the President as almost a traitor to his party and the Union, and as a friend of rebels and of sympathizers with rebels, described the results of his Reconstruction policy and acts as most deplorable, and urged the speedy adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as the only possible cure for the evils which were afflicting the country. This address made up the issues of the campaign. The dividing line of the parties now separated those who favored the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment from those who did not. The issue was simple, and the vote upon it was decisive, as we shall see.
The Administration party now attempted to divide the late soldiers, as it had attempted to divide the Republicans, with but little better effect. They got together a convention of the veterans at Cleveland, Ohio, on the 17th of September, and had the venerable General Wool preside over it. There were many good men and true present, among them Gordon Granger, Rousseau, Custer, McClernand, and Thomas Ewing; and they accused the Republicans of attempting to stir up another civil war over the question of negro suffrage, and urged their old comrades to insist that the status of peace, and all the consequences thereof, existed and must be preserved.
This movement was met on the other side by the assembly of a Republican soldier convention at Pittsburg on the 25th and 26th of September, for the purpose of upholding Congress in its fight with the Administration over the question of Reconstruction. The convention was presided over by General J. D. Cox, and a host of the most capable officers of the armies of the Union, lately disbanded, participated in its deliberations and resolves. They denounced the President's Reconstruction policy, pronounced their adherence to Congress, and declared for the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as the indispensable measure for the re-establishment of peace, justice and union.
During the summer and autumn the orators and politicians of both parties pursued the canvass upon the basis of the doctrines put forth
The canvass of 1866.
On the 28th of August he started from Washington to go to Chicago to be present at the laying of the corner-stone of the Douglas monument. He
The "swing
around the
circle."
The President had on the 20th day of August, a week before setting out upon his tour, finally proclaimed the insurrection and Civil War at an
The President's final
proclamation declaring
the Civil War ended.
The October elections.
The Republican
triumph in the
elections of 1866.
Notwithstanding all this, however, the President, in his Message to Congress of December 3d, returned to the contest. He reargued his case
The President's
Message of
December 3d, 1866.
The President's argument fell, however, upon deaf ears. This was, it is true, the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and was not,
Ineffectiveness of
the President's argument.
Rejection of the
proposed Fourteenth
Amendment by the
legislatures of the
Reconstructed "States."
The effect of this
on the temper of
the North.
CHAPTER VII
THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN (Completed)
[Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia]—[The First Attempts at Impeachment]—[Stories of Outrages at the South]—[The Reconstruction Bill]—[Passage of the Bill by the House]—[The Bill as Finally Agreed upon]—[The Condition that the Fourteenth Amendment must be Ratified by a Sufficient Number of "States" to make it a Part of the Constitution]—[The Tenure-of-Office Bill]—[The Supplementary Reconstruction Bill]—[The Assignment of the Commanding Generals to the Military Districts Created by the Reconstruction Acts]—[The Re-establishment of Martial Law in the South]—[The President's Instructions to the Generals in Interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts]—[The Congressional Interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts]—[The President's Veto of the Bill Interpreting the Reconstruction Acts]—[The Veto Overridden]—[The Suspension of Stanton from Office].
The Congress had but just put itself in working order, when a bill was introduced and passed extending the suffrage to negroes in the District
Negro suffrage in the
District of Columbia.
The Message was a strong paper, and to an impartial mind at this day it is a convincing paper. There is no question that Congress had the
The President's veto of
the bill establishing
negro suffrage in the
District of Columbia.
There is no gainsaying that this was good reasoning, but Congress was in no frame of mind to give ear to the counsel of the President. It took the ground that in legislating for the District it was acting for the whole United States and not simply for the inhabitants of the District, and that there was no place in the entire country where political experiments could be more safely tried than in the District, since Congress had plenary legislative power in the District and could discover and correct mistakes and defects in its legislation more easily and promptly there than anywhere else.
Both Houses repassed the bill over the President's veto by the necessary two-thirds majority, the Senate on the 7th of January and the
The first attempts
at impeachment.
At the same time the halls of Congress were ringing with the most extravagant tales of outrages against the negroes and loyal men of the
Stories of outrages
at the South.
While, as we have seen, the Congress did not pass the proposition to make the acceptance of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment by the newly
The Fourteenth
Amendment as the
condition of
recognizing the
revival of statehood.
There can be no question in the mind of any sound political scientist and constitutional lawyer that Congress was in the right, logically,
The correctness of
the Republican view.
The Reconstruction bill was presented from the Committee of fifteen on Reconstruction to the House of Representatives on the 6th of February
The Reconstruction bill.
There was hardly a line in the entire bill which would stand the test of the Constitution. In the first place, the Congress of the United
The bill indefensible
from the constitutional
point of view.
In the second place, the bill undertook to rob the President of his constitutional prerogative of commandership-in-chief over the army, and
The bill in its attempt
to rob the President
of his office of
Commander-in-chief.
And in the third place, the bill assumed to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, substantially, while the Constitution forbids this to be done by any part of the Government of the United States, except in time of war or public danger. There was no war, and to say that there was public danger of the character meant by the constitutional exception was to exaggerate the condition of things entirely beyond all fact or reason.
The bill was the most brutal proposition ever introduced into the Congress of the United States by a responsible committee, and it would
The brutality of
the measure.
The two points in the bill which the conservative Republicans were unable to accept were, first, the establishment of martial law for an
The opposition
of conservative
Republicans to
the bill.
Mr. Blaine's
proposed
changes in
the bill.
There is no doubt that all this, while reflecting the good moral feeling of Mr. Blaine, was bad political science and was the very
Criticism of
Mr. Blaine's
propositions.
Mr. Stevens acted correctly, from the point of view of political science and constitutional interpretation, when he declined to accept
Mr. Stevens's
refusal to accept
Mr. Blaine's
amendment.
Passage of the bill
by the House.
This more conservative and deliberate body regarded the bill as too radical, and after considerable debate upon a proposed amendment,
The bill in
the Senate.
This substitute contained the gist of the Blaine amendment, and also changed the provision which proposed to deprive the President of his
The Sherman
substitute.
When it was returned to the House of Representatives for concurrence, the Radical Republicans developed a most hostile opposition to the
The substitute
in the House.
The Senate
substitute
rejected by
the House.
The bill as
finally
agreed upon.
It contained the following declarations and provisions. First, the preamble designated the ten communities reconstructed under the
The contents of
the bill as passed.
The Republican Congress decided, after much deliberation, that the former were necessary to the maintenance of peace and good order, and, therefore, enacted that the "said rebel States" should be divided into five military districts, as previously described in the original bill; that the President should assign to the command of each of these an army officer of not lower rank than brigadier-general, and place under his command a sufficient force to enable him to perform his duties and execute his authority in his district; that these commanders should have the power to govern these districts by martial law in so far as, in their judgment, the reign of order and the preservation of the public peace might demand, under the limitations simply that "all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district—and no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President."
Then came the provision which offered the terms of escape from this new military régime. They were, first, the exercise of universal manhood suffrage, that is the suffrage of all male citizens, twenty-one years of age, without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude, who were not disfranchised for participation in rebellion or for felony at common law, and who had resided for one year in the so-called "rebel State," in the election of delegates to a constitutional convention in the so-called "rebel State"; second, the framing of a "State" constitution by a convention composed of delegates so elected, and not disqualified by participation in rebellion or by the commission of felony, which constitution should conform in all respects to the Constitution of the United States and which should contain, as a permanent principle, the same law of suffrage as that prescribed by this Act for the election of the delegates to the convention; third, the ratification of this constitution by a majority of the voters, as designated by the law of suffrage for the choice of delegates to the convention, voting upon the question of ratification; fourth, the approval by Congress of this constitution; and fifth, and last, the adoption of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by the legislature created by such adopted and approved "State" constitution, and by a sufficient number of the legislatures of other "States" to make it a part of the Constitution of the United States.
The measure contained, in the last place, a sort of saving clause in regard to the existing civil governments which had been established in all these communities under the direction of the President, and which were now to be displaced. It had been already provided, in section third, that the military commander of a district might use the existing civil courts, if he saw fit to do so, so long as the reign of law and order might be so preserved, and the final section provided that any civil government which might exist in these districts should be regarded as provisional, and should be in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States, which should control, and might abolish, modify, or supersede the same, and that the voters for the election of the officers of such provisional governments should be required to have only the qualifications prescribed in this Act for voters for the delegates to the said "State" convention, and persons elected to place and office in such provisional governments must not have the disqualifications prescribed in the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It had evidently occurred to the Republican leaders that they might have to make use of some of the machinery of the existing civil governments established under the direction of the President in these regions in executing their own plan of Reconstruction.
All of the points of the measure have been commented on, except the provision in the fifth section, which makes the adoption of the
The condition that the
proposed Fourteenth
Amendment be ratified
by a sufficient number
of "States" to make it a
part of the Constitution.
Hand in hand with this bill went another measure, the purpose of which was to limit the customary power of the President, if not his
The Tenure-of-Office bill.
The propositions contained in the Tenure-of-Office bill were, however, of a very different significance. There was no clause in the Constitution which by express literal grant vested the power to dismiss from office in the President, but the clause which made the President solely responsible for the execution of the laws was interpreted by the first Congress as doing so. Madison took the ground that the President must have this power in order to secure the necessary obedience in his subordinates, and declared that the convention which framed the Constitution so understood it and so intended it. This is certainly sound political science and correct constitutional interpretation. It had also been the practice of the Government from the beginning. The Whigs had undertaken to reverse it in their contest with Jackson, and Webster had given his opinion that good political science required that dismissal from office should be treated as an incident of appointment, and should be effected in the same manner as appointment, i.e., with the concurrence of the Senate, and that the decision of 1789 on this subject was, in his opinion, erroneous from the point of view of a proper interpretation of the Constitution as well. But the Whigs did not succeed, as we have seen, in their attempt to break down Presidential prerogative and introduce parliamentary government, and the practice of the Government on this subject remained, after, as before, the fourth decade of the century, the same.
During the experiences of the years 1865 and 1866 the Republicans feared that the President would use this great power of dismissal from
The reasons for the
Tenure-of-Office bill.
The bill drafted for this purpose made the removal of all officers, appointed by and with the consent of the Senate, except only members of
The contents
of the bill.
From the point of view of the present this would seem, in all conscience, to have been a sufficient usurpation of the President's
Discussion
of the bill.
The bill as finally enacted contained, moreover, the most stringent provisions for its enforcement. It made
The provisions for
enforcing the measure.
This monstrous measure went to the President on the same day with the Reconstruction bill, the 20th of February. It is not to be wondered at
The President's
vetoes of these bills.
The vetoes of these bills were sent to Congress on the same day, March 2d. To the publicist and historian of this day they are masterpieces of political logic, constitutional interpretation, and official style. If not written by Mr. Seward, they must have been edited and revised by him. These documents showed most convincingly, both from constitutional provisions, opinions of contemporaries, statutes of Congress, judicial decisions, and the uniform practices of the Government, that Congress had no power to establish or re-establish martial law anywhere in the country, except when and where war or armed rebellion existed as a fact, a condition which did not then exist anywhere in the length and breadth of the land; and that Congress had no power to force the President to retain agents and subordinates in office against his judgment and will. No good political scientist and no sound constitutional lawyer will, at this day, disagree with the contention of the President upon these two points, and it is very difficult to understand how the great leaders of the Republican party could, at that day, have differed with him.
Undoubtedly, in some of the baser minds among them, the determination to create Republican party "States" in the South was a very weighty
Republican motives
in Reconstruction.
As this contest developed it dwarfed, to say the least, all other considerations. Even as late as when the Reconstruction bill was
Congressional
encroachment
on the President's
military prerogatives.
To the mind of any unprejudiced constitutional lawyer, at the present day, this act must appear as a gross usurpation by Congress of the President's military powers conferred upon him by the Constitution. The Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, and gives Congress no power whatsoever over the methods or channels by, and through, which he may issue his military commands. Neither does the Constitution give Congress any power to assign any of the officers or troops of the army to any particular position. These are all functions of the commandership-in-chief, and, unless expressly granted by the Constitution to some other department of the Government, belong to the President.
It was not only a usurpation by Congress to pass such an act, but it was a mean thing to do it as a section of an appropriation bill; and there is no escaping the suspicion that it had a sinister purpose, namely, to entrap the President in the commission of what Congress had made a high misdemeanor, and open the way for his impeachment and expulsion from office. The President signed this bill, however, in order to save the appropriations for the support of the army, although he protested strongly against the seizure of his constitutional powers by the Congress.
On the same day that the vetoes of the Reconstruction bill and the Tenure-of-Office bill were sent to Congress, this body passed a bill
The supplementary
Reconstruction bill.
It next made it the duty of the commanding generals to order elections, at such times after the completion of the registrations and at such places as they might choose, for delegates to constitutional conventions in the "States" comprised in their respective districts. It required them to give thirty days' notice of the elections, and it fixed the number of delegates to each convention at the number of members in the lower House of the legislature of the "State" concerned in the year 1860, except in the case of Virginia, where, on account of the separation of West Virginia from the old Commonwealth, the number of deputies to the Virginia convention was made to correspond with the number of members in the lower House of the legislature of 1860, representing the territory not included in West Virginia. The bill further directed the commanding generals to distribute the representation in the conventions among the districts, counties and parishes of the "States" in accordance with the number of registered voters in each.
The bill then provided that at the elections for delegates, the voters should vote on the question as to whether there should be a constitutional convention or not, and that such convention should be held only when a majority of the inscribed electors voted upon this question, and a majority of those voting voted in the affirmative. It then ordered the commanding generals, in case the voters did so decide for conventions and elect delegates thereto, to call such within sixty days from the date of the elections, and to notify the delegates to assemble at a given time and place, and frame constitutions according to the provisions of the bill and of the former Act to which it was supplementary, and, when framed, to submit the same to the registered voters for ratification with a notice of thirty days.
The bill then further provided, that if, at such elections, a majority of the registered voters voted upon the question of ratification, and a majority of those voting voted in favor of ratification, the presidents of the respective conventions should transmit copies of the respective constitutions to the President of the United States, who should transmit them to Congress, and that Congress should declare the respective "States," whose conventions had framed these constitutions and whose voters had adopted them, entitled to representation in Congress, provided Congress was satisfied that there had been perfectly free elections, and that no force, fraud or intimidation had been perpetrated at them, and that the constitutions presented met the approval of a majority of the qualified electors and were in conformity with the requirements of the Reconstruction Act.
Finally, the bill put into the hands of the commanding generals the appointment of the officers of the elections, and the control of the machinery of the elections, only requiring them to hold the elections by ballot, and to proclaim the results of the elections in accordance with the returns made to them by their boards of registration.
Congress had passed a resolution ordering the assembly of the Fortieth Congress so soon as the Thirty-ninth expired, and in accordance
Congress in
permanence.
On the 23d of March the veto appeared. The President argued that the oath required by the bill from every person before his name could be
The veto of the
supplemental
Reconstruction
bill.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the correct legal principle in regard to this subject, the principle which holds that the
Criticism
of the veto.
But there is no question, now, that Congress did a monstrous thing, and committed a great political error, if not a sin, in the creation of
Criticism of the
Reconstruction Acts.
There was another alternative, and a better one. In fact, there were two other conceivable ways of doing these things, either of which would have been better than the one chosen. The one was, as has been already suggested, to establish Territorial civil governments in the late rebellious region and maintain them there until the civil relations between the two races became settled and fixed. The other was to so amend the Constitution of the United States, before the readmission of the "States" which had renounced the "State" form of local government under the Union, as to give Congress and the national judiciary the power to define and defend the fundamental principles of civil liberty. Neither of these methods would have demanded martial law or universal negro suffrage. It is entirely surprising, from the point of view of to-day, that one or the other of these methods or a combination of both was not resorted to, instead of the monstrous plan that was carried out. There is no way to explain this sufficiently, except upon the reflection that the passions of the men of that day had become so inflamed and so completely dominating that they obscured reason, drowned the voice of prudence, and even dulled the sense of decency. There were a few who favored universal negro suffrage from an exalted and exaggerated humanitarianism, but the mass of the Republicans sustained it as a punishment to the late rebellious whites, and as a means of establishing Republican party "State" governments in the South. Many claimed, indeed, that it was the only alternative to long-continued martial law rule, but they were either very ignorant or very insincere.
In prompt obedience to the requirements of the two Reconstruction Acts, the President issued his general order through the Adjutant-General's
The assignment of the
commanding generals
to the military districts
created by the
Reconstruction Acts.
These officers betook themselves at once, with the forces attached to their several commands, to their respective stations, and assumed the
The re-establishment of
martial law in the South.
Very soon, however, the generals found great difficulty in interpreting the Reconstruction Acts, especially in respect to the oath required for
The President's
instructions to
the generals in
interpretation of
the Reconstruction
Acts.
First: That the oath prescribed in the second Act defined all the qualifications required for suffrage, and that any person who could take that oath should have his name entered on the list of voters; that the boards of registration provided in that Act could not require any other, or any additional, oath from the person applying for registration, nor "administer an oath to any other person touching the qualification of the applicant or the falsity of the oath taken by him," but that the person taking the oath must be registered as a voter, and if it could be afterward proved that he had sworn falsely, he could be punished for perjury.
Second: That an unnaturalized alien could not take the oath, but a naturalized alien could, and that no other proof of naturalization could be required of him.
Third: That "actual participation in rebellion or the actual commission of a felony" did not amount to disfranchisement, but there must be a law made by competent authority declaring disfranchisement, or a judicial sentence inflicting it, and that no law of the United States had declared the penalty of disfranchisement for participating in rebellion alone.
Fourth: That a person who had engaged in rebellion, but had not theretofore held an office under a "State" or the United States, or not been a member of a "State" legislature or of Congress, and not taken, as such, an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, was not disfranchised or disqualified from voting.
Fifth: That persons who were militia officers in any "State" prior to the rebellion were not disfranchised by participating in the rebellion.
Sixth: That "an act to fix upon the person the offence of engaging in rebellion under this law must be an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose," and that "a person forced into the rebel service by conscription or under a paramount authority which he could not safely disobey, and who would not have entered such service if left to the free exercise of his own will," was not disfranchised or disqualified from voting.
And lastly: That disloyal sentiments, opinions or sympathies, or anything said or written which fell short of an incitement to others to engage in rebellion, did not disfranchise or disqualify from voting.
Some other instructions were given which were concurred in by the entire Cabinet, Mr. Stanton included, but the recital of them is not essential to this narrative. It must be added, however, that the President's view of the relation of the military commanders to the "State" governments created under his direction and with his aid was one which gave these governments a more independent and permanent character than the language of the Reconstruction Acts seemed to warrant.
When, then, the instructions of June 20th to the generals became known,
The Congressional interpretation
of the Reconstruction Acts.
It declared that the true intent and meaning of these Acts was that the civil governments then existing in the "rebel States" of Virginia, North Carolina, etc., were not legal "State governments," and that, if thereafter they should be allowed to continue to exist at all, they must be subject in all respects to the will of the military commanders of the respective districts, and to the paramount authority of Congress; and it provided that the generals in command of the respective districts might suspend or remove any person from any office under these illegal and pretended governments, and detail or appoint some other person to discharge the duties and exercise the powers said to pertain to such office. The acts of the district commanders in regard to these things were made subject to the disapproval of the General of the army, but not to that of the President, and stood until so disapproved. The same powers in regard to these matters were vested, by this bill, in the General of the army as in the district commanders, but were not accorded by it to the President; and it was made the duty of the General of the army and the district commanders to remove from such pretended offices "all persons who were disloyal to the United States, or who used their official influence in any manner to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct the due and proper administration of the Reconstruction Acts."
The bill, furthermore, provided that the boards of registration should have the power, and that it should be their duty, to ascertain the fact as to whether a person applying for registration as a voter was entitled to registration under the Reconstruction Acts, and to refuse registration, if in their judgment he was not, and that the fact that he was willing to take the oath prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts, or had taken it, was not conclusive upon the registration boards in making their inquiries and forming their decisions. And it, finally, declared that the true intent and meaning of the oath prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts for persons who had held office under a "State" government or membership in a "State" legislature, before the rebellion, was that whether such persons were holding such positions at the time of the commencement of the rebellion or at some time prior to the same, and whether they had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States or not, they were disqualified from registration and were disfranchised, if, after holding such positions, they had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"; and it gave to the commanders of the districts the power to extend, in their discretion, the time for completing the original registration of the voters, as provided for in the Reconstruction Acts, to October 1st following, and to the boards of registration the power, and imposed upon them the duty, to revise, during the first five of the last fourteen days before any election under the Reconstruction Acts, the registration lists and to strike off any name from said lists which, in their judgment, ought not to be there, and to add any name, which, in their judgment, ought to be there, and required them to disregard any Executive pardon or amnesty as relieving the disability of any person for registration, if such person had committed any act which without such pardon or amnesty would disqualify him.
This bill, it will be readily seen, was a wholesale repudiation of all the instructions given by the President to the generals in command of the districts from which, in the Cabinet council, Mr. Stanton had dissented. The President immediately realized this, of course, and it increased his distrust of Stanton immensely. From that moment forward he regarded him as the spy of Congress upon all his official acts, and he was resolved to remove him upon the first opportunity, that is, so soon as Congress should adjourn.
The bill passed the Houses on the 13th of July, was presented to the President for his signature on the 14th, and on the 19th he returned it
The President's veto of
the bill interpreting the
Reconstruction Acts.
But the most vigorous and unanswerable part of the message was the protest against the robbery of the constitutional powers of the Executive by the attempt of Congress, in this measure, to confer some of those powers upon other persons. The President expressed himself so warmly upon this point, that the Republicans began to whisper around their suspicions of sinister purposes on his part, just as if such a declaration to Congress itself was not proof to the contrary. He said: "Whilst I hold the chief executive authority of the United States, whilst the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws are faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the powers given for its execution. I can never give my assent to be made responsible for the faithful execution of laws, and at the same time surrender that trust and the powers which accompany it to any other executive officer, high or low, or to any number of executive officers. If this executive trust, vested by the Constitution in the President, is to be taken from him and vested in a subordinate officer, the responsibility will be with Congress in clothing the subordinate with unconstitutional power and with the officer who assumes its exercise."
The radical Republicans interpreted this language, at once, as meaning that the President proposed to so interfere with the execution of the
Ideas and suspicions
about the meaning
of the message.
The Houses passed the bill over the President's veto immediately, by an
The veto overridden.
The unfortunate relations of Mr. Stanton with the President, and with the other members of the Cabinet were the thing which was destined to produce the catastrophe. He had become unbearable to the President, and to the most of his colleagues. He ought in all decency to have resigned his portfolio as Speed and Harlan and Dennison had done the year before. The President asked him to resign in a note of the 5th of August. Stanton, feeling sure of the support of the large majority in Congress, contemptuously refused. The President could now in the recess of Congress suspend him without violating the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Act, or raising the question of its constitutionality. The President at last resolved to take the matter into his own hands and rid himself of Stanton's presence in his
The suspension of
Stanton from office.
By a series of orders issued during the same month (August) General Hancock was substituted for General Sheridan in the command of the
Changes among the
commanders of the
military districts.
CHAPTER VIII
THE EXECUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS
[The Attempt to Prevent the Execution of the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi and Georgia—The Case of Mississippi vs. Johnson]—[The Case of Georgia vs. Stanton]—[The Operations of the Commanders—The Registration]—[The Numbers Registered]—[The Change in the Electorate in the South]—[The Elections—Efforts of the Commanders to Get the Vote Out]—[The Result of the Elections]—[The Character of the Convention Delegates Chosen]—[The Work of the Conventions]—[The Vote upon Ratification—Fraudulent Voting and Unlawful Voting—The Recall of Pope and the Appointment of Meade in His Stead]—[Rejection of the Constitution in Alabama]—[The Statute of Congress Changing the Proportion of Votes to Registration in the Ratification of a Constitution]—[Criticism of the Statute]—[Ratification in Arkansas]—[Ratification in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana]—[Second Attempt in Georgia to Obstruct Reconstruction]—[Rejection of the Constitution in Mississippi].
Although the Supreme Court of the United States had said, in the case of Kendall vs. the United States, in 1838, that so far as the
The attempt to prevent
the execution of the
Reconstruction Acts in
Mississippi and Georgia.
The case of
Mississippi
vs. Johnson.
Under the delusion that this decision was based entirely upon the official exemption from jurisdiction of the person sought to be made
The case of
Georgia
vs. Stanton.
The generals now had free hand to go ahead according, pretty much, to their own discretion. The law gave them, first until September, and
The operations of
the commanders.
The registration.
In Alabama the registration reached the number of 165,813, of whom 104,518 were negroes or colored. In
The numbers
registered.
It will thus be seen that of the ten "States" to be reconstructed five were to be recreated through an electorate in which the majority would
The change in
the electorate
in the South.
There is no doubt that Congress had the constitutional power to do this thing, on the theory, of course, that these communities were not "States" of the Union; but it was a reckless thing, and a monstrous thing. Anybody of common sense and common honesty could, at the time, have foreseen some of the horrible results which were sure to follow.
So soon as the registration was completed, the commanders ordered elections to be held and the vote to be taken, first, upon the question
The elections.
Efforts of the
commanders to
get the vote out.
The result was that in all the communities to be reconstructed as "States" a majority of the registered voters voted on the question of
The result of
the elections.
The great mass of those who registered and refrained from voting were the whites who were opposed to the Congressional Acts for
The character of
the Convention
delegates chosen.
During the winter and spring of 1867-68 the work of these conventions went on under the greatest extravagance and incompetence of every kind.
The work of the
conventions.
The restrictions upon eligibility to hold office or mandate were in general the same as those imposed on the exercise of the suffrage, and in some cases they went even further, as in the cases of the Mississippi and Virginia instruments, by both of which anybody who had voluntarily participated in the rebellion, or had voluntarily given aid or comfort to those who had, was disqualified.
The next step in the procedure was the submission of these constitutions to the voters. The registration was effected in the same
The vote upon
ratification.
Fraudulent
voting and
unlawful
voting.
The recall of
Pope and the
appointment
of Meade in
his stead.
Before the election came off, however, a bill was introduced into Congress, and passed the House of Representatives, and was making its
Rejection of the
constitution in
Alabama.
The Senate now passed the House bill providing that the approval of a majority of those voting, no matter what the proportion of the vote to
The statute of Congress
changing the proportion
of votes to registration
in the ratification of a
constitution.
In the original requirement that the vote to be effective must exceed half of the registration, Congress was still upon the ground of correct
Criticism of
the statute.
While the Senate was proceeding with the bill, another of the Southern communities was rapidly approaching the date fixed for voting upon the
Ratification
in Arkansas.
In the course of the next two months, April and May, voting upon
Ratification in
North Carolina,
South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida
and Louisiana.
During the Reconstruction proceedings in Georgia Governor Jenkins had refused to issue an order to the "State" Treasurer to pay a sum of
Second attempt in
Georgia to obstruct
Reconstruction.
On the other hand, the opponents of the proposed "State" constitution in Mississippi went into a most earnest and energetic campaign against
Rejection of
the Constitution
in Mississippi.
CHAPTER IX
THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
[Grant in the War Office]—[The President's Message of December 3d, 1867]—[The President's Special Message Concerning the Suspension of Stanton]—[The Senate Resolution in Regard to the Suspension of Stanton]—[Grant's Disobedience toward the President]—[The Unbearable Situation in which the President now Found Himself]—[The Dismissal of Stanton from Office]—[General Thomas Appointed Secretary of War ad interim]—[Stanton's Resistance]—[Thomas and the President]—[The Attitude of the Senate toward the Dismissal of Stanton]—[The Movements in the House of Representatives]—[The Arrest of General Thomas]—[Thomas's Second Attempt to Take Possession of the War Office]—[The House Resolution to Impeach the President]—[The Withdrawal of Stanton's Complaint against Thomas]—[The Fear of the Republicans to Test the Tenure-of-Office Act before the Courts]—[The Managers of Impeachment]—[The Charges against the President]—[The President's Answer to the Complaint]—[The Withdrawal of Mr. Black from the President's Counsel]—[The Contents of the President's Answer]—[The Replication of the House to the President's Answer]—[The Trial—Conduct of the Managers]—[The Evidence in the Case]—[The Argument]—[The Law in the Case]—[Mr. Stanton's Violation of Law]—[The Nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary of War]—[The Vote upon Impeachment]—[The Truth of the Matter]—[The Abdication of Stanton]—[Schofield's Confirmation as Secretary of War and His Acceptance of the Office].
During this same period, another act in the drama of Reconstruction was being played, a fit companion piece to what was occurring in the unhappy communities of the South. It was the attempt to dispose of the President, and the presidency, by the impeachment of the President.
The history of the President's relations to Mr. Stanton, his Secretary of War, has already been given down to the suspension of Mr. Stanton in
Grant in the
War Office.
In his annual Message to Congress, the Fortieth Congress, of December 3d, 1867, the President said nothing directly in regard to his
The President's Message
of December 3d, 1867.
He wrote as follows: "How far the duty of the President 'to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' requires him to go in opposing an unconstitutional act of Congress is a very serious and important question, on which I have deliberated much and felt extremely anxious to reach a proper conclusion. Where an act has been passed according to the forms of the Constitution by the supreme legislative authority, and is regularly enrolled among the public statutes of the country, Executive resistance to it, especially in times of high party excitement, would be likely to produce violent collision between the respective adherents of the two branches of the Government. This would be simply civil war, and civil war must be resorted to only as the last remedy for the worst of evils. Whatever might tend to provoke it should be most carefully avoided. A faithful and conscientious magistrate will concede very much to honest error, and something even to perverse malice, before he will endanger the public peace; and he will not adopt forcible measures, or such as might lead to force, as long as those which are peaceable remain open to him or to his constituents. It is true that cases may occur in which the Executive would be compelled to stand on its rights, and maintain them regardless of all consequences. If Congress should pass an act which is not only in palpable conflict with the Constitution, but will certainly, if carried out, produce immediate and irreparable injury to the organic structure of the Government, and if there be neither judicial remedy for the wrongs it inflicts nor power in the people to protect themselves without the official aid of their elected defender—if, for instance, the legislative department should pass an act even through all the forms of law to abolish a co-ordinate department of the Government—in such a case the President must take the high responsibilities of his office and save the life of the nation at all hazards. The so-called Reconstruction Acts, though as plainly unconstitutional as any that can be imagined, were not believed to be within the class last mentioned. The people were not wholly disarmed of the power of self-defence. In all the Northern 'States' they still held in their hands the sacred right of the ballot, and it was safe to believe that in due time they would come to the rescue of their own institutions. It gives me pleasure to add that the appeal to our common constituents was not taken in vain, and that my confidence in their wisdom and virtue seems not to have been misplaced." These last words referred undoubtedly to the recent rejection, by popular vote, in a number of the most important Northern "States," of proposed amendments to "State" constitutions conferring suffrage upon negroes.
Most of the Republicans in Congress interpreted this whole paragraph in the Message as a threat to violate the Reconstruction Acts, although
The interpretation placed
by the Republicans on
the President's Message.
Just nine days later the President sent his special Message to the Senate in regard to his suspension of Mr. Stanton. The gist of it was
The President's special
Message concerning the
suspension of Stanton.
This contention of Mr. Stanton that the President could not suspend him under the Constitution and laws of the United States gave the President the opportunity of saying that Mr. Stanton must be claiming the protection of the Tenure-of-Office Act of March 2d, 1867, and of revealing to the Senate Mr. Stanton's most decided condemnation of that Act when it was a bill before the President. The President asserted that Mr. Stanton, as every other member of his Cabinet, advised him that the bill was unconstitutional, in that it was a dangerous encroachment upon the President's constitutional prerogatives, and urged him to veto it. He also said that all the members of his Cabinet who had been appointed by Mr. Lincoln—and Stanton was one of these—appeared to be of the opinion that their tenures were not fixed or affected by the provisions of the bill. The conclusion arrived at by the President evidently was that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not cover Mr. Stanton's case, but left it under the law and practice existing before the passage of that measure, and that if it did cover it, the Act was unconstitutional, and was so considered by Mr. Stanton himself, and every other member of the Cabinet.
It is hardly credible that the President intended to recognize the validity of the Act by sending this Message to the Senate. It is true that the second section of the Act provided that the President might suspend an officer during a recess of the Senate, and designate an ad interim successor, and must, within the first twenty days of the next meeting of the Senate, report the suspension to the Senate, and it does appear, from a casual view, that the President was acting under the authority of this provision, or rather under the duty imposed by it, in suspending instead of removing Mr. Stanton and in making this report of Mr. Stanton's suspension to the Senate. But the President could claim that he was proceeding under his general constitutional power and duty of suspending from office, as a power included in the power of removal, and of sending such communications as he saw fit to Congress or to either House thereof. And the fact that he disputed the constitutionality of the Act in the Message itself is good internal evidence that he did not consider that he was in any way acting under the authority granted to him by it, or in any way estopping himself, so to speak, from making future declarations against the constitutionality of the Act, or even from disobeying its requirements.
The Senate, however, conceived at once that the President was acting under the Tenure-of-Office Act, and after considerable discussion,
The Senate resolution
in regard to the
suspension of Stanton.
There is no question now in any calm and impartial mind that the Senate acted most inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in passing that
Criticism of the
Senate resolution.
It is also a question whether General Grant did not act hastily, and inconsiderately, not to say wrongfully, in yielding the post without
Criticism
of General
Grant's act.
There is little doubt that General Grant thought the Senate would acquiesce in Stanton's suspension, and was taken by surprise when it did not do so, and that until the action of the Senate on the 13th, he had never seriously considered that any opportunity or necessity for a judicial proceeding would arise. When, then, the alternative was suddenly presented to him of obeying the Tenure-of-Office Act, or disputing its constitutionality by forcibly holding possession of the War Office, he decided that it would be wrong for the General of the army to assume the attitude of defiance to Congress, whatever a civilian might consider his duty to be. He thought that such an act on his part would look like a contest between the civil and military powers of the Government, and he was unwilling to provoke it.
The President blundered very seriously when he did not accept the explanation from General Grant and drop the matter. The General was
The President's
blunder in his
attitude toward
Grant.
The outcome of this whole course of crimination and recrimination was that the country came to the belief that the President first tried to
The result of the
controversy between
the President and
General Grant.
General Grant's letter closing the controversy is dated February 11th. In the interval between his quitting the War Office and this latter
Grant's disobedience
toward the President.
The situation was utterly unbearable for the President. Here was the constitutional Executive of the United States, the Commander-in-chief
The unbearable situation
in which the President
now found himself.
Matters were now rapidly approaching a crisis which could be avoided only by the resignation of the President or by the retreat of the
The dismissal of
Stanton from office.
Upon receiving the order, General Thomas repaired immediately to the Secretary's room in the War Office, and handed to Mr. Stanton both of
General Thomas
appointed Secretary
of War ad interim.
Thomas then left the Secretary's room and went into his old room, the Adjutant-General's room, to have a copy of the order made. He returned
Stanton's resistance.
General Thomas then went over to the White House to see the President about the matter. He told the President of his conversation with Mr.
Thomas and
the President.
While these things were occurring in the executive offices matters were seething at the other end of the avenue. The Senate was deliberating,
The attitude of the
Senate toward the
dismissal of Stanton.
The excitement in the other House was still more intense and irrational. The Senate resolution had hardly passed when the radical
The movements in the
House of Representatives.
Encouraged and strengthened by these movements in the legislature, and hearing that Thomas had threatened to force his way into the office,
The arrest of
General Thomas.
Finally, the General went over to the rooms of the Secretary of War. There he found some six or eight members of Congress with Mr. Stanton,
Thomas's second
attempt to take
possession of
the War Office.
On the same day, also, the 22d, the Reconstruction Committee of the House, to whom the resolution for impeaching the President had been
The House resolution to
impeach the President.
By another strict party vote the House authorized the Speaker to appoint a committee to acquaint the Senate with its resolution to
The committee of the
House on impeachment.
Meanwhile the day for General Thomas to appear in court, February 26th, arrived. By this time the General had taken legal advice, and the plan
The withdrawal of Stanton's
complaint against Thomas.
There is little doubt that the Republicans were afraid to have the Tenure-of-Office Act tested judicially. They preferred recourse to the
The fear of the Republicans
to test the Tenure-of-Office
Act before the courts.
Three days after this, as we have seen, the committee charged with preparing the articles of impeachment reported to the House. They were
The managers
of impeachment.
The charges against
the President.
Disregarding the legal order and form of the eleven articles of impeachment, we may say briefly that the charges against the President were:
First, that he violated the Tenure-of-Office Act in issuing an order deposing Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and another order appointing Thomas to the office of Secretary of War ad interim.
Second, that he violated the Anti-conspiracy Act of July 31, 1861, in conspiring with Thomas to expel Stanton by force from the War Office, and to seize upon the property and papers of the United States in the War Office, and to unlawfully disburse the money appropriated for the military service and the Department of War.
Third, that he violated the Act of March 2, 1867, which, among other things, directed that the military orders and instructions of the President and Secretary of War should be issued through the General of the army, by attempting to induce General Emory, the commander of the troops around Washington, to disregard this law and take his orders immediately from the President.
And fourthly, that he committed high misdemeanors in his speeches denouncing the Thirty-ninth Congress, and declaring it to be a Congress of only a part of the "States."
These charges were presented by the managers of the impeachment to the Senate on March 5th, the day upon which the Senate organized itself as
The charges
presented to
the Senate.
The President's
appearance
entered by
his counsel.
The managers on the part of the House very ungenerously objected to giving the President any time at all for the preparation of his answer
The President's answer
to the complaint.
An incident occurred at this point in the history of the procedure, which should be related, although it interrupts somewhat the thread of
The withdrawal of
Mr. Black from the
President's counsel.
It must have taken a good deal of self-control on the part of the President, in possession of all these facts, to keep them quietly to himself for more than a month from the time of Judge Black's retirement from his case, while his enemies were pointing the finger of a supposed triumphant scorn at him as being unworthy to have so honest a man as Judge Black among his counsel, and then to allow them to be given out only under provocation from the managers of the impeachment, taunting him with his treatment of Judge Black, and with Judge Black's withdrawal from his case.
But to return to the President's answer to the charges against him. Disregarding again legal verbiage and order, the President answered
The contents of the
President's answer.
After the filing of this answer, the counsel of the President asked the Court of Impeachment for thirty days' time after the replication of the House of Representatives to this answer should be filed for the preparation of the President's case. But the managers on the part of the House again very ungenerously opposed giving them any time at all for this purpose. The debate over this point lasted until after the replication of the House was filed on the following day, that is on the 24th of March. The Court of Impeachment then decided to give them until March 30th, and ordered the trial to proceed on that day.
The replication filed by the House of Representatives, on the 26th, was
The replication of
the House to the
President's answer.
On the 30th, the trial opened with the fierce, not to say brutal, attack of Mr. Butler on the President. During the entire course of the
The trial.
Conduct of
the managers.
The evidence in the case showed no conspiracy with Thomas to do anything, and no orders to him to use any force in what he was
The evidence
in the case.
When one, at this lapse of time from the events, peruses the calm, dignified, convincing and masterful arguments of the President's counsel, and compares them with the passionate, partisan
The argument.
Judge Curtis was so influenced by the consideration that to claim such a power for the President would give him a double veto upon all of the acts of Congress, a veto when acting as a part of the legislature in the enactment of law, and then a purely executive veto which could be overcome only by an adverse judicial decision, that he expressed his contention on the subject in very cautious language. He declared that the President claimed no such general power as that, but he said "when a question arises whether a particular law has cut off a power confided to him by the people through the Constitution, and he alone can raise that question, and he alone can cause a judicial decision to come between the two branches of the Government to say which of them is right, and after due deliberation, with the advice of those who are his proper advisers, he settles down firmly upon the opinion that such is the character of the law, it remains to be decided by you, Senators, whether there is any violation of his duty when he takes the needful steps to raise that question and have it peacefully decided."
The great lawyer refused thus to commit himself upon this fundamental question of constitutional law. And well he might, for to recognize any such power in the President would be to enable him to rule with such arbitrariness as to upset the principles and practices of all free government. The President can constitutionally defend his prerogatives with the veto power, a power which nothing short of a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress can overcome, and he has no other power of defence confided to him by the Constitution. He must execute the laws passed over his veto upon matters which in his opinion touch his executive prerogatives, just the same as upon all other matters, and if persons not connected with the administration of the laws do not call such measures in question before the courts, the remedies provided by the Constitution for the people of the United States are either the election of members of Congress who will repeal the enactments, or else the amendment of the Constitution so as to repeal them. It was, however, a question whether, in showing the sole purpose of making an issue before the courts, the President would not clear himself of any criminal intent. Happily his case did not require this, as was demonstrated by his counsel and by Senators Trumbull and Fessenden in their opinions.
The law governing the President's case was perfectly clear to anyone who could divest himself of political prejudice and of personal
The law in
the case.
It will be remembered that in the Tenure-of-Office bill as it originated in the Senate the members of the Cabinet were entirely excepted from its operation; that the House in passing the bill included them; that the Senate would not agree to their inclusion; that the bill was then sent to a conference committee; that this committee invented the compromise contained in the proviso; that this proviso was understood to give to each President the power to choose his own Cabinet officers once during his term, and therefore to remove any Cabinet officer not originally appointed by him, but holding under a commission from a former President, and remaining in office only by the sufferance of the existing President; that this was especially the true meaning of the proviso in regard to those Cabinet officers then in office, but who had been appointed and commissioned by Mr. Lincoln during his first term to hold during the pleasure of the President; and that it was upon this explanation of the meaning of the proviso that the Senate voted the resolution of the conference committee.
From all this it is entirely clear that the President had the legal power to remove Mr. Stanton, no matter whether the Tenure-of-Office Act was constitutional or not, simply because his case was excepted by the proviso in the first article in the Act from the operation of the Act, and was left to the operation of the laws in existence at the time the Act was passed. There is little question now that that Act was not in accordance with a fair interpretation of the Constitution, but it was not at all necessary to hold that view in order to clear the President of the accusation of having violated the Constitution and the laws of the land.
The law in reference to the ad interim appointment, or designation, of General Thomas was equally plain to the impartial eye. The Constitution provides only for vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, and empowers the President to fill all such by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of its next session. By an act of May 8th, 1792, Congress empowered the President, in case of the death, sickness, or absence from the seat of government, of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of War, whether these events should occur during a session, or a recess, of the Senate, "to authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a successor be appointed, or until such absence or inability by sickness should cease."
Another act of Congress of February 13th, 1795, empowered the President, in case of vacancy from any cause in the offices of Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, or Secretary of War, happening either during a recess or a session of the Senate, "to authorize any person or persons, at his discretion, to perform the duties of the said respective offices until a successor be appointed or such vacancy be filled," provided, however, that no one vacancy should be supplied in that manner for a longer time than six months.
It will be seen that neither of these statutes provided for the temporary filling of vacancies in any of the Departments, except those of State, the Treasury, and War. In practice, however, the Presidents have followed the analogies of the law of 1795, when it became necessary, in their opinion, to make a temporary designation in the other Departments. On the 22d of September, 1862, President Lincoln appointed J. B. L. Skinner Postmaster-General ad interim. It was Mr. Lincoln himself who called the attention of Congress to the fact that he had no literal legal authority for this, and who on January 2d, 1863, asked Congress to extend the Act of May 8th, 1792, so as to cover the cases of the other Departments, and empower the President to make ad interim appointments to fill vacancies in these Departments happening on account of death, sickness, or absence from the seat of government. Why the President did not ask for the extension of the Act of February 13th, 1795, which covered all vacancies happening from whatever cause, instead of the Act of 1792, which covered those only which might happen from death, sickness, or absence from the seat of government, we do not know. We only know that in January, 1863, both the President and Congress were greatly pressed by the exigencies of the war, and did things generally in haste and without much consideration. In answer to the President's suggestion, Congress passed the Act of February 20th, 1863, extending the Act of 1792 so as to cover all the executive Departments in the cases of vacancy provided for in that Act, viz., by cause of death, sickness, or absence from the seat of Government—adding resignation—and limiting the President, however, in these appointments to persons already officers in one or the other of the Departments, and providing that no one vacancy should be so supplied for a longer period than six months. The vacancies which might happen from expiration of term or by removal were not at all provided for by the Act of 1863; and as the Act of 1863 did not expressly repeal the Act of 1795, but only declared that "all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed," the Act of 1795 remained in force as to all vacancies caused by expiration of term or by removal, whether happening during a recess or a session of the Senate.
Neither did the Tenure-of-Office Act of 1867 repeal the Act of 1795 in regard to first vacancies happening among the Secretaries of Departments by other causes than those provided for in the Act of 1863, either expressly or by implication, since these first vacancies were expressly excepted from the operation of the Act of 1867, by the proviso attached to the first article. And even if it should be held that the Act of 1867 did repeal that of 1795 entirely, yet, in that it did not forbid the President to make ad interim appointments in the cases where a Secretary's term expired, or a Secretary was lawfully removed by him, the President's designation of Thomas could not be considered as a violation of law but only as an act without warrant of law, the very kind of an act committed by Mr. Lincoln in his appointment of Skinner as Postmaster-General ad interim in 1862, and committed by other Presidents in other cases.
The managers made much of the argument that the President had recognized the validity of the Tenure-of-Office Act in suspending Stanton the preceding August, and reporting his suspension to the Senate, and in notifying the Secretary of the Treasury of the suspension, as provided in the Act, and asserted that he was therefore estopped from denying its constitutionality. But while it can be easily shown that these acts of the President did not at all militate against his claim that other parts of the statute were unconstitutional, still this was not at all necessary to the President's defence, under the view here advanced of the relations between the Acts of 1867, 1863, and 1795. It made no difference, under this view, whether the Act of 1867 was, or was not, constitutional and valid. In either case the President had violated no law, either constitutional or statutory.
The fact is that Mr. Stanton and those who abetted him were the violators of law. Every official act which he committed after receiving
Mr. Stanton's
violation of law.
It is now known that during the trial some of these men expressed to one of the President's counsel the belief that Mr. Johnson could not be
The nomination of
General Schofield to
be Secretary of War.
Fifty-four Senators from the twenty-seven "States" represented constituted the membership of the Court of Impeachment under the
The vote upon
impeachment.
The truth of the whole matter is that, while Mr. Johnson was an unfit person to be President of the United States—which may be also affirmed
The truth of
the matter.
So soon as the Court of Impeachment pronounced its acquittal of the President, Mr. Stanton addressed to the President a letter announcing
The abdication of Stanton.
The Senate now confirmed the nomination of General Schofield to be Secretary of War. The General at once accepted the appointment and
Schofield's confirmation
as Secretary of War and
his acceptance of the office.
Some of Stanton's friends have tried to make out that but for Stanton's resistance and the impeachment, and its nearness to success, Johnson would have appointed a tool of his own to the War Office and have rode rough-shod over the laws of the land, and that he was frightened out of this purpose, and frightened into an implied agreement with certain Senators and General Schofield that the Reconstruction laws should be executed as Stanton understood them, and not as the President understood them. There is little ground for any such assumptions. There is certainly none in the character of the men whom the President asked to take the War Office, Grant, Sherman and Ewing; and it must be remembered that through Mr. Stanbery, in the case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, he had long before announced to the Southerners that his opposition to the Reconstruction Acts ceased with his unsuccessful veto of them, and that he should execute them both in letter and in spirit. It was Republican Senators who suggested to the President's counsel the nomination of General Schofield, a man entirely friendly with the President and acceptable to him. Neither the President nor the President's counsel approached any Senator with the proposition. It was the Republican Senators who were frightened, rather than the President or his counsel. These Senators knew that the law and the evidence were with the President, and that the Republican party was on trial, as much so as the President; and they knew that, if the Republican Senate should, upon the showing made by the President's counsel of the law and the evidence in the case, convict the President and remove him from office, the party would stand arraigned before the people for having destroyed the constitutional balance between the executive and the legislature in order to gain a partisan end. They recognized the dilemma into which the hot-headed leaders of the party in the House of Representatives had, by their hasty impeachment procedure, brought the party, and they were very much relieved to secure any understanding with the President's counsel whereby the chance of averting the catastrophe to the party, as well as to the country, might be increased. The suspicion that Mr. Stanton was playing his part for the purpose of securing the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1868, rather than from any motives of disinterested patriotism, has about as little foundation as has the theory of salutary terror, produced by the impeachment, controlling the President's subsequent actions against his own preconceived plans and purposes. Both of these speculations are no valid parts of the history of this great transaction. What we have as certain facts are that the judgment was an acquittal, that it was rendered in accordance with law and evidence, and that it preserved the constitutional balance between the executive and the legislature in the governmental system of the country; and that for this the judgment of history coincides with the judgment of the court.
CHAPTER X
RECONSTRUCTION RESUMED
[The McCardle Case]—[The Congressional Acts Admitting the Senators- and Representatives-elect from the Reconstructed "States" to Seats in Congress]—[The Veto of these Bills by the President]—[The Vetoes Overridden]—[Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the President's Proclamations Declaring Reconstruction Completed]—[Seward's Proclamation Declaring the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Required Number of "States"]—[The Questions Suggested by Mr. Seward's First Proclamation]—[The Concurrent Resolution of Congress upon these Questions]—[The Correct Procedure]—[The National Conventions of 1868]—[Platform and Nominees of the Republican Party]—[Democratic Platform and Nominees]—[The Election and the Electoral Vote]—[The Conduct of the President during the Campaign]—[Congress and the President]—[The President's Last Annual Message]—[The President's Amnesty Proclamation of December 25th, 1868]—[The President's Veto of the Bill in Regard to the Colored Schools in the District of Columbia]—[The Fifteenth Amendment]—[Criticism of the Republican View]—[Johnson's Retirement from the Presidency]—[The President and the Republican Party].
During the period of the impeachment trial, a case was in progress before the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its final
The McCardle case.
Such a case had appeared in this Court in the winter term of 1867-68, and the argument as to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the decision of this point in the affirmative, had both been made before the impeachment trial began. One William H. McCardle, arrested and held by the military authorities in Mississippi for trial before a military commission on charge of having published in a newspaper, of which he was editor, libellous and incendiary articles, petitioned the Circuit Court of the United States for a writ of Habeas Corpus. The writ was issued, and return was made by the military commander, General A. C. Gillem, admitting the arrest and detention of McCardle, but contending that these acts were lawful. The Circuit Court, on the 25th of November, 1867, remanded McCardle, who had been held in custody between the time of the return to the writ and this date by the United States marshal, to the custody of General Gillem. McCardle then appealed from this judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. Upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, made by the counsel of the military authorities, this Court decided that under the statute of February 5th, 1867, the Supreme Court of the United States could hear the appeal, and denied the motion to dismiss it.
The question was now before the Supreme Court upon its merits, and it involved the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts. It was argued very ably, and the part of the Reconstruction Acts putting the districts of the South under martial law two years after the Civil War had ended, and when the civil authority of the United States was everywhere recognized and enforced, was pretty clearly shown to have been a very serious stretching of its powers by Congress, if not a distinct usurpation. The Republicans in Congress were greatly frightened, and while the case was under advisement in the Court, they hastened to repeal the Act of February 5th, 1867, and to make the repeal apply to appeals already taken under that Act, as well as to such as might be attempted in the future. The repealing bill was vetoed by the President on the 25th of March, but it was immediately repassed by the majority necessary to override the veto, repassed without the slightest regard to the President's very sound and convincing objections. This Act of the 27th of March was intended to prevent any decision upon the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts, and did do so most effectively, but it was an abominable subterfuge on the part of Congress and a shameful abuse of its powers.
As will be remembered, seven of the ten Southern communities, viz., North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas, had already before the close of the impeachment trial ratified the "State" constitutions framed for them by the "carpet-bag, scalawag, negro conventions" held in each for them, had elected "State" officers and legislators, and the legislature of one of them, Arkansas, had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the legislature of each of them was required to do before it could be admitted to representation in Congress.
Congress now looked upon the work of its hands and pronounced it good, and proceeded to pass the acts, necessary in its conceit, to admit
The Congressional Acts
admitting the Senators-
and Representatives-elect
from the reconstructed
"States" to seats in Congress.
Three days later, that is on the 25th, Congress provided in a single act for the admission of the Senators and Representatives from the other six reconstructed "States" to the national legislature in the following language: "Be it enacted, &c., That each of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, shall be entitled and admitted to representation in Congress as a State of the Union when the legislature of such State shall have duly ratified the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as Article XIV., upon the following fundamental conditions: That the constitution of neither of said States shall ever be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen, or class of citizens, of the United States of the right to vote in said State who are entitled to vote by the constitution thereof, herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: Provided, that any alteration of said constitutions may be made with regard to the time and place of residence of voters." It was also further provided that the legislature of Georgia should, by solemn public act, declare its assent to the fundamental condition that the article of the new constitution of Georgia prohibiting the courts within the "State" from entertaining any suit against any resident of the "State" for any debt existing prior to June 1st, 1865, and prohibiting the judicial and ministerial officers of the "State" from executing any process in reference to such debts, should be considered and treated as null and void.
The President had placed his veto on both of these bills. The veto of the Arkansas bill bears the date of June 20th, and that of the other
The veto of
these bills by
the President.
There can be no question that the President was entirely correct in this contention. The Fifteenth Amendment was as yet no part of the Constitution. It had not even been proposed by Congress to the "States." It is very questionable whether a majority in Congress could have been found, at that time, in favor of making such a proposition, much less the required extraordinary majority of two-thirds. And until the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified as a part of the Constitution of the United States, Congress had no power to exact such a concession, or anything like it, from any "State" as the price of the admission of representatives from it to the Houses of the National Legislature. And even since the Fifteenth Amendment has become a part of the Constitution, the Government of the United States cannot prohibit such changes in a "State" constitution, unless the deprivation of suffrage is made on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The President also called attention to the fact that no way was provided in the bills whereby the "States" should signify their acceptance of this "fundamental condition" of admission to representation in Congress, and that no penalty was prescribed for a violation of the condition. Did Congress mean that, in case of any violation of its "fundamental condition," it would throw the "State" back under martial law, and proceed to reconstruct anew? That was a question which might well be asked in view of what Congress had already done; and it was a question which was not calculated to allay uneasiness in the minds of the people in the Southern communities.
Finally, in the veto of the Arkansas bill, the President expressed his very serious doubts whether the new "State" constitution had been ratified by the electorate created by the Acts of Congress for that purpose, since a section in that constitution prescribed that no person would be allowed to vote upon the ratification of the constitution who had not previously taken an oath to the effect "that he accepted the doctrine of the civil and political equality of all men, and agreed not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race, color, or previous condition, of any political or civil right, privilege or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men," thus adding a new qualification for registration and voting to those prescribed in the Reconstruction Acts of Congress. There is no question that the President was right about this, too. And there is no question that this new qualification was entirely null and void, in so far as it applied to voting upon, and registering to vote upon, the ratification of the constitution itself, unless we ascribe constituent power to the convention which framed the constitution, instead of the power of initiation only. We know that no constitutional convention has, or then had, any such powers in our system. It was nothing more or less than a palpable usurpation of constituent power when the convention in Arkansas presumed to add this qualification to those prescribed by Congress for voting upon the ratification of the constitution itself. Of course it would have been lawful and regular for the "State" constitution to make this additional requirement for voting in all future elections, after the constitution prescribing it should have been adopted by the electorate created by the Congressional Acts, although the requirement itself would have been unreasonable and oppressive. But for the convention, a mere proposing body, to ordain this new qualification for voting on the question of the adoption of the constitution itself was a political outrage of the first order.
The vetoes
overridden.
Congress was not, however, in a state of mind to listen to any suggestions from the President, no matter how correct and important they might be. Both Houses promptly, almost mockingly, passed the two bills over the President's vetoes.
Such of the legislatures created under the new "State" constitutions as were not already in session were quickly summoned to assemble, and by
Ratification of the
Fourteenth Amendment
and the President's
proclamations declaring
Reconstruction completed.
On the 28th day of July, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, issued his
Seward's proclamation
declaring the ratification
of the Fourteenth
Amendment by the required
number of "States."
Eight days before this proclamation, that is on the 20th, Mr. Seward had issued a proclamation declaring that the legislatures of
The questions
suggested by
Mr. Seward's
first proclamation.
Besides the question expressed in this Proclamation, Mr. Seward indicates by his language a further question, viz., whether the six "newly-constituted and newly-established bodies, avowing themselves to be, and acting as, the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama" were genuine "State" legislatures. They were the legislatures established under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, but as Congress had refused to recognize the "States" for whom these bodies acted as entitled to representation in Congress, that is as "States" having the rights of "States" of the Union, until after these bodies had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it was no wonder that so good a constitutional lawyer and so logical a thinker as Mr. Seward had his doubts as to whether these bodies were genuine "State" legislatures.
In order to quiet these doubts, if possible, the two Houses of Congress passed on the following day, July 21st, the following concurrent
The concurrent
resolution of
Congress upon
these questions.
It will be seen that both Mr. Seward and Congress counted all of the Southern communities which had ever been "States" as being "States," making the whole number of "States" thirty-seven, and the number necessary for ratification of the amendment twenty-eight. Upon this basis of calculation two more than the necessary number had ratified at the date of Mr. Seward's final proclamation. It will also be seen that both Mr. Seward and Congress, that is that both the legislative and executive departments of the Government, ignored the attempt of Ohio and New Jersey to withdraw their consent to the amendment, and fixed the precedent in the constitutional practice of the United States that a "State" legislature cannot reconsider its ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States at any time. This means, when scientifically appreciated, that the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not an agreement between the "States," and therefore becomes valid as to each only after three-fourths of the "States," the constitutional number necessary to make the proposed amendment a valid part of the Constitution, shall have ratified it, but that ratification by a "State" legislature, and a fortiori by a convention of the people within a "State," is only an indirect vote of a part of the people of the United States upon a question submitted to the suffrages of the whole people of the United States. When, therefore, this affirmative vote has been once officially announced by the proper authorities within the "State" to the proper authorities of the United States there is no further control over it by the authorities within the "State."
If, however, the votes of Ohio and New Jersey had not been counted in the affirmative, there was still a three-fourths majority of
The correct
procedure.
During these movements in execution of the Reconstruction Acts, the national party conventions for the nomination of candidates for the
The national
conventions
of 1868.
It made General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, its presiding officer; adopted a platform, a large part of which was devoted to
Platform and nominees
of the Republican party.
In pronouncing for the guaranty of negro suffrage at the South by Congressional law, the platform attempted to steer clear of the prejudices against negro suffrage at the North by a sort of proviso, which read, "While the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States." This was certainly inconsistent, not to say hypocritical. Negro suffrage at the North would have been a comparatively harmless thing on account of the fewness of the negroes as compared with the whites in that section, and on account of the superior average intelligence of the negroes of the North when compared with that of those of the South. There was no sound principle in this article of the platform. It was a mean, shuffling bit of partisan politics. The party itself felt it to be so in the course of the campaign, and came out finally for the settlement of the whole question of negro suffrage upon the same basis for the whole country and by means of a constitutional amendment.
The nominees immediately accepted their nominations in characteristic letters, that of General Grant being short, crisp, modest and ending with the now famous sentence: "Let us have peace," and that of Colfax being more lengthy and wordy and containing a rhetorical defence of some of the more questionable parts of the platform.
The Democratic convention assembled in New York on the 4th day of July. It was confronted at the start with the Greenback heresy, and the
Democratic
platform and
nominees.
There is no question that the platform of the Democrats, with its paper money doctrine, and its hostility to Reconstruction and universal
Weakness of
the platform.
Seymour finally yielded, and the convention addressed itself to the nomination of its candidate for the vice-presidency. The ex-Confederate
The nominees.
On the other hand, the bland, politic and persuasive Seymour pursued a much more moderate and conciliatory course, and when it became evident that General Blair's violent expressions and revolutionary purposes were ruining the Democratic prospects at the North, he went into the campaign personally, and by his diplomatic manners and fine oratory succeeded in stemming the tide which, running against the Democrats from the moment when their platform was proclaimed, had been driven on to a flood by General Blair's indiscretions, to put it very mildly, in speech and conduct. But while some lost ground was regained, it was evident that the hopes of the Democrats had been blasted.
The electoral votes of thirty-four "States" were counted, Virginia, Mississippi and Texas being still regarded by Congress as
The election and
the electoral vote.
Meanwhile the President had continued to ply the Congress with his vetoes and messages and to address the country with his proclamations.
The conduct of
the President
during the
campaign.
But the Congress was not then in a mood to hear anything from Mr. Johnson. Two days later, July 20th, the President vetoed the joint
Congress and
the President.
On the 9th of December President Johnson sent his last annual Message to Congress. It was a grave, dignified and statesmanlike document both
The President's last
annual Message.
Only once again did the Congress break over its apparent resolve to ignore the President, and that was upon the occasion of his issue of
The President's
amnesty proclamation
of December 25th, 1868.
As a sort of final stroke the President vetoed the bill concerning the transfer of the control of the colored schools in the District of
The President's veto of
the Bill in regard to the
colored schools in the
District of Columbia.
On its side it was busy with a project which, though not intended as a blow at him particularly, was not in accordance with his view that the
The Fifteenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that full freedom implies civil liberty and civil equality, but there was another way, and a better way, to have secured
Criticism of the
Republican view.
This proposed Fifteenth Amendment was not sent to the President for his approval, but went, according to custom, to the Secretary of State, to
Johnson's retirement
from the presidency.
And yet it is certainly true that the Republican party had left him rather than that he had left the party. This party began simply as a
The President and
the Republican party.
No fair mind can claim that the Republicans in their quarrel with the President had not departed from their solemn declaration made in Congress assembled in those dark July days of 1861, just after the first great defeat of the Union arms, "That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of the Southern States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired." And it was upon the basis of this understanding that the Democrats in Congress, Mr. Johnson among them, stood with the Republicans in the prosecution of the war. It is indeed a serious question of political casuistry as to how far declarations of policy are binding upon a political party. They are certainly not like agreements entered into between sovereign states, and the law of development rather than the law of contract must be the constructive force in party creed. But this, at least, must be held, viz., that a man originally not of a given political party, but acting with it upon the basis of a given creed, cannot be accused of being an apostate from that party if he does not continue with it when it adopts a new creed in many respects the very opposite of that given creed, except in the most groveling sense of machine politics; and that when he and it do part company, more by its own departures from the given creed than by his, he is certainly not on that account to be necessarily considered as a traitor to his country. The truth is, that while all men who occupy high station are peculiarly subject to wanton, as well as ignorant, assaults upon their purposes and their conduct, few men that have occupied so high a station have ever been so unreasonably slandered and vilified as Andrew Johnson. His own unfortunate and irritating manners and methods will account for a good deal of the misunderstanding of his character, but the violence of the times was the occasion of a great deal more of it. The true Union men of Tennessee will, however, never forget the hope, and encouragement, and support which he gave to them, when they were left in the lurch by their own natural leader, John Bell; and the Nation should for this, if nothing else, write his name in the book of its heroes.
CHAPTER XI
PRESIDENT GRANT AND RECONSTRUCTION
[The Situation at the Moment of Grant's Accession to Power]—[The Georgia Question]—[The Attitude of the New President toward Reconstruction]—[The Virginia Case]—[Grant's Message to Congress of April 7th, 1869, and His Proclamation of May 14th]—[Ratification of the Virginia Constitution and Election of "State" Officers under it]—[The Restoration of Virginia to Her Federal Relations]—[Ratification of the Mississippi Constitution and Election of "State" Officers and Legislative Members under it]—[The Restoration of Mississippi to Her Federal Relations]—[Ratification of the Texas Constitution and Election of "State" Officers and Legislative Members under it—Restoration of Texas to Her Federal Relations]—[Grant and the Tenure-of-Office Act]—[Congress and the Tenure-of-Office Act after Grant's Accession to the Presidency]—[The Modification of the Tenure-of-Office Act]—[The President's Dissatisfaction with the Measure]—[The Facts in the Georgia Case]—[New Conditions Imposed on Georgia]—[The Final Restoration of Georgia to Her Federal Relations]—[Negro Rule in the South from the Point of View of Political Science and Ethnical Principle].
At the moment of Grant's accession to power, four of the Southern communities were still denied recognition as "States" upon the floor of
The situation at the
moment of Grant's
accession to power.
When the news of this procedure reached Washington, the Senate held back from admitting the Senators-elect from Georgia to seats and did
The Georgia
question.
In his inaugural Address the new President made no reference to these questions, but he had hardly been one month in the presidential office
The attitude of the
new President toward
Reconstruction.
The President also suggested that the constitution framed by the convention in Mississippi and rejected by the voters might be resubmitted in the same way. The events in Mississippi culminating in the rejection of the proposed State constitution by the voters in June of 1868 have been already related.
The case of Virginia, on the other hand, which differed in several material respects from that of any of the others, has not been as yet
The Virginia case.
For more than a year, however, this government continued to act as the "State" government of Virginia, under the limitations placed upon it by the presence of the military of the United States, and the interference of the commanding general in behalf of the freedmen. On January 15th,
The Vagrant Act.
General Terry's
order setting
aside the
Vagrant Act.
Congress, however, gave this legislature one more opportunity to redeem itself. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was submitted to it for ratification in June of 1866. After long deliberation upon it, the legislature rejected it on the 9th of January, 1867. This act sealed the fate of that legislature. Virginia was brought, with the other Southern communities which had rejected or not adopted the proposed Amendment, under the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, and became the first military
Virginia made a
Military District.
It was in consequence of such representations and prayers, that President Grant sent his message of April 7th to Congress, requesting
Grant's message to
Congress of April
7th, 1869, and
his proclamation
of May 14th.
Ratification of the
Virginia Constitution.
At the election ordered by the President, the constitution without these clauses was ratified, and the conservative Republican candidates for office and legislative membership were elected.
At the next session of Congress, in December of 1869, the Senators and Representatives presented themselves for admission. Their claims were
The restoration of
Virginia to her
Federal relations.
The Act of Congress of April 10th empowered the President to deal with the question of Reconstruction in Mississippi in the same manner as in Virginia. By virtue of this power, the President issued a proclamation, on the 13th of July, 1869, commanding the resubmission to the voters of the constitution adopted by the Mississippi convention, on the 15th of May, 1868, and rejected by the voters as stated on a previous page, and designating the 30th day of November, 1869, as the date of the
Ratification of the
Mississippi constitution.
The result of the vote on the constitution was the same as in Virginia.
The restoration of
Mississippi to her
Federal relations.
The Act of April 10th, 1869, also invested the President with the power of ordering the submission of the constitution framed and adopted by the convention at Austin, Texas, in June of 1868, to the voters for ratification. By virtue of this authority, the President ordered a vote to be taken upon this instrument on the 30th day of November, 1869. This proposed constitution did not contain any such disfranchising and disqualifying clauses as those which rendered the Virginia and Mississippi instruments obnoxious to the intelligence of these
Ratification of the
Texas Constitution.
Restoration of
Texas to her
Federal relations.
Thus while the new President did not, as his predecessor had done, dispute the power of Congress to direct and control the reconstruction of the disrupted Southern communities as "States" of the Union, he appealed to Congress for the authority to relieve some of them still suffering under military rule from the hard alternative of negro domination, and when Congress gave him the power requested, he used it for the amelioration of the situation. This was true statesmanship. If President Johnson had done this instead of insisting upon his constitutional power to reconstruct, independently of Congress, these communities, and repeating continually his unsound, though specious, arguments in support of his view, it is quite possible that he might have maintained his influence, in some degree at least, with the Republican majority, and at the same time, and in consequence thereof, might have accomplished something in the interest of a true conservatism in Reconstruction. This is not, however, certain. Johnson had none of Grant's vast popularity with the people of the North whereby to overawe Congress, and there is no doubt, deny it as we may to conscious reflection, that down below consciousness there was a sort of distrust of a Southern Union man on the part of a large portion of the people of the North. Mr. Johnson had to suffer under the influence of this feeling, like all others of his class, and whenever he suggested any moderate course in the treatment of former rebels, he fell under the suspicion of masking sympathy with their sentiments under a pretence of Unionism. He was, thus, rather an object of Congressional distrust from the first, and could probably never have done so much as Grant succeeded in doing for conservatism in Virginia and Mississippi, even though he had recognized the power of Congress in the work of reconstruction, and had preferred respectful requests, instead of asserting presidential prerogatives.
Likewise the new President found, as soon as he began the work of administration, that the Tenure-of-Office Act was an unendurable
Grant and the
Tenure-of-Office Act.
On the 9th day of March, less than a week after the accession of the new President to power, a bill was introduced into the House of
Congress and the
Tenure-of-Office Act
after Grant's accession
to the presidency.
It was pretty clear that the President would not find any trouble with such a measure as this, but it seemed to the House that the Senate was trying to cling to a certain control over the Executive, and the House refused concurrence in the bill. The matter was finally referred to a
The modification of the
Tenure-of-Office Act.
The President's
dissatisfaction
with the measure.
Still the President was not satisfied with it. He thought that any control whatever of the Senate over dismissal from office was not warranted by the Constitution, and he regarded the attempt of the Senate to cling to any shadow of such a power as a personal affront to himself.
In his first annual Message, that of December 6th, 1869, he earnestly recommended the total repeal of the Tenure-of-Office Acts, and declared them both unconstitutional, and inconsistent with "a faithful and efficient administration of the Government." His recommendation was probably an effective warning to Congress against any attempt to hamper him by claiming any power under them to control his dismissals and suspensions, but they still remained on the statute book for nearly two decades longer. The glaring inconsistency of a bare and bald repeal of the Acts was too great even for the partisan Congress. It was willing to make them practically null and void, but it wanted a shadow with which to cover its nakedness. At any rate, the position taken by President Grant toward them was a complete vindication of President Johnson's views concerning them, and, in no small degree, of his deeds also.
At the date of this Message all of the Southern communities had completed the acts required by Congress for their restoration as "States" of the Union, but the result of the elections held in Mississippi were not known in Washington. The President simply expressed the hope that the constitutions submitted in these communities to the voters would be ratified, and "thus close the work of Reconstruction." As we have seen, the elections resulted as the President hoped, and these communities were restored, on the basis of the "State" constitutions adopted, to their proper federal relations.
The case of Georgia still remained, however, unsettled, and the President suggested that Congress should enact a law authorizing the
The facts in the
Georgia case.
A bill had been introduced into Congress soon after the opening of the session beginning March 4th, 1869, dealing with the subject. It was claimed in the preamble of this bill that the Georgia legislature had not purged itself of disloyal members as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that it had violated the constitution of Georgia and the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental principles of the Reconstruction Acts by expelling the negro members for ineligibility, and that the civil authorities in the "State" could not, or did not, protect the loyal citizens in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties or even in their persons. The bill proposed to meet these difficulties by providing that the Governor of Georgia should reconvene the originally elected members of the legislature, reseat the expelled negro members, and expel such members as could not swear that they were not disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It may be remarked here in passing that the Fourteenth Amendment does not disqualify anybody, in express language, from being a member of a "State" legislature. It disqualifies all persons who have engaged in rebellion after having taken an oath, as a member of Congress or of a "State" legislature, or as a United States or a "State" officer, to support the Constitution of the United States, from holding a seat in Congress or from being an officer of the United States or of a "State," but not from holding a seat in a "State" legislature. The word officer in the public jurisprudence of this country does not include membership in a legislative body. But to return to the bill. It provided finally for making United States troops in Georgia subject to the Governor's call for assistance. This bill was so seriously opposed by the Democrats and the conservative Republicans that it did not pass, and during this session Congress did nothing further for the restoration of Georgia.
On the other hand, the conservatives in Georgia undertook to do something for themselves. They got up a test case in the Supreme Court
The case of
White and
Clements.
It was then with a good deal of irritation that Congress came to consider the subject of Reconstruction in Georgia again in the session
New conditions
imposed on Georgia.
So great was the opposition to Reconstruction, under these hard conditions, on the part of the white people in Georgia, that the
Resumption of military
government in Georgia.
The legislature as thus reconstructed was approved by the military authorities, and it now proceeded to fulfil the final condition
Ratification of the
Fifteenth Amendment by
the Georgia legislature.
This purified legislature now elected United States Senators, both of them Republicans, of course. All these things were done in the latter
Further delay in
the admission of
representatives
from Georgia.
This language was at once taken to mean that Congress would undertake to empower the legislature of Georgia to extend the terms of the members of the Georgia legislature and of the Governor, elected in April of 1868, by two years, on the ground that the "State" government of Georgia was still provisional, and would so remain until the passage of this Act, and that these terms would, therefore, not really begin until the passage of this Act. The conservative Republicans as well as the Democrats repudiated this interpretation of the powers of Congress to extend, or to authorize the "State" legislature to extend, the terms of the members of the legislature and of "State" officers as an unprecedented usurpation. Some of them repudiated the idea that there could be a provisional "State" government, and declared that any further legislation in regard to the reconstruction of Georgia was unnecessary, since the Act of June 25th, 1868, had restored Georgia to her position as a "State" of the Union, along with North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, upon certain conditions, all of which Georgia had fulfilled, just as the others had done, and since all the others had been admitted to the enjoyment of all of their rights and privileges as "States" of the Union without any further legislation than the Act of June 25th, 1868.
There is no doubt that the Butler amendment meant, and was intended by its author to mean, just what was charged by the conservatives. General Butler at last acknowledged and avowed it, and attempted to justify it. But he was unable to rally a majority to sustain it, and he withdrew it in the face of an amendment offered by Mr. Bingham on the 7th, which provided that nothing contained in the bill should be construed either to vacate any of the "State" offices in Georgia, or to extend the terms of the present holders of them beyond the time provided in the "State" constitution, or deprive the people of Georgia of the right under their "State" constitution of electing members of their legislature in the year 1870.
This amendment was passed on the 8th of March, and the bill as thus amended was passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the Senate on the same day. It was immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee of that body and on the next day, the 9th, it was reported back to the Senate by this committee, without amendment. The Senate now considered it in committee of the whole from this time to April 19th, and when it was reported to the Senate it had been changed to a bill which declared the existing government of Georgia to be provisional and subject to the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867; ordered an election in Georgia on the 15th day of November, 1870, for members of the "State" legislature as provided for in the "State" constitution of 1868; ordered the assembly of this legislature on the 13th of December, 1870, and its organization preparatory to the admission of the "State" to representation in Congress; declared that the powers and functions of the members of the existing legislature should cease on the 13th day of December, 1870; and made it the duty of the President of the United States, in case of domestic violence in any municipality in the "State," reported to him by the legislature or Governor of the State, to suppress by military power such domestic violence, and "to exercise all such powers and inflict such punishments as may by the laws, or the rules and articles of war be exercised or inflicted in case of insurrection or invasion." The Senate concurred in the recommendations of the committee of the whole, and added a provision repealing that part of the Act of March 2d, 1867, which prohibited the organizing of any militia force in Georgia.
In this form and with this content the bill was returned to the House. Here it was again debated, off and on, until June 24th, when it was
The final restoration
of Georgia to her
Federal relations.
The Senate disagreed to the bill in this form and with these contents, and asked for a conference committee. The House agreed and appointed members. The conference committee agreed upon the bill as perfected by the House with the addition to the second section of these words: "And nothing in this or any other Act of Congress shall be construed to affect the term to which any officer has been appointed or any member of the general assembly elected, as prescribed by the constitution of the State of Georgia." Both the Senate and the House accepted and concurred in the recommendations of the committee, and the bill, as thus perfected, became law on the 15th day of July, 1870. This bill terminated the era of Reconstruction legislation by Congress, and at the next session of Congress, the session of 1870-71, the Senators and Representatives from Georgia were admitted to their seats, the Senate admitting those chosen to that body in July of 1868, Messrs. Hill and Miller. The attempt of Governor Bullock to prolong the terms of the members of the legislature and of the officers of the "State" government was decidedly disapproved of by President Grant's Administration, and an election was held for members and county officers and for Representatives in Congress in December of 1870. The white residents of the "State" stood well together, and carried the election by a large majority against the Republicans. So soon as the result was known Governor Bullock, whose term had still two more years to run, abandoned his office and left the "State," and Georgia was thus early rescued from negro domination, or rather "carpet-bag" domination through negro suffrage. Her harder experiences during the years from 1868 to 1870 had worked out to her advantage, in that it brought the respectable and capable portion of her white citizens together earlier than was the case in the other reconstructed Commonwealths similarly situated.
From the point of view of a sound political science the imposition of universal negro suffrage upon the Southern communities, in some of which the negroes were in large majority, was one of the
Negro rule in the
South from the point
of view of political
science and
ethnical principle.
Opposition to military government in time of peace was an ingrained principle of the American people, and there was a large part of people of the North, nearly all adhering to the Republican party, who believed that manhood suffrage was the true principle of a sound political science. And it was thought that the only way of creating "States" in the South which would sustain the Republican party was by giving the negro the suffrage. It is not surprising, then, that they adopted the course which they did. There was a third alternative, as has already been pointed out, viz., the placing of these communities under Territorial civil government and keeping them there until the spirit of loyalty to the Nation was established and the principle and practice of civil equality among all citizens was made thoroughly secure. But, as has been said, the idea that these communities were "States" of the Union, notwithstanding their rebellion against the United States and their attempted secession from the Union, seemed to prohibit the following of this course, the only true and sound course. And so these unhappy communities were given over, as sham "States" of the Union, to the rule of the ignorant and vicious part of their population, to be sustained therein by the military power of the Nation, under the excuse that that part alone was loyal.
A period of darkness now settled down upon these unhappy communities blacker and more hopeless than the worst experiences of the war. The conduct of the men who now appeared upon the scene as the creators of the new South was so tyrannic, corrupt, mean and vulgar as to repel the historian from attempting any detailed account of their doings, and incline him to the vaguest outline. Moreover it is most difficult to fix upon reliable facts in this period of confusion and political night, illuminated only by the lurid gleams of passion and hatred. It is best for the North, best for the South, best for the whole country, and best for the world that this terrible mistake of the North and this terrible degradation of the South should be dealt with briefly and impersonally, and that lessons of warning should be drawn from these experiences, instead of multiplying criminations and recriminations in regard to them.
CHAPTER XII
"CARPET-BAG" AND NEGRO DOMINATION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES BETWEEN 1868 AND 1876
[Escape of Virginia, Georgia and Texas from Negro Rule]—[North Carolina's Rapid Recovery from Negro Rule]—[The Loyal League]—[Origin of the K. K. K.'s]—[Methods of the Ku-Klux]—[Periods in the History of Negro Rule]—[The Act for the Enforcement of the New Amendments]—[The Corruption in the New "State" Governments]—[The Supplemental Enforcement Act]—[The President's Proclamation of March 23d, 1871]—[The Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871]—[Interference of the United States Military Power in the Affairs of South Carolina]—[The President's Proclamation of May 3d, 1871]—[The President's Proclamation to the People of South Carolina]—[The Ku-Klux Trials]—[Corruption in the "State" Governments of the South]—[The Revolt in the Republican Party]—[The Liberal Republican Convention of 1872]—[Acceptance of the Liberal Republican Candidates by the Democrats]—[Division in the Democratic Party]—[The Republican Platform and Nominees]—[The Republican Triumph]—[Events in Alabama]—[Events in Louisiana]—[The Downward Course between 1872 and 1874—The Elections of 1874]—[The Change in Alabama, Arkansas and Texas]—[The Status in South Carolina in 1874]—[The Day of Complete Deliverance—The Status in Mississippi in 1875]—[Fiat Money and the Resumption of Specie Payments]—[The Inflation Bill of 1874 and the Veto of it by the President].
Virginia, Texas and Georgia had been in no great hurry, as we have seen, to exchange military government exercised by the white officers
Escape of Virginia,
Georgia and Texas
from negro rule.
In spite of the threats of Congress, and the ever-increasing conditions imposed by that body upon the permission to resume the "State" status, these three communities held out under military rule until so many of their leading citizens had been amnestied by Congress and made again eligible to office and mandate, and until so much better provisions concerning the enfranchisement of the ex-Confederates had been secured, as to put them in a far better position to resume "State" government than was the case two years before. Moreover, these communities had larger white than black populations. After their full restoration, consequently, Virginia and Georgia escaped largely the suffering experienced by most of the others, and Texas also managed to pull through the years from 1870 to 1874 with only about a four-fold increase of taxation, and the creation of a debt of only about 5,000,000 of dollars, when she reached the period of union of almost all her best citizens in the Democratic party, which, in the election of Richard Coke as Governor in 1874, and of a majority of the legislative members, permanently triumphed in Texas. Mississippi also had held back in 1868 and 1869, as we have seen, in order to secure better terms for the ex-Confederates in the enfranchising and disfranchising provisions of the "State" constitution, and by doing so had accomplished this result. But Mississippi was one of the three Southern communities in which the negro population far outnumbered the white. Mississippi was not, for this reason chiefly, so fortunate as Virginia, Texas and Georgia. She was obliged, with South Carolina and Louisiana, to pass through the fiery furnace in order to fuse the respectable white elements in her population into a single political party with a well-understood and a well-determined purpose.
Of all the "States" included in the Congressional Act of June 25th, 1868, only North Carolina had been fortunate enough to rid herself,
North Carolina's
rapid recovery
from negro rule.
Already before the Reconstruction Acts were passed, the political adventurers in the South had begun organizing the negroes into secret
The Loyal League.
It is difficult to determine whether the Ku-Klux organization preceded that of the Loyal League and provoked it or not. So far as we know,
Origin of the
K. K. K.'s.
After the Reconstruction Acts were passed and put into operation, and especially after the Southern communities were reorganized as "States"
Methods of
the Ku-Klux.
The appearance of both the Loyal Leagues and the Ku-Klux Klans in the manner in which they appeared, and at the time when they appeared,
The naturalness of
these organizations.
And, again, when by the Reconstruction Acts and the restoration of martial law in the South under them, Congress turned the tables upon the Southern white people, and placed the ignorant barbarians in political control of them, and made every open attempt to resist this control a penal offence, it was also rather natural, though not praiseworthy, that men should have bound themselves together by secret oaths to do anything and everything in their power to defeat this blunder-crime against civilization. Whether natural or not, it always happens when such attempts are made, and it is always to be expected.
But to return to the order of the narrative. The formation of the Union Leagues in 1867 and 1868 enabled the negroes to vote in these
The opportunity for
political adventurers.
The landing places in this story may be placed at the years 1872, 1874, and 1876. The year 1872 is the date of the national revolt against the
Periods in
the history of
negro rule.
Before all of the Southern communities had been admitted to representation in Congress, and before any of them except Tennessee had
The Act for the
enforcement of the
new Amendments.
It is entirely clear from this language that, in the enforcement of these new provisions of the Constitution, the United States Government must direct its powers against the action of the "States," respectively, through their legislators and officials, and against that only. But in this bill which became law on the 31st of May, 1870, Congress enacted penalties not only against "State" officers and agents for the violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but severe penalties against any person within the "States," as well as the Territories, who should undertake to deprive by unlawful means any other person of his right to qualify and vote at any election, and against any person who under color of any law, statute or ordinance, regulation or custom, should undertake to deprive any other person of his civil rights and civil equality. Congress also, in this Act, vested the jurisdiction over such cases in the United States courts and authorized the President of the United States to enforce their decisions by the aid of the United States army and navy if necessary. Now, while it may probably be rightly claimed that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction," empowers Congress to make laws protecting the civil rights and civil equality of persons within the "States" against infringement by other persons, and to invest the officers of the United States, both judicial and executive, with the power to enforce these laws, since in this Amendment the prohibition of slavery or involuntary servitude is not directed against "State" action solely, but against any attempt made by anybody to create an involuntary servitude, it cannot on the other hand be claimed, with any show of correct interpretation, that the Fourteenth Amendment warrants the exercise of any such power by the United States Government, and it is entirely out of the question to claim that the Fifteenth Amendment protects the right of a person, within a State, to vote against the attempt of another person or of other persons to infringe the same, or even against the "State" itself to do so, except it be on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any good constitutional lawyer, at the present time, that Congress overstepped its
Criticism
of the Act.
Meanwhile the new "State" governments had well begun their career of corruption, shame and vulgarity. They were plundering the treasury,
The corruption in the
new "State" governments.
The Congress passed the Act of the 28th of February, 1871, which so supplemented the Act of May 31st, 1870, as to place the whole control
The supplemental
enforcement Act.
But this was not yet enough in the views of the Administration. In the two years of his incumbency of the Presidential office, General Grant
The President's Message
of March 23d, 1871.
Congress answered this appeal with the noted, not to say notorious, Ku-Klux Act of April 20th, 1871, in which Congress simply threw to the
The Ku-Klux Act of
April 20th, 1871.
The first part of this Act was, unquestionably, an unconstitutional encroachment upon the powers of the "States," in so far as it is
The unconstitutionality
of the Act.
As a matter of fact, the Governor of South Carolina had asked the President to give him United States soldiers for the protection of the
Interference of the
United States military
power in the affairs
of South Carolina.
On the 3d day of May following the passage of the Ku-Klux Act, the President issued his general proclamation warning the people that the
The President's
proclamation of
May 3d, 1871.
On the 12th of the following October, the President directed his proclamation to the people of South Carolina alone, declaring that
The President's
proclamation to
the people of
South Carolina.
At the end of the five days of grace, the President issued a third
Suspension of the
privileges of the writ
of Habeas Corpus
by the President in
certain counties of
South Carolina.
On the 3d day of the following November a fourth proclamation was published, in which the President acknowledged his error in including the county of Marion in the list of counties in which the privileges of the writ were suspended, but declared that the situation in Union county was such as to warrant the suspension of those privileges in that county also, and warned the insurgents in that county to deliver up their arms and accoutrements and disperse to their abodes within five days. This warning not having been obeyed, according to the views of the President, a final proclamation was issued by him on the 10th day of November suspending the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus in Union county.
In execution of the Act of April 20th, and in pursuance of these proclamations, the President now sent a strong force of United States
The Ku-Klux trials.
During the year 1872, in addition to all this, there came to the knowledge of Congress and of the people of the North the frightful and
Corruption in the
"State" governments
of the South.
In South Carolina.
Then came the sale of franchises of all kinds, and the pledging of the credit of the "State" in the form of bonds to aid all sorts of enterprises pretended to be set on foot, or promoted as is now said, by combinations of legislators or officials or their friends. In 1868 the "State" debt was about five millions of dollars, with almost enough assets to pay it. In 1872 the assets had disappeared and the debt was more than eighteen millions, and nothing worth mentioning to show for it. And all this when the "State" taxes had been raised from less than a half million of dollars a year on a valuation of over four hundred millions to two millions of dollars a year on a valuation of less than two hundred millions of property.
In Louisiana, under the leadership of the brilliant young adventurer, Henry C. Warmoth of Illinois, the financial history of the "State" was
In Louisiana.
In the counties and municipalities of both "States" the corruption was equally rampant, shameless, and vulgar. It is impossible to obtain exact figures in regard to it, or to estimate with any degree of exactness, or even probability, the amounts stolen and made away with. In the other reconstructed "States" where the adventurers and the negroes held sway, the "State" governments worked along the same lines, though not to the same appalling extent.
It was the most soul-sickening spectacle that Americans had ever been called upon to behold. Every principle of the old American polity was here reversed. In place of government by the most intelligent and virtuous part of the people for the benefit of the governed, here was government by the most ignorant and vicious part of the population for the benefit, the vulgar, materialistic, brutal benefit of the governing set.
It is no subject of surprise or wonder that, confronted with these frightful results of radical Republican policy and administration in
The revolt in the
Republican party.
The Liberal Republicans were bolters, of course, from the regular organization, and there was no sufficient opportunity for them to
The Liberal Republican
convention of 1872.
The platform which it presented to the people demanded the removal, at once, of all political disabilities from the white men of the South,
Their platform.
It was at first supposed that the choice of the convention for the Presidency would lay between Judge David Davis of Illinois, Charles
Their nominees.
But stranger than the fact that the prince of protectionists was now running for the presidency on a platform which ignored protection, was
Acceptance of the
Liberal Republican
candidates by the
Democrats.
Mr. Greeley was, indeed, in strange company, but the company had come to him. He had not gone to them. He welcomed their support, and became
Mr. Greeley and
the Democrats.
As the last move, the "straight-out" Democrats bolted the ticket in September, and at a convention held in Louisville, Kentucky, nominated
Division in the
Democratic Party.
The September and October elections in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana demonstrated the hopelessness of the opposition to
The Republican
platform and
nominees.
In the election, they swept all of the Northern "States" by heavy popular majorities, and with their election machinery in the Southern
The Republican
triumph.
While there is no doubt that the re-election of General Grant, and the election of a strong Republican majority in Congress, quieted the mind
The effect of the
triumph of the
Republicans.
In several of the reconstructed "States" the Democrats had made strong efforts to secure control of the "State" governments. The Amnesty Act of May 22d, 1872, had removed the disqualifications of the Fourteenth Amendment from all the Southern leaders, except such as had been members of the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh Congresses, or had held judicial, military, naval, or diplomatic office under the United States, or had been heads of departments in ministerial office. A large number of these leaders had thus been placed in a position to participate as candidates for office and legislative position in the election, and to aid greatly in the work of rescuing their "States" from negro Republican rule. In Alabama and Louisiana they had very nearly succeeded. In Alabama they had elected the Governor and a majority of the members to the lower house of the legislature in the autumn of 1870, and in 1872 they claimed to have elected a majority of the members to both houses.
In Alabama, the Democratic members-elect of the legislature convened in the capitol, and the Republican members-elect in the court-house. The
Events in
Alabama.
In Louisiana the events were far more extraordinary and violent. Warmoth's rule was approaching its end, and his Republican enemies,
Events in
Louisiana.
The Warmoth Board had the returns, and it was also generally felt that the Democratic candidate for Governor, John McEnery, had been chosen by the voters. Moreover, the right of Herron to retain the office of Secretary of State was immediately brought before the supreme court of the "State," and the court gave its decision against Herron's contention. It seemed now certain that the Warmoth Returning Board would declare McEnery to have been elected Governor. But the Republican candidate, W. P. Kellogg, then a Senator from Louisiana in Congress, was watchful and resourceful. He secured from United States District Judge Durell an injunction which forbade the Warmoth Board to do anything except in the presence of the Lynch Board, and forbade McEnery from claiming his election under the returns which might be given out by the Warmoth Board.
Warmoth met this by a move which was equally a coup de surprise. The legislature had at its last session passed a law vesting the power to
Warmoth
and Durell.
A more palpable outrage upon the lawful powers of a "State" could hardly have been conceived. The Judge had not a scintilla of authority upon which to rest his proceeding. It is claimed that he was drunk when he made the order. But this can hardly have been true, that is he could not have been any more than ordinarily drunk, since the order was not withdrawn when he became ostensibly sober again, but was made the basis of a proceeding which lasted through many days, and the results of which were the counting in of Kellogg and of a Republican legislature by the Lynch Board, the immediate instalment of the Lynch Board legislature, the almost immediate impeachment of Warmoth by it and his removal from the governorship, the installation of the Lieutenant-Governor, the negro Pinchback, in his seat, the recognition of the Lynch Board legislature and of Pinchback by the President of the United States as the lawful legislature and executive of Louisiana, and the inauguration of Kellogg as Governor at the end of the Warmoth-Pinchback term. If this was all the work of a drunken spree, it must have been a very long one, and there must have been many participants in it besides the Judge.
The Warmoth Board Governor and legislature undertook to set up government also, sustained as they undoubtedly were both by the law, and by public opinion in Louisiana and probably throughout the country, and partially organized a militia force. It was the fighting between this militia and the metropolitan police in the streets of New Orleans which occasioned the suppression of the McEnery government at last by United States soldiers.
For two years more now the government of the adventurers, based on negro support, continued in the "States" south of the Tennessee line,
The downward
course between
1872 and 1874.
The elections
of 1874.
Moreover, three more of the Southern "States" freed themselves, at this time, from "Black Republican" rule. In Alabama, the respectable whites
The change in Alabama,
Arkansas and Texas.
Even South Carolina very nearly escaped her thraldom, and came near to electing a white Democrat Governor. As it was, she got a moderate
The status in South
Carolina in 1874.
Governor
Chamberlain.
The day of complete deliverance was now, however, rapidly approaching. The election of 1875 in Mississippi showed that the domination of the
The day of
complete
deliverance.
The status in
Mississippi
in 1875.
It was thus that the eventful year 1876 was introduced, and it was an earnest of the relief which was now to come to the remaining "States" of the South suffering under the rule of the adventurers and their negro allies.
While the Republican party had step by step, and almost unconsciously, involved itself in the support of dishonest and oppressive government
Fiat money and
the resumption of
of specie payments.
After the panic of 1873 had resulted in such a depression of business and depreciation of values throughout the country as to create greater discontent with the existing political management, and this discontent had manifested itself so distinctly in the elections of 1874, announcing to the Republican party that after March 5th, 1875, a Democratic majority would prevail in the House of Representatives, it was manifest to the Republican leaders, in Congress and out of Congress, that if anything was to be done in regard to the resumption of specie payment, anything for bringing the paper currency of the United States up to a coin value, it must be done speedily, and on the 21st of December, 1874, Mr. Sherman reported a bill from the Finance Committee to the Senate for this purpose, which became a law on the 14th day of January following, and which provided for the redemption of the fractional currency with silver coins of the value of ten, twenty-five and fifty cents, so rapidly as these coins could be minted; abolished the charge of one-fifth of one per centum on the coinage of gold, making the coinage of gold at the mints of the United States free; repealed the law limiting the aggregate amount of the circulating notes of the national banking associations, and the law for the withdrawal of national-bank currency from, and its redistribution among, the several "States" and Territories; ordered the Secretary of the Treasury in issuing new circulating notes to the national banking associations to retire United States legal tender notes to the amount of eighty per centum of such issues, until the United States legal tender notes should be reduced to three hundred millions of dollars, and after January 1st, 1879, to redeem these legal tender notes in coin on their presentation at the office of the Assistant Treasurer of the United States in the city of New York, in sums of not less than fifty dollars; and, to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to do this, authorized him to use any unappropriated surplus revenue which might be, from time to time, in the Treasury, and to sell bonds of the description mentioned in the Act of July 14th, 1870, in such amounts as he should find necessary to accomplish the purpose.
It is true that the Republican majority in Congress had not taken this high ground concerning the public credit and sound money without some wavering. The President himself had become frightened by the panic of the autumn of 1873, and in his annual message of December 1st following had made recommendations that might be regarded as favorable to an inflation of the existing body of paper money. His party friends in
The inflation bill
of 1874 and the
veto of it by the
President.
While at the moment this law for the resumption of specie payments in the short period of four years, or rather less, from the time of its enactment seemed a rather hazardous, not to say desperate, move on the part of the Republicans, it soon became manifest that they could have done nothing so calculated to strengthen the hold of the party upon the solid and conservative men of the country as just this very thing. Many of these men who had usually voted with the Republicans disapproved of the Southern policy of the party, and were on the point of turning against it. With the Resumption Act the financial policy of the Republican party, and of the country, was dragged to the front, and the Southern policy was forced backward, and made to constitute a less prominent issue in the campaign of 1876. This was not only wise party management, but it was also a fortunate thing for the entire country. The country was not yet in a position to endure a Democratic administration, and, on the other hand, it was surfeited with reconstruction Republican administrations. It wanted a sound money Republican administration, which would devote itself to the development of the economic interests of the whole people, and would let the "State" governments in the South have a chance to work out their own salvation. And this was just what it got in the election of 1876, and in the administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes.
CHAPTER XIII
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1876 AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
[The Republican National Convention of 1876—The Platform]—[The Nominees]—[The National Democratic Convention of 1876—The Platform]—[The Nominees]—[The Campaign and the Election]—[The Count and the Twenty-second Joint Rule]—[Views in Regard to the Power to Count the Electoral Vote]—[The Republicans in Advantage in the Count of the Vote]—[The Electoral Commission Bill]—[The Passage of the Bill]—[The Members of the Commission]—[The Fifth Justice]—[Justice David Davis]—[The Counting of the Electoral Vote by Congress]—[The Double Returns from South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Oregon]—[The Counsel before the Commission]—[The Republican Position]—[The Democratic Position]—[The Decisions of the Commission]—[Mr. Hayes Declared President]—[The Truth in Regard to the Election]—[Mr. Hayes's Southern Policy]—[The Result of His Policy]—[Reconciliation between the North and the South].
When the managers of the Republican party met in National nominating convention at Cincinnati, on the 14th of June, 1876, they rightly
The Republican
National
Convention
of 1876.
The platform.
While there was no name before the convention commanding universal popular assent, as had been the case at the second nomination of
The nominees.
A fortnight after the nomination by the Republican convention of Rutherford B. Hayes for President and William A. Wheeler for
The National
Democratic
Convention
of 1876.
The platform.
Their candidate had virtually been determined on before they met. It could be nobody else than the popular Governor of New York, Samuel J.
The nominees.
Mr. Tilden quietly managed his own campaign, while Mr. Hayes left his political interests in the hands of the very astute chairman of
The campaign
and the election.
But the final count of the electoral vote must be in the presence of the two Houses of Congress assembled in one place, and the Democrats
The count and the
twenty-second
joint rule.
Some of the Republicans now claimed that the Constitution vested the Vice-President, or rather the President of the Senate, with the power
Views in regard to
the power to count
the electoral vote.
Nevertheless, the Republicans were in decided advantage. They had the President of the United States to execute by force whatever they might
The Republicans in
advantage in the
count of the vote.
The Democrats felt that they must make an effort to change the situation. They, therefore, quickly seized upon a suggestion made by a
The Electoral
Commission Bill.
The essential provisions of the bill were, first, the creation of a Commission composed of five members of the House of Representatives, five members of the Senate, and five Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the members from the House to be chosen by the House, the members from the Senate to be chosen by the Senate, while the Justices of the Supreme Court from the first, third, eighth and ninth circuits were designated in the bill, and they were authorized to select a fifth from among the other members of the Court; second, the fixing of the rule that the electoral vote of any "State" from which only a single return had been received should be counted unless both Houses should decide otherwise, and of the other rule that when more than one return had been received from any "State," the Commission should forthwith decide which return should be counted, and this return should be counted unless both Houses should reject the decision, or order otherwise; and third, the reservation of any right existing under the Constitution and laws to question before the courts of the United States the titles of the persons who should be declared elected President and Vice-President to these respective offices. The bill was
The passage
of the Bill.
The Senate immediately chose Messrs. Edmunds, Frelinghuysen and Morton, Republicans, and Messrs. Bayard and Thurman, Democrats, to represent it
The members of
the Commission.
Since without the fifth Justice the Commission would consist of seven Republicans and seven Democrats, it was evident that this Justice would
The fifth
Justice.
It was the general feeling throughout the discussion of the bill that the man who would be chosen was Judge David Davis. He had been a Republican and a close personal friend of Lincoln, but had latterly inclined toward the Democracy, and, it was thought, had favored the election of Mr. Tilden. He was regarded as the man of least political prejudice among a set of men of very little political prejudice. The Democrats, however, were entirely willing to risk their cause in his hands, because they believed it was strong enough on its merits to convince any unprejudiced mind, and there is little question that the Republicans were afraid to risk their cause in his hands, because they knew that they must win on every point or lose altogether, and they hesitated to take such desperate chances unless whatever political prejudice might exist in the mind of the umpire should be on their side.
But to the apparent surprise of everybody and to the consternation of the Democrats, Justice Davis was chosen by the Illinois legislature, on
Justice David Davis.
The Democrats in the House of Representatives learned of the election of Justice Davis to the Senate on the morning of the day they were to vote on the passage of the Electoral Commission bill. Even they did not fully realize that it meant that the Justice would not serve on the Commission. Moreover, they had gone to such lengths with the bill that it was too late to turn back. So far as is known the Justice did not inform them or anybody else of his intention to accept the senatorship, or of his scruples about being a member of the Commission, until after the bill became law. When he did do so, the correctness of his position was so clear that the four Justices named in the Act immediately selected Justice Joseph P. Bradley as the fifth judicial member of the Commission. Bradley was a Republican, as were the other three members of the court, Waite, Hunt and Swayne. That is, after Justice Davis was disposed of there remained only Republicans to choose from, and Bradley being regarded as the least partisan, and the most learned in the law, was selected. He fully realized the vast responsibility which had been thus unexpectedly thrust upon him, but he accepted it bravely and without flinching, and discharged it with honor and success.
The Houses of Congress, and also the Electoral Commission, met on the 1st day of February to count the electoral vote. The Democrats still
The counting of
the electoral vote
by Congress.
When the returns were opened by the President of the Senate two sets of returns were found from each of the four "States," Florida, Louisiana,
The double returns
from South Carolina,
Florida, Louisiana
and Oregon.
The Oregon case was more complicated. The three Republican electors received the highest number of votes, as reported by the Secretary of State, who by the laws of Oregon was the "State" canvassing officer, to the Governor. But one of them, Watts, held the office of postmaster in a small place at the time of his election, and the Constitution of the United States provides that "no Senator or Representative, or person holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." The Democratic Governor of Oregon decided in his own mind that Watts was not eligible, and made out his certification to include, beside the two Republican electors who were eligible, one Cronin, the Democrat receiving the highest number of votes for elector, although the number received by him was a minority of all the votes cast for the electoral tickets. This certificate was attested by the Secretary of State, and was given to Cronin. When the day for the meeting of the electors came around Cronin presented himself holding the Governor's certificate, the only certificate which had been issued to the electors by Governor Grover. But in spite of the fact that he had this technical advantage, the two Republican electors, whose names were included in the Governor's certificate, refused to act with him, and he refused to let them have the certificate to attach to their return of the electoral vote to the President of the Senate of the United States unless they should so act. Both parties persisted in their refusals. Whereupon Cronin selected one J. N. Y. Miller and one John Parker to fill up the electoral college of Oregon and these three cast two electoral votes for Hayes and Wheeler and one for Tilden and Hendricks, and, after attaching the Governor's certification to the record of their vote in due form, sent this return to the President of the Senate of the United States, as required by the Constitution. At the same time the two Republican electors, Odell and Cartwright, met to cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth. Watts was also present. He had resigned his office of postmaster, and now he resigned his position as elector. The other two accepted his resignation, and immediately chose him an elector. The three then cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth for Hayes and Wheeler. As we have seen, they did not have the certification of their election by the Governor to attach to their votes, as required by the law of the United States, but they procured from the Secretary of State a certified copy of the canvass of the votes for the electors, which showed the election of the three Republican candidates, and sent this, and also a copy of their proceedings in accepting the resignation of Watts, and then electing him an elector, along with their report of the vote of the electors for President and Vice-President, to the President of the Senate.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats were represented by most able counsel before the Electoral Commission. William M. Evarts, Stanley
The counsel before
the Commission.
The Republicans took their stand at the outset upon the principle that Congress could not go behind the returns of the "State" Canvassing
The Republican
position.
It did not appear to them necessary to do this in order to win their case. One single electoral vote from any one of the four "States," from
The Democratic
position.
The view of the counsel for the Republican candidates prevailed with a majority of the Commission. By a majority of a single vote the
The decisions of
the Commission.
In the early morning of March 2d, the count was completed, and Hayes and Wheeler were proclaimed by the presiding officer of the Senate, Mr.
Mr. Hayes
declared
President.
The truth in regard to the whole transaction of the election probably is that the Democrats did in some places in the South intimidate
The truth in
regard to
the election.
During the counting of the electoral vote it was suspected that the friends of Mr. Hayes were giving some assurances to the Southerners in
Mr. Hayes's
Southern policy.
The result was that, although the Republican candidates for Governor and for the members of the legislature in these three "States" received
The result of
his policy.
Order and peace were quickly established everywhere, and the plundered and impoverished South could at last take hope and feel courage to make a new effort to recover some degree of prosperity and some measure of domestic content. For ten years the dark night of domination by the negro and adventurer had rested upon the unhappy section, until it had been reduced to the very abomination of desolation. Broken in health and fortune, sick at heart, conscious of the terrible degradation which had been imposed upon them, and politically ostracized, the better part of the white population of the South had staggered and groped through the hideous experiences of this period, and such of them as had not perished during the awful passage had now at last been relieved of the frightful scourge, and half dazed, as if just recovering from a terrible nightmare, found themselves again in the places of power and responsibility. But they brought with them, as their dominant passion, undying hatred of the Republican party as the author of all their woes, and as their dominant policy, the stern and unbending resolve to stand together as one man against every movement which had even the slightest tendency toward a restoration of the hated conditions from which they had escaped. No sane mind can wonder at "the solid South," or at the Democratic South. Life, property, happiness, honor, civilization, everything which makes existence endurable demanded that the decent white men of the South should stand shoulder to shoulder in defending their families, their homes and their communities from any return of the vile plague under which they had suffered so long and so cruelly; and human instinct determined that this should be done in connection with that party which was hostile to the Republican party. The differences which lead to a fair fight and the wounds which are received in it are easily healed, but indignities heaped upon a fallen foe create a bitterness of heart that lasts so long as life endures.
Slavery was a great wrong, and secession was an error and a terrible blunder, but Reconstruction was a punishment so far in excess of the
Reconciliation between
the North and the South.
CHAPTER XIV
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1867 AND 1877
[The Purchase of Alaska]—[The Contention of the House of Representatives in Regard to its Power over Treaties]—[The Senate's Position and the Compromise]—[Irritation of the American People against Great Britain]—[The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty]—[President Grant's Statements in His First Annual Message and in His Second Annual Address]—[Sir John Rose's Mission to the United States—The Joint High Commission]—[The Treaty of Washington]—[The Alabama Claims and the Geneva Convention]—[Triumph of the Diplomacy of the United States]—[Organization of the Tribunal and Filing of the Cases]—[The Controversy between Mr. Fish and Lord Granville]—[The Filing of the Counter Cases and the Argument]—[Obstacles—Decision of the Tribunal in Regard to National and Indirect Damages]—[The Decision of the Tribunal in the Case of the Florida]—[The Decision in the Case of the Alabama]—[The Decision in the Case of the Shenandoah, and other Vessels]—[International Principles Settled by the Geneva Tribunal]—[The Northwest Boundary Question]—[The Fisheries Question]—[The Halifax Commission and Award]—[The Burlingame Treaty with China]—[The Attempt to Annex the Dominican Republic to the United States]—[The Treaty]—[The Treaty before the Senate]—[Its Rejection]—[The President's Attempt to Renew Negotiations]—[The Committee of Inquiry]—[The Report of the Committee]—[The Abandonment of the Scheme].
The two chief products of American diplomacy in the decade between 1867 and 1877 were the purchase of Alaska, and the treaty of Washington with Great Britain.
The purchase of Alaska, the northwest corner of the North American continent, together with the islands adjacent thereto, a vast
The purchase
of Alaska.
The proposition came from the side of Russia, and it appeared that Russia was more eager to sell than the United States was to buy. The
The reasons
for and against
the purchase.
On the other hand, such men as General Banks and Mr. Stevens contended that from the point of view of a business transaction alone it was worth the money; and Mr. Higby, of California, told his colleagues that they were mistaken in regard to the climate of the region. The consideration, however, which seems to have had most weight was gratitude toward Russia, whose government had manifested the most friendly feeling for the Union in the struggle against the giant rebellion, and had even threatened interference in behalf of the Union against interference in behalf of the Confederacy by any other European state. That acute observer of political opinion, Mr. Blaine, affirmed that a like offer from any other European government would most probably have been declined.
It is, however, almost certain that Mr. Seward had another very profound reason for making the purchase, one which he could not very
A real political
reason for
the purchase.
When the bill for making the appropriation to pay for Alaska came before the House of Representatives, that body raised the question of
The contention of the
House of Representatives
in regard to its power
over treaties involving
the payment of money
by the United States.
The Senate, on the other hand, repudiated this doctrine, and rejected the bill with the preamble containing it as it came from the House of
The Senate's position
and the compromise.
The contention of the House was good political science, but it is still doubtful whether it is the constitutional law of the United States or not. The more recent constitutions of even the European states, such as those of Germany and France, make the consent of both houses of the legislature necessary to the validity of all treaties involving the appropriation of money, or the assumption of any financial obligation. This is as it should be; and the Constitution of the United States ought to be so amended as to establish clearly the same principle.
We have, in the preceding volume of this series, followed the history of the relations of the United States with Great Britain down to the
Irritation of the
American people
against Great Britain.
Change of Ministry
and Parliamentary
majority in 1867.
Before, however, the discussion had fairly begun Mr. Adams returned to the United States, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson was sent out to the British
The Johnson-Clarendon treaty.
The Senate of the United States promptly rejected the treaty with much feeling, because it did not contain proper provision, in its view, for the reparation of wrongs to the Nation. The feeling among the people of
President Grant's
statement in his
first Annual Message.
"Toward the close of the last Administration a convention was signed in London for the settlement of all outstanding claims between Great Britain and the United States, which failed to receive the advice and consent of the Senate to its ratification. The time and the circumstances attending the negotiation of that treaty were unfavorable to its acceptance by the people of the United States, and its provisions were wholly inadequate for the settlement of the grave wrongs that had been sustained by this Government, as well as by its citizens. The injuries resulting to the United States by reason of the course adopted by Great Britain during our late Civil War in the increased rates of insurance, in the diminution of exports and imports and other obstructions to domestic industry and production, in its effect upon the foreign commerce of the country, in the decrease and transfer to Great Britain of our commercial marine, in the prolongation of the war and the increased cost, both in treasure and lives, of its suppression, could not be adjusted and satisfied as ordinary commercial claims which continually arise among commercial nations; and yet the convention treated them as such ordinary claims, from which they differ more widely in the gravity of their character than in the magnitude of their amount, great even as is that difference. Not a word was found in the treaty, and not an inference could be drawn from it, to remove the sense of the unfriendliness of the course of Great Britain in our struggle for existence, which had so deeply and universally impressed itself upon the people of this country. Believing that a convention thus misconceived in its scope and inadequate in its provisions would not have produced the hearty, cordial settlement of pending questions, which alone is consistent with the relations which I desire to have firmly established between the United States and Great Britain, I regarded the action of the Senate in rejecting the treaty to have been wisely taken in the interests of peace and as a necessary step in the direction of a perfect and cordial friendship between the two countries. A sensitive people, conscious of their power, are more at ease under a great wrong wholly unatoned than under the restraint of a settlement which satisfies neither their ideas of justice nor their grave sense of the grievance they have sustained. The rejection of the treaty was followed by a state of public feeling on both sides which I thought not favorable to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiations. I accordingly so instructed the Minister of the United States to Great Britain, and found that my views in this regard were shared by Her Majesty's Ministers. I hope that the time may soon arrive when the two Governments can approach the solution of this momentous question with an appreciation of what is due to the rights, dignity and honor of each, and with the determination not only to remove the causes of complaint in the past, but to lay the foundation of a broad principle of public law which will prevent future differences and tend to firm and continued peace and friendship."
The President's
statement in his
second annual message.
For another year things drifted, and the views of the two Governments seemed to be getting wider apart, when President Grant wrote in his Message of December 5th, 1870:
"I regret to say that no conclusion has been reached for the adjustment of the claims against Great Britain growing out of the course adopted by that Government during the Rebellion. The Cabinet of London, so far as its views have been expressed, does not appear to be willing to concede that Her Majesty's Government was guilty of any negligence, or did or permitted any act during the War by which the United States has just cause of complaint. Our firm and unalterable convictions are directly the reverse. I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the appointment of a commission to take proof of the amount and the ownership of these several claims, on notice to the representative of Her Majesty at Washington, and that authority be given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, so that the Government shall have the ownership of the private claims, as well as the responsible control of all the demands against Great Britain. It cannot be necessary to add that whenever Her Majesty's Government shall entertain a desire for a full and friendly adjustment of these claims the United States will enter upon their consideration with an earnest desire for a conclusion consistent with the honor and dignity of both nations."
This was what is now called "a twist of the lion's tail." It was something of a twist, although it was accompanied with the offer of the olive branch, instead of the sword. It was effective, even more effective for the conciliatory tone of the final paragraph. Moreover, with the German armies encamped around Paris and throughout France, the affairs of Continental Europe were too unsettled and precarious for Great Britain to run the risk of any serious complications with the United States.
Accepting the President's message as an invitation to renew negotiations, the British Government, at the beginning of the next year
Sir John Rose's
mission to the
United States.
The Joint High
Commission.
The first eleven articles of this agreement relate to the claims for damages arising from the incidents of the Civil War, known as the
The Treaty of
Washington.
They contain, in the first place, an expression of regret for the escape of the Confederate vessels from British ports and for the depredations committed by them.
They provide, secondly, for a tribunal of arbitration, composed of five members, one of whom should be named by the President of the United States, one by Her Britannic Majesty, one by the King of Italy, one by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the Emperor of Brazil; and, in case either of these last three mentioned should fail to name an arbitrator, they provide that one should be named by the King of Sweden and Norway; and finally, that one agent should be named by each of the high contracting parties to represent it generally in all matters connected with the arbitration.
They provide, in the third place, that "the Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after they shall
The Alabama claims and
the Geneva convention.
They provide, in the fourth place, that each of the two high contracting parties should deliver his written or printed case, together with all the evidence in support of it, to each of the arbitrators and to the agent of the other party, as soon as possible after the organization of the Tribunal, and within a period not exceeding six months from the 17th of June, 1871; that within four months after the delivery on both sides of the case, each party might put in a counter case, with additional evidence, in reply to the case of the other party; that the arbitrators might extend the time, under certain circumstances, for delivering the counter case; that "within two months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the counter case on both sides," the agent of each party should deliver to each of the arbitrators "and to the agent of the other party a written or printed argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies"; and that the arbitrators might require further argument by counsel, giving to each party an equal chance to be heard.
They provide, in the fifth place, that the Tribunal should consider the case of each vessel separately; that it might, however, award a gross sum, or that in case it did not award a sum in gross, the high contracting parties should appoint two members of a board of assessors, and request the Italian Minister at Washington to appoint a third, which board should determine the amounts due in the cases in which the arbitrators had pronounced responsibility.
They provide, in the sixth place, that in deciding the matters submitted the arbitrators should be governed by the following rules:
"A neutral government is bound, first, to use diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."
They provide, in the seventh place, that the high contracting parties would "agree to observe these rules as between themselves in the future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them."
And they provide, finally, that the result of the proceedings of the Tribunal and the Board of Assessors, in case such board should be appointed, should be accepted as a final settlement of all the claims known as the Alabama Claims, and should be a bar to any further proceedings in regard to them.
It will be seen that the Government of the United States had in this Treaty substantially won all of the points for which it had contended.
Triumph of the
diplomacy of the
United States.
It is true that Her Majesty's Government qualified its acceptance of the rules to be applied in determining its responsibility by inserting an explanation in the Treaty of the following tenor: "Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules."
And it is also true that, while, according to the letter of the Treaty, the United States Government was left unfettered as to the character of the claims which it might lay before the Arbitrators, Her Majesty's Government had been led to expect more moderation in this respect than the popular sentiment in the United States seemed to indicate.
The two Governments and the high personages invited by them proceeded in due time to appoint the Arbitrators. The President of the United
The arbitrators,
agents and counsel.
The President of the United States also appointed Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis as the agent of the United States before the Tribunal, and Mr. Caleb Cushing, Mr. William M. Evarts and Mr. Morrison R. Waite as counsel.
Her Majesty's Government also appointed Lord Tenterden as the agent of Great Britain before the Tribunal, and Sir Roundell Palmer as chief counsel.
On the 15th of December, 1871, the Arbitrators organized the Tribunal at Geneva with Count Frederic Sclopis in the chair as presiding
Organization of
the Tribunal and
filing of the cases.
The contents of the case of the United States became immediately known to the British Ministers, but not for some weeks to the British people. The Ministers were not apparently disturbed in mind about it, although they discovered at once that it contained claims for national damages and indirect damages as well as for direct damages to individuals; but as soon as the newspapers got hold of this fact, they raised a tremendous hue and cry, and accused those who had prepared the case of taking an unfair advantage of the wording of the treaty. The Minister of the United States in London, General Schenck, informed Mr. Fish by cable of the agitation in London over the subject and of the demand of the newspapers that the claim for national and indirect damages should be withdrawn. Mr. Fish replied firmly that "there must be no withdrawal of any part of the claim presented." At this moment the session of Parliament opened and the Queen's speech contained a criticism of the extravagance of the claims of the United States in the case submitted to the Tribunal. The matter was warmly debated in Parliament, and on
The controversy
between Mr. Fish
and Lord Granville.
Before this discussion terminated the day arrived for the filing of the counter cases. They were both promptly filed with a reservation
The filing of the
counter cases
and the argument.
It looked as if the work of the commissioners, who had framed the Treaty, and of the Arbitrators, who had now given six months of their
Obstacles.
Decision of the
Tribunal in regard
to national and
indirect damages.
The President of the United States was duly informed of this announcement by the Tribunal, and, upon the advice of the learned counsel for the United States, he instructed the agent of the United States to make the following reply to the Tribunal:
"The declaration made by the Tribunal, individually and collectively, respecting the claims presented by the United States for the award of the Tribunal for, first, the losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, second, the enhanced payment of insurance, and, third, the prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the Rebellion, is accepted by the President of the United States as determinative of their judgment upon the important question of public law involved."
This reply was read to the Tribunal on the 25th of June, and on the 27th the British agent, under instructions from his Government, withdrew his request for an adjournment and filed his argument.
It was supposed by the Americans that the whole case on both sides was now in, and that, unless the Arbitrators should require further argument or statement in reference to specific points, the Tribunal would now proceed to make its decisions. But the British counsel and the British agent immediately petitioned the Tribunal to be allowed to prepare and present another argument, and to have six weeks' time in which to do it, and even the member of the Tribunal appointed by the British Government exerted himself to secure this delay and this new opportunity for the British agent and his counsel. The Tribunal felt, however, that it was in possession of the evidence and the argument necessary for determining the question before it, and refused the request.
The Tribunal now adjourned to the 15th of July, in order to give its members time and opportunity to study the cases. On the 15th, the arbitrators reassembled and invited the agent and counsel of each of the high contracting parties to sit with them in their conferences. To all others, however, the doors were closed. They spent some two days discussing the order of the procedure which they should follow, and finally adopted the order proposed by Mr. Staempfli, and also indicated in the Treaty itself, which was to take up the case of each vessel separately, and allow each Arbitrator to express a provisional opinion upon it, which opinion, however, should not be conclusive even on the Arbitrator himself who gave it.
On the 17th of the month (July), the Tribunal proceeded to take up the case of the Florida and to hear the opinions of the Arbitrators upon
The decision of the
Tribunal in the
case of the Florida.
Upon the reassembly of the arbitrators, Baron d'Itajubá called on the British counsel for a statement or an argument on the questions of due diligence, and of the effect of commissions held by Confederate war vessels which had entered British ports, and of the legitimacy of coal supplies to Confederate vessels in British ports. Of course the counsel of the United States would be permitted to reply.
The Tribunal approved the proposition, and then proceeded to the case of the Alabama. The Arbitrators agreed unanimously in their views of
The decision in the
case of the Alabama.
The Tribunal then took up the case of the Shenandoah. The Arbitrators were unanimously of the opinion in this case that the British
The decision in the
case of the Shenandoah,
and other vessels.
In regard to all the other vessels mentioned in the case of the United States, excepting only the Retribution, the Arbitrators were unanimous in the opinion that the British Government had not failed in due diligence in the discharge of its duties as a neutral, and in regard to the Retribution three of the five Arbitrators held the like opinion. After hearing the additional arguments called for, the Tribunal closed the doors on the 26th of August, and, without the presence even of agents or counsel, deliberated upon the momentous questions submitted to it. On the 9th of September the decision was adopted. The Tribunal then adjourned to the 14th, upon which day the decision was to be proclaimed to the world.
The public session of the Tribunal on the 14th was a solemn and an imposing affair with nothing to mar the satisfaction of those who participated in it, except the discourtesy of Sir Alexander Cockburn, who not only kept the assembly waiting for his appearance long past the appointed hour, but departed with unseemly haste at the close of the valedictory pronounced by the president, Count Sclopis.
The award followed the line of the opinions already recited. It convicted the British Government of a lack of due diligence in the discharge of its neutral duties in the cases of the Alabama and the Florida and their respective tenders, and also in the case of the Shenandoah from the time she left the port of Melbourne, but exonerated it in all other cases.
The award also repeated the decision announced by Count Sclopis, on the 19th of June, excluding the claims for national and indirect damages, and then fixed the amount due to the United States from Great Britain in the gross sum of "fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars in gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal." Sir Alexander Cockburn refused to sign the award, and filed a statement of his reasons for his dissent. The other four members of the Tribunal signed it, and as the majority rule had been provided for in the Treaty, both of the high contracting parties were duly bound, and so regarded themselves.
As to principles decided by the entire procedure of the commissioners and of their Governments in the formation of the Treaty, and of the
International
principles settled
by the Geneva
Tribunal.
Two other questions of great importance were placed in course of solution by the Treaty of Washington. One was the contention between
The Northwest
boundary question.
The other question was that which related to the common rights of fishing to be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the two high
The Fisheries
question.
The contention on the part of Great Britain in regard to this subject was that the rights and privileges accorded to the citizens of the
The Halifax
commission
and award.
The President named, as the representative of the United States, the Hon. Ensign H. Kellogg. The Queen appointed, as her representative, Sir Alexander T. Galt. And the two high contracting parties not being able to agree upon the third member of the commission, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to the Queen named Maurice Delfosse, the Belgian Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States. Delfosse had been proposed by the British Government to the Government of the United States as the third commissioner, and the President had objected to him as being the representative of a country whose interests were too nearly allied with those of Great Britain. It was naturally understood by the President that this had disposed of Delfosse, and the Government at Washington was taken by surprise when the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at London, Count Beust, made it manifest that he should name Mr. Delfosse. Mr. Fish, the Secretary of State, with true diplomatic instinct, immediately accommodated himself, however, to the situation, and congratulated Delfosse upon his appointment. Count Beust announced the choice of Delfosse on the 2d of March, 1877, nearly six years after the Washington Treaty was negotiated and signed, during which period the fisheries of Newfoundland were brought under the same agreements as those of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and the United States above the thirty-ninth parallel. The Commission finally met at Halifax in the latter half of the year 1877 and on November 23d, 1877, made its award, sustaining by a vote of two to one the contention of Great Britain, and adjudging that the United States Government should pay the Government of Great Britain the sum of five millions five hundred thousand dollars in gold.
The representative of the United States, Mr. Kellogg, dissented from the decision; and it was felt in the United States that the Government had been overreached in the matter. Considerable delay in the payment of the amount thus resulted, and some controversy over it with Great Britain occurred. But finally, on November 21st, 1878, the draft for the amount was delivered to the British Government by Mr. Welsh, the Minister of the United States at the Court of St. James.
Two other events of an international character happened within the decade between 1867 and 1877 to which brief reference should be made, viz., the Chinese Treaty of 1868, and the strong and persistent attempt of President Grant to bring Santo Domingo under the sovereignty of the United States.
In 1861 Anson Burlingame, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Massachusetts, was sent as Minister of the United States to China.
The Burlingame
Treaty with China.
At the moment of General Grant's accession to the presidency there was civil commotion in the Dominican Republic. Buenaventura Baez was the
The attempt to annex
the Dominican Republic
to the United States.
In July of 1869, President Grant sent General Orville E. Babcock to Santo Domingo with written instructions from the Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, to inquire into the political situation there and into the value and resources of the country. Babcock, terming himself aide-de-camp to the President of the United States, succeeded somehow
The Treaty.
On the 10th of January, 1870, President Grant sent this proposed Treaty to the Senate for ratification. He must have thought that there would
The Treaty
before
the Senate.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs thoroughly sifted the subject, and recommended that the proposed Treaty be not ratified, and the
Its rejection.
In his next annual message, that of December 5th, 1870, he took up the matter again, went over all of his old arguments expressed in even more
The President's
attempt to renew
negotiations.
These recommendations and suggestions and the language in which they were expressed were felt to be most exasperating by those Senators and
The Committee
of Inquiry.
The President appointed as commissioners Benjamin F. Wade, Andrew D.
The report of
the commissioners.
On the 5th of April, 1871, the President submitted this report to Congress, accompanied by a message which contained a justification of
The abandonment
of the scheme.
INDEX
Abbott, Josiah G., on electoral commission,
Adams, Charles Francis, joins liberal republicans,
;
candidate for presidential nomination,
;
returns from England,
;
at Geneva arbitration,
,
Adams, John Q., nominated for vice-presidency,
Alabama, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention and election in,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
disfranchisements in,
;
voting on constitution,
,
,
;
act on admission of members from,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
republicans get control in,
,
;
change in character of government,
Alabama
, the, case of,
,
Alabama
claims,
,
,
,
Alaska, purchase of,
Alexandria, Va., Pierpont government at,
,
Alta Vela, matter of claim to,
,
Ames, Adelbert, resigns as governor of Mississippi,
Anderson, T. C., in Louisiana politics,
Arkansas, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
Lincoln's acts toward,
;
presidential reconstruction in,
;
congressmen refused seats,
;
in Lincoln's message,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
attitude of Johnson to,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
disfranchisements in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
;
act of June, 1868, as to,
,
,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
change in character of government,
Ashburn, George W., in convention of 1866,
Ashley, James M., action on thirteenth amendment,
Austin, Tex., convention at,
Babcock, Orville E., mission to Santo Domingo,
Baez, Buenaventura, in Dominican politics,
Baird, Absalom, New Orleans riot,
Baltimore, Md., republican convention at,
;
democratic convention at,
Banks, Nathaniel P., appoints election in Louisiana,
;
views on purchase of Alaska,
Bayard, Thomas F., on electoral commission,
Bell, John, desertion of the Union cause,
Benton, Thomas H., in convention of 1866,
Bernard, Mountague, on Joint High Commission,
Beust, Count, names Delfosse for Halifax commission,
Bingham, John A., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
on impeachment committee,
;
impeachment manager,
;
approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
;
offers amendment as to Georgia,
Black, Jeremiah S., counsel for Johnson,
;
his withdrawal,
,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Blaine, James G., proposes amendment to reconstruction bill,
,
;
approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
;
in convention of 1876,
;
views on purchase of Alaska,
Blair, Francis P., nominated for vice-presidency,
;
conduct in the campaign,
,
Blair, Montgomery, in convention of 1866,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Blow, Henry T., on joint committee on reconstruction,
Borie, Adolph E., becomes secretary of the navy,
;
resigns,
Botts, John Minor, in convention of 1866,
Boutwell, George S., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
on impeachment committee,
;
impeachment manager,
;
becomes secretary of the treasury,
Bradley, Joseph P., on electoral commission,
Brodhead, James O., letter from F. P. Blair,
Brown, B. Gratz, joins liberal republicans,
;
nominated for vice-presidency,
Browning, Orville H., enters cabinet,
;
in convention of 1866,
Brownlow, William G., elected governor of Tennessee,
;
in convention of 1866,
Bullock, Rufus B., share in reconstruction of Georgia,
,
,
Burlingame, Anson, treaty with China,
Butler, Benjamin F., impeachment manager,
;
signs letter on Alta Vela claim,
;
attack on Johnson,
;
proposes bill as to Georgia,
;
withdraws his amendment,
Cabral, in Dominican politics,
Cameron, Simon, in convention of 1866,
Campbell, James, in convention of 1866,
Campbell, John A., counsel before electoral commission,
Canada, the fisheries question,
Canby, Edward R. S., supersedes Sickles,
Carpenter, Matthew H., counsel before electoral commission,
Carpenter, testimony as to Ku-Klux,
Cartter, David K., action in case against Thomas,
,
,
Cartwright, J. C., Oregon elector of 1876,
Chamberlain, Daniel H., as governor of South Carolina,
;
retires from the office,
Chandler, Zachariah, in convention of 1866,
;
manages campaign for Hayes,
Chase, Salmon P., presides at impeachment of Johnson,
;
rulings,
;
puts final question,
;
candidate for presidential nomination,
Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (5 Peters 1),
Chicago, Ill., democratic convention at,
;
republican convention of 1868,
China, the Burlingame treaty,
Cincinnati, O., liberal republican convention at,
;
republican convention of 1876,
Civil Rights, state legislation on,
,
;
bill on, in Congress,
;
the bill criticised,
;
bill passed over veto,
Clarendon, Earl of, treaty negotiated with Johnson,
Clements, White vs.,
Cleveland, O., radical republican convention at,
;
soldier convention at,
Clifford, Nathan, on electoral commission,
Cochrane, John, nominated for vice-presidency,
;
withdraws,
Cockburn, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration,
,
,
Coke, Richard, elected governor of Texas,
,
Colfax, Schuyler, elected Speaker,
;
appoints committee on impeachment,
;
nominated for vice-presidency,
;
character of acceptance,
Columbia, S. C., made head-quarters of second military district,
Committee of the House on Elections, Georgia case referred to,
Committee of the House on Impeachment, appointed,
;
proceedings,
et seq.
Committee of the House on Reconstruction, reports bill,
;
bill passed,
;
Covode resolution referred to,
;
reports impeachment resolution,
;
reports bill as to Georgia,
Committee of the House on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth amendment,
;
Blaine moves reference to,
Committee of the House on the Rebellious States,
Committee of the Senate on Elections, Georgia case referred to,
Committee of the Senate on Finance, bill reported from,
Committee of the Senate on Foreign Relations, Sumner loses chairmanship of,
;
opposes Dominican treaty,
,
Committee of the Senate on the Judiciary, action as to thirteenth amendment,
;
proposes Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
reports a civil rights bill,
;
action on bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act,
Committee of the Senate on the Rebellious States,
Congress of the United States, power vested in,
;
action on State perdurance,
;
power over territories,
;
relation of its acts to Reconstruction,
;
legislation on Reconstruction,
;
action as to electoral vote of 1864,
,
;
twenty-second joint rule,
,
;
attitude to Tennessee,
;
meeting of December, 1865,
;
Johnson's views of powers of,
;
demand of southerners for seats,
;
joint committee on reconstruction,
,
;
passes Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
passes civil rights bill,
,
;
the fourteenth amendment,
;
proposal of committee on reconstruction,
;
reports to, on reconstruction,
;
passage of Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
relation to campaign of 1866,
;
attacked by Johnson,
;
effect of election of 1866,
;
effect of Johnson's message on,
;
passes bill for negro suffrage in District of Columbia,
,
;
bill vetoed,
,
;
bill passed over veto,
;
vetoes sent to,
;
encroachment on President's power,
;
passes supplemental reconstruction bill,
;
opening of fortieth Congress,
;
passes bill interpreting Reconstruction Acts,
;
passes bill over veto,
;
as to powers of,
;
attitude of southern whites to acts of,
;
additional bill as to reconstructed States,
,
;
comment on the act,
;
message to, of December, 1867,
;
admission of Southern members,
,
;
action on proclamation of fourteenth amendment,
;
friction with Johnson,
;
annual message to,
;
action on fifteenth amendment,
;
question as to southern members,
,
;
admits members from Virginia,
;
passes modification of Tenure-of-Office Act,
;
readmission of Georgia,
;
attitude to the South,
;
bill to enforce the amendments,
;
control of elections to,
;
statute on the Ku-Klux,
,
;
legislation on finance,
;
electoral count of 1877,
,
;
bill for electoral commission,
,
;
action as to Santo Domingo,
.
See
;
;
[Statutes of the United States]
Conkling, Roscoe, on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
in convention of 1876,
Connecticut ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Constitution of the United States, government provided by the,
;
relation of State government to,
,
;
powers of Congress over elections,
;
eligibility to vice-presidency,
,
;
adoption of the thirteenth amendment,
,
;
the fourteenth amendment,
,
,
;
fourteenth amendment in the campaign of 1866,
;
fourteenth amendment rejected in South,
,
;
fourteenth amendment with reference to revival of State functions,
;
tests of, applied to reconstruction bill,
;
in reconstruction bill,
,
;
interpreted by the Supreme Court,
;
fourteenth amendment ratified in Arkansas,
;
ratification of fourteenth amendment completed,
;
action on fifteenth amendment,
;
fifteenth amendment ratified by Georgia,
;
provision for enforcement of amendments,
Covode, John, resolutions on Johnson,
Cowan, Edgar, action on the Stevens resolution,
;
in convention of 1866,
Cox, Jacob D., in Pittsburg convention,
;
becomes secretary of the interior,
Creswell, John A. J., in convention of 1866,
;
becomes postmaster-general,
Cronin, E. A., Oregon elector in 1876,
,
Curtin, A. G., in convention of 1866,
Curtis, Benjamin R., counsel for Johnson,
;
argument,
,
Cushing, Caleb, at Geneva arbitration,
Custer, George A., in Cleveland convention,
Davis, David, joins liberal republicans,
;
candidate for presidential nomination,
;
elected Senator,
;
relation to electoral commission,
Davis, Henry Winter, bill on reconstruction,
;
protest against Lincoln's proclamation,
Davis, J. C. Bancroft, at Geneva arbitration,
Delaware, in election of 1866,
;
votes for Seymour,
Delfosse, Maurice, on Halifax commission,
Dennison, William, resignation,
,
District of Columbia, bill for negro suffrage in,
;
bill vetoed,
;
bill passed over veto,
;
bill on colored schools in,
Dix, John A., in convention of 1866,
Dixon, James, action on the Stevens resolution,
;
vote on impeachment,
Doolittle, James R., action on the Stevens resolution,
;
in convention of 1866,
;
view of the Stanton case,
;
vote on impeachment,
Drew, George F., becomes governor of Florida,
Durant, Thomas J., in convention of 1866,
Durell, E. H., in Louisiana politics,
,
Edmunds, George F., on electoral commission,
Electoral Commission, creation,
,
;
membership,
;
proceedings,
Emory, W. H., relations with Johnson,
,
,
English, James E., in convention of 1866,
Evarts, William M., counsel for Johnson,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
;
at Geneva arbitration,
Ewing, Thomas, in Cleveland convention,
;
nominated as secretary of war,
Farragut, David D., accompanies Johnson to the West,
Favrot, Alexander, at Geneva arbitration,
Federal government, system of,
,
Ferry, Thomas W., announces result of 1876 election,
Fessenden, William P., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
theory of reconstruction,
;
opinion on impeachment,
;
view of the Stanton case,
;
vote on impeachment,
Field, Stephen J., on electoral commission,
Fish, Hamilton, becomes secretary of state,
;
negotiations with Great Britain,
,
;
controversy with Granville,
;
congratulates Delfosse,
Fisheries Question, the,
Flanders, Benjamin F., elected to House of Representatives,
Florida, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention in,
;
adopts thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
act on admission of members from,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
contest as to election returns of 1876,
,
;
change of administration,
Florida
, the, case of,
Fowler, Joseph S., vote on impeachment,
Freedmen's Bureau, created,
,
;
Grant's opinion of its officers,
;
bill of 1866,
;
bill passed over veto,
.
See
[Statutes of the United States]
Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., on electoral commission,
Frémont, John C., nominated for presidency,
;
withdraws,
Galt, Alexander T., on Halifax commission,
Garfield, James A., approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
;
on electoral commission,
Garland, Augustus H., elected governor of Arkansas,
Geneva Arbitration,
,
,
Georgia, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention and election in,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
case of Georgia vs. Stanton,
,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
election in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
controversy in,
;
act on admission of members from,
,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratification of fourteenth amendment,
;
votes for Seymour,
;
question in Congress as to representation of,
;
question of representation of,
;
military government in,
,
;
fifteenth amendment ratified,
;
admission delayed,
,
;
finally restored to federal relations,
,
;
escape from negro rule,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Gerry, Elbridge, in convention of 1866,
Gillem, A. C., arrest of McCardle,
Granger, Gordon, in Cleveland convention,
Grant, Ulysses S., report on conditions at the South,
;
accompanies Johnson to the West,
;
acting Secretary of War,
,
;
injunction against sought,
;
appointed acting secretary of war,
;
his action thereon,
,
;
relations with Johnson,
;
nominated for presidency,
;
character of acceptance,
;
attitude to reconstruction,
;
proclamation as to Virginia,
;
orders as to Mississippi and Texas,
,
;
policy characterized,
,
;
attitude to Tenure-of-Office Act,
;
first annual message,
;
suggestion as to Georgia,
;
message of March, 1871,
;
proclamation of March, 1871,
;
proclamation of May, 1871,
,
;
proclamations of April and November, 1871,
,
;
relations with Sumner,
;
nominated for second term,
;
elected,
;
veto of inflation bill,
;
messages on relations with Great Britain,
;
policy as to Santo Domingo,
Granville, Lord, controversy with Fish,
Great Britain, change in ministry,
;
Grant's messages on relations with,
;
the Geneva arbitration,
;
the British Columbia boundary,
;
the fisheries question,
Greeley, Horace, in convention of 1866,
;
joins liberal republicans,
;
nominated for presidency,
,
;
defeated,
Green, Ashbel, counsel before electoral commission,
Grey and Ripon, Earl de, on Joint High Commission,
Grider, Henry, on joint committee on reconstruction,
Grimes, James W., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
view of the Stanton case,
;
vote on impeachment,
Groesbeck, William S., counsel for Johnson,
Habeas Corpus, writ of, privileges suspended in District of Columbia,
Hahn, Michael, elected to House of Representatives,
;
elected Governor of Louisiana,
Halifax, N. S., fisheries commission at,
,
Hamlin, Hannibal, count of electoral votes,
Hampton, Wade, in convention of 1868,
;
becomes governor of South Carolina,
Hancock, Winfield Scott, supersedes Sheridan,
;
in convention of 1868,
Harlan, James, resignation,
,
Harris, Ira, on joint committee on reconstruction,
Hawley, Joseph R., in republican convention of 1866,
Hayes, Rutherford B., significance of his election,
;
nominated for presidency,
,
;
the campaign,
et seq.;
election formally declared,
;
policy toward the South,
,
Henderson, John B., introduces amendment abolishing slavery,
,
;
vote on impeachment,
Hendricks, Thomas A., candidate for presidential nomination,
;
nominated for vice-presidency,
Herron, Francis J., in Louisiana politics,
,
Higby, William, views on purchase of Alaska,
Hill, Benjamin H., enters Senate from Georgia,
Hoadly, George, joins liberal republicans,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Hoar, Ebenezer R., becomes attorney-general,
;
on Joint High Commission,
Hoar, George F., on electoral commission,
Hood, John B., near Nashville,
House of Representatives of the United States, admits members from Louisiana,
;
refuses seats to members from Arkansas,
;
action on thirteenth amendment,
;
elects Colfax Speaker,
;
the Stevens resolution,
;
speech by Stevens,
;
passes Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
passes civil rights bill,
;
representation in,
;
election of 1866,
;
effect of election of 1866,
;
attempt to impeach Johnson,
;
bill on reconstruction before the,
;
resolution on confiscation act,
;
tenure-of-office bill in,
;
bill on reconstructed States,
;
action on dismissal of Stanton,
;
proceedings of impeachment against Johnson,
et seq.;
passes bill repealing Tenure-of-Office Act,
,
;
democrats secure control of,
,
;
jurisdiction over treaties,
,
.
See
[Congress of the United States]
;
[Statutes of the United States]
Houston, George S., elected governor of Alabama,
Howard, Jacob M., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
illness delays vote on impeachment,
Howe, Samuel G., commissioner to Santo Domingo,
Hunt, Ward,
Hunton, Eppa, on electoral commission,
Illinois, ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
Davis elected Senator from,
Indiana, election of 1886 in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Iowa, election of 1866 in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
d'Itajubá, Baron, at Geneva arbitration,
,
Jenkins, Charles J., institutes suit against Stanton,
;
removed by Meade,
Johnson, Andrew, elected vice-president,
;
calls Tennessee convention,
;
proclamation of Feb. 25, 1865,
;
becomes president,
;
plan and acts as to reconstruction,
;
proclamation of May 29, 1865,
,
;
identity of his plan with Lincoln's,
;
proclaims federal law in force in Virginia,
;
proclamations as to civil government,
;
message of Dec., 1865,
;
relation to congressional views of reconstruction,
;
sends Grant and Schurz through the South,
;
veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill,
,
;
speech of Feb. 22, 1866,
;
veto of civil rights bill,
,
;
effect of it,
;
veto overridden,
;
as to fourteenth amendment,
;
message as to Tennessee,
;
veto of Freedmen's Bureau bill overridden,
;
relations with Stanton,
,
;
changes in cabinet,
;
relation to New Orleans riot,
,
;
endorsed by convention of 1866,
;
criticized by conventions of 1866,
,
;
takes part in campaign of 1866,
;
proclamation declaring war ended,
;
message of Dec., 1866,
,
;
vetoes bill as to negro suffrage in District of Columbia,
,
;
bill passed over his veto,
;
first attempt at impeachment,
;
vetoes resolution on confiscation act,
;
influence of Seward on,
;
vetoes reconstruction bill and tenure-of-office bill,
;
encroachment on his power,
;
veto of supplemental reconstruction bill,
,
;
orders under the statutes,
,
,
;
vetoes bill interpreting reconstruction acts,
,
;
distrust of Stanton,
;
veto overridden,
;
suspends Stanton,
,
;
Mississippi vs. Johnson,
,
;
supersedes Pope with Meade,
;
the attempt to impeach,
;
message on suspension of Stanton,
;
relations with Grant,
;
supersedes Stanton with Thomas,
,
;
Covode resolution,
;
action of House on impeachment,
et seq.;
vetoes overridden,
,
,
;
proclaims reconstruction completed,
;
conduct in campaign of 1868,
;
last annual message,
;
proclamation of Dec., 1868,
;
veto of colored school bill,
;
retirement,
,
;
relations with republicans,
;
policy compared with Grant's,
Johnson, James, appointed governor of Georgia,
Johnson, Reverdy, on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
report on reconstruction,
;
in convention of 1866,
;
offers bill on reconstruction,
;
negotiates treaty with Clarendon,
Joint Committee on Reconstruction,
,
;
recommendation on representation,
;
proposes bill,
;
its bill rejected,
;
final report of,
Joint High Commission,
Julian, George W., on impeachment committee,
;
joins liberal republicans,
Kansas ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Kellogg, Ensign H., on Halifax commission,
,
Kellogg, William P., in Louisiana politics,
;
certificate in 1876 election,
Kendall vs. United States (12 Peters 524),
Kentucky, reconstruction in,
,
;
in Lincoln's message,
;
in election of 1866,
;
votes for Seymour,
;
election of 1872 in,
Kenzie, Lewis M., in convention of 1866,
Kernan, Francis, in convention of 1868,
Koontz, William H., approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
Ku-Klux, the,
,
;
act of April, 1871,
,
;
trials,
Lawrence, William B., in convention of 1866,
Lewis, D. P., elected governor of Alabama,
Liberal Republicans, convention of 1872,
,
;
in campaign of 1872,
Lincoln, Abraham, views and acts as to reconstruction,
;
his proposed oath of allegiance,
;
attitude to the Pierpont government,
;
course toward Louisiana,
,
;
proclamation of July 8, 1864,
,
;
message of Dec. 6, 1864,
,
;
renominated,
;
re-elected,
;
message of Feb. 8, 1865,
;
views of powers of Congress,
;
attitude to Brownlow's administration,
;
nature of acts as to abolition,
;
signs resolution on thirteenth amendment,
;
assassinated,
;
his cabinet retained by Johnson,
;
identity of plan of reconstruction with Johnson's,
Lindsay, Robert B., course as governor of Alabama,
Logan, John A., on impeachment committee,
;
impeachment manager,
;
approves letter on Alta Vela claim,
Louisiana, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
Lincoln's acts toward,
;
presidential reconstruction in,
,
;
in Lincoln's message,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
,
;
attitude of Johnson to,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
contest for control of state government,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
disfranchisements in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
act on admission of members from,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
votes for Seymour,
;
corruption in,
;
contest for political control in,
;
contested electoral vote of 1876,
,
,
;
change of administration,
Louisville, Ky., democratic convention at,
Loyal League, the,
,
Luther vs. Borden, (7 Howard 1),
Lynch, John, in Louisiana politics,
Macdonald, John, on Joint High Commission,
McCardle, William H., case of,
,
McClellan, George B., nominated for presidency,
;
electoral votes,
McClernand, John A., in Cleveland convention,
McCrary, George W., suggests electoral commission,
McEnery, John, in Louisiana politics,
;
certificate in 1876 election,
Maine, election of 1866 in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Marvin, William, appointed governor of Florida,
Maryland, in Lincoln's message,
;
in election of 1866,
;
votes for Seymour,
;
election of 1872 in,
Massachusetts ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Matthews, Stanley, in convention of 1866,
;
joins liberal republicans,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Meade, George G., supersedes Pope,
;
report on Alabama election,
;
removes Jenkins,
;
proclamation of June, 1868,
,
Merrick, Richard T., counsel before electoral commission,
Michigan ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Miller, J. N. Y., Oregon elector of 1876,
Miller, Samuel F., on electoral commission,
Miller enters Senate from Georgia,
Minnesota ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Mississippi, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention in,
;
rejects thirteenth amendment,
;
law on vagrancy, etc.,
,
;
opinion of this legislation,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
Mississippi vs. Johnson,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
disfranchisements in,
;
constitution rejected in,
;
arrest of McCardle in,
;
martial law in,
;
no share in election of 1868,
;
ratification of constitution,
;
restored to federal relations,
;
negro rule in,
;
political conditions in 1875,
,
Mississippi vs. Johnson (4 Wallace 475),
,
,
Missouri, Reconstruction in,
,
;
in Lincoln's message,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
liberal republicans in,
;
election of 1872 in,
Monroe, John T., as mayor of New Orleans,
Montgomery, Ala., made head-quarters of third military district,
Moorhead, James K., approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
Morgan, Edwin D., vote on Freedmen's Bureau bill,
Morrill, Justin S., on joint committee on reconstruction,
Morse, Alexander P., counsel before electoral commission,
Morton, Oliver P., in convention of 1866,
;
in convention of 1876,
;
on electoral commission,
;
resolution on Santo Domingo,
Moses, F. J., connection with South Carolina corruption,
Moses, F. J., Jr., judge-elect of South Carolina,
Nashville, Tenn., convention at,
National Nominating Conventions, radical republican of 1864,
;
democratic of 1864,
;
republican of 1864,
;
of 1866,
;
republican of 1868,
;
democratic of 1868,
;
liberal republican of 1872,
,
;
democratic of 1872,
;
republican of 1868,
;
republican of 1876,
,
;
democratic of 1876,
Nebraska ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Nelson, Samuel, on Joint High Commission,
Nelson, Thomas A. R., counsel for Johnson,
Nevada ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
New Hampshire ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
New Jersey, ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
withdrawal of ratification,
,
,
;
votes for Seymour,
New Orleans, La., convention at,
;
riot at,
;
head-quarters of fifth military district,
New York, ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
votes for Seymour,
New York, N. Y., democratic convention of 1868 at,
New York
Tribune
prints protest of Wade and Davis,
Niblack, William E., motion in House,
Nicholls, Francis T., becomes governor of Louisiana,
North Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention in,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
act on admission of members from,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
recovery from negro rule,
Northcote, Stafford, on Joint High Commission,
Northwest Ordinance,
Norton, Daniel S., action on the Stevens resolution,
;
vote on impeachment,
O'Conor, Charles, nominated for presidency,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Odell, W. H., Oregon elector of 1876,
Ohio, election of 1866 in,
;
vote on negro suffrage in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
withdrawal of ratification,
,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Ord, Edward O. C., in fourth military district,
Oregon, ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
votes for Seymour,
;
contested electoral returns of 1876,
Packard, S. B., takes possession of Louisiana capitol,
;
retires from office of governor,
Palmer, Roundell, at Geneva arbitration,
Parker, John, Oregon elector of 1876,
Parsons, Lewis E., appointed governor of Alabama,
Paschal, George W., in convention of 1886,
Patterson, David T., vote on impeachment,
Payne, Henry B., on electoral commission,
Pendleton, George H., nominated for vice-presidency,
;
candidate for presidential nomination,
Pennsylvania, election of 1866 in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Perry, Benjamin F., appointed governor of South Carolina,
Philadelphia, Penn., conventions of 1866 at,
,
;
republican convention of 1872 at,
Phillips, Wendell, characterized by Johnson,
Pierpont, Francis H., attitude of Lincoln to,
;
supported by Johnson,
,
Pinchback, P. B. S., in Louisiana politics,
,
Pittsburg, Penn., soldier convention at,
Poland, Luke P., connection with Thomas case,
Pope, John, in third military district,
;
injunction sought against,
;
election orders,
;
recalled,
Preston, William, in convention of 1868,
Pulaski, Tenn., place of origin of Ku-Klux,
Randall, Alexander W., appointed postmaster-general,
;
accompanies Johnson to the West,
Rawlins, John A., becomes secretary of war,
Raymond, Henry J., views on reconstruction,
;
vote on fourteenth amendment,
;
in convention of 1866,
Reconstruction, theory of,
;
Lincoln's views and acts as to,
;
Seward's view of,
;
in Louisiana,
;
the Wade-Davis bill,
;
relation of party conventions to,
;
in Tennessee,
,
;
Johnson's plan as to,
;
in North Carolina,
;
in the several States,
,
;
views of House on,
;
attitude of republicans,
;
joint committee on,
;
views of Stevens,
;
views of Raymond and Shellabarger,
;
theory of Sumner,
;
reports of congressional committee,
;
as an issue in the campaign of 1866,
;
Johnson's defence of his policy as to,
;
bill in the House,
;
the Blaine amendment,
,
;
the Sherman bill,
;
the bill as finally passed,
;
vetoed by Johnson,
;
republican motives in,
;
supplemental bill on,
;
vetoed,
;
acts on, criticised,
,
;
application of acts on,
;
congressional interpretation of acts on,
;
bill interpreting the statutes on,
;
application of statutes on,
et seq.;
process of, declared completed,
;
attitude of Grant toward,
;
end of legislation on,
;
reconstruction characterized,
.
See
Republican party, schism threatened in,
;
attitude to reconstruction,
;
attitude to southern legislation,
,
;
feeling toward southern congressmen,
;
attitude to views of Stevens, Raymond and Shellabarger,
;
attitude to presidential reconstruction,
,
;
position on civil rights,
;
attitude to Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
attitude to Stanton,
,
;
in campaign of 1866,
,
;
convention of 1866,
;
in election of 1866,
;
views on reconstruction,
,
;
motives in Reconstruction,
;
interpretation of Johnson's message,
;
action in vote on impeachment,
;
effect of McCardle case on,
;
convention of 1868,
;
criticism of views of,
;
relations with Johnson,
;
control of Grant,
;
revolt in the party,
,
;
convention of 1872,
;
get control of Alabama legislature,
,
;
lose control in Congress,
;
financial policy,
;
convention of 1876,
,
;
campaign of 1876,
et seq.;
views as to powers of Congress,
Retribution
, the, case of,
Rhode Island ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Richmond, Va., made head-quarters of first military district,
;
convention at,
,
Robeson, George M., becomes secretary of the navy,
Rogers, Andrew J., on joint committee on reconstruction,
Rose, John, mission of,
Ross, Edmund G., vote on impeachment,
Rousseau, Lovell H., in Cleveland convention,
Russia, purchase of Alaska from,
Safford, M. J., in convention of 1866,
St. Louis, Mo., Johnson's speech at,
Samana Bay,
,
Santo Domingo, Sumner's position as to,
;
attempt to annex to United States,
Schaffner law, the,
Schell, Augustus, in convention of 1868,
Schenck, Robert C., in convention of 1866,
;
on Joint High Commission,
;
at London,
Schofield, John M., assigned to first military district,
,
;
nominated as secretary of war,
;
confirmed,
;
retained by Grant,
;
resigns,
Schriver, General, in Stanton-Thomas incident,
,
,
,
Schurz, Carl, report on conditions at the South,
;
in convention of 1866,
;
joins liberal republicans,
Sclopis, Frederic, at Geneva arbitration,
,
,
Scott, R. K., views of Ku-Klux, etc.,
Senate of the United States, refuses seats to members from Arkansas,
;
adopts thirteenth amendment,
;
the Stevens resolution,
,
,
;
passes Freedmen's Bureau bill,
;
passes civil rights bill,
,
;
effect of election of 1866,
;
passes reconstruction bill,
;
tenure-of-office bill in,
,
;
passes resolution on confiscation act,
;
bill on reconstructed States,
;
action on suspension of Stanton,
,
;
action on dismissal of Stanton,
;
acts as court of impeachment,
et seq.;
vote on impeachment,
,
;
confirms Schofield,
;
resolution on the amnesty proclamation,
,
;
confirms Grant's nominees,
;
admits members from Georgia,
;
currency bill in,
;
ratifies treaty with Russia,
;
rejects Johnson-Clarendon treaty,
;
rejects Dominican treaty,
,
.
See
[Congress of the United States]
;
[Statutes of the United States]
Seward, William H., views on reconstruction,
;
sends thirteenth amendment to states,
;
retained by Johnson,
;
calculation as to thirteenth amendment,
,
,
;
announces adoption of thirteenth amendment,
;
action on fourteenth amendment,
;
accompanies Johnson to the west,
;
influence on Johnson,
;
proclaims ratification of fourteenth amendment,
;
procedure as to the proclamation,
;
negotiates purchase of Alaska,
;
negotiates treaty with China,
;
instructions to Babcock,
Seymour, Horatio, nominated for presidency,
;
defeated,
Shaffer, J. W., secures letter on Alta Vela claims,
Sharkey, William L., appointed governor of Mississippi,
;
institutes suit against Johnson,
Shellabarger, Samuel, theory of reconstruction,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
;
opinion of purchase of Alaska,
Shenandoah
, the, case of,
,
Shepley, George F., military governor of Louisiana,
Sheridan, Philip H., New Orleans riot,
,
;
in fifth military district,
;
superseded by Hancock,
Sherman, John, offers bill on reconstruction,
;
father-in-law of Ewing,
;
reports currency bill,
Sickles, Daniel E., in second military district,
;
superseded by Canby,
Sinclair, John G., in convention of 1866,
Skinner, J. B. L., postmaster-general
ad interim
,
,
Slavery, adoption of the thirteenth amendment,
South Carolina, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
convention and election in,
;
law on vagrancy,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
character of convention in,
;
ratifies constitution,
,
;
act on admission of members from,
;
reconstruction declared complete,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
request of governor for troops,
;
proclamations of president as to,
,
;
corruption in,
;
conditions in 1874,
;
contested electoral returns of 1876,
,
;
change of administration,
Spaulding, J. R., joins liberal republicans,
Speed, James, resignation,
,
;
in convention of 1866,
,
Staempfli, Jacob, at Geneva arbitration,
,
,
Stanbery, Henry, appointed attorney-general,
;
in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson,
;
in case of Georgia vs. Stanton,
;
arrest of Thomas,
;
counsel for Johnson,
Stanley, Lord, secretary for foreign affairs,
Stanton, Edwin M., attitude to Johnson,
,
;
as to the New Orleans riot,
,
;
dissents from instructions on reconstruction,
;
distrusted by Johnson,
;
suspended,
,
,
;
case of Georgia vs. Stanton,
,
;
message on suspension of,
;
action of Senate as to,
,
;
superseded by Thomas,
;
removal discussed before Senate,
,
;
power to remove,
;
his violations of law,
;
abdication,
Statutes of the United States, of Aug. 7, 1789,
;
of May 8, 1792,
,
;
of Feb. 13, 1795,
,
,
;
of July 31, 1861,
;
of Feb. 20, 1863,
,
;
of Mar. 3, 1865,
,
,
,
;
of April 9, 1866,
;
of July 16, 1866,
;
of Feb. 5, 1873,
;
of Mar. 2, 1867 (on reconstruction),
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
of Mar. 2, 1867 (on tenure-of-office),
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
of Mar. 11, 1867,
;
of Mar. 23, 1867,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
;
of June 22, 1868,
;
of June 25, 1868,
,
,
;
of June 28, 1868,
;
of July 26, 1868,
;
of Mar. 18, 1869,
,
;
of April 10, 1869,
;
of Dec. 22, 1869,
;
of May 31, 1870,
,
;
of July 14, 1870,
,
;
of July 15, 1870,
;
of Jan. 20, 1871,
;
of Feb. 28, 1871,
;
of April 20, 1871,
,
,
;
of May 22, 1872,
;
of Jan. 14, 1875,
,
Stearns, M. L., retires as governor of Florida,
Stephens, Alexander H., seeks seat in Congress,
Stevens, Thaddeus, proposes substitute thirteenth amendment,
;
resolution on representation,
,
;
view of Mississippi legislation,
;
on committee on reconstruction,
;
views of reconstruction,
;
characterized by Johnson,
;
view as to effect of secession,
;
introduces bill on reconstruction,
;
refuses to accept the Blaine amendment,
,
;
on impeachment committee,
;
impeachment manager,
;
approves letter on Alta Vela claims,
;
views on purchase of Alaska,
Stewart, Alexander T., nominated for secretary of treasury,
;
declines,
Stockton, John P., in convention of 1866,
Stoeckl, Baron, negotiates treaty for sale of Alaska,
Stone, John M., elected governor of Mississippi,
Stoughton, E. W., counsel before electoral commission,
Strong, William, on electoral commission,
Sumner, Charles, theory of reconstruction,
,
;
characterized by Johnson,
;
joins liberal republicans,
;
relations with Grant,
,
Supreme Court of the United States, relation of dicta to reconstruction,
;
decisions,
,
,
,
Swayne, Noah H.,
Tennessee, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
in Lincoln's message,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
,
;
Reconstruction in,
,
;
civil government established in,
;
ratifies thirteenth amendment,
;
attitude of Johnson to,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Tenterden, Lord, at Geneva arbitration,
Tenure-of-Office Bill, the, introduced,
,
;
contents,
,
;
vetoed,
;
case of Stanton,
et seq.
See
Terry, Alfred H., modifies Virginia vagrant act,
,
;
resumes military control in Georgia,
Texas, in Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
war declared ended in,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
martial law in,
;
no share in election of 1868,
;
restored to federal relations,
,
;
escape from negro rule,
;
election of 1872 in,
;
change in character of government,
Thomas, George H., in third military district,
;
transferred,
Thomas, Lorenzo, appointed to supersede Stanton,
;
his position discussed before Senate,
,
;
law as to appointment of,
Thornton, Edward, negotiations at Washington,
,
Thurman, Allen G., on electoral commission,
Tilden, Samuel J., in convention of 1866,
;
in convention of 1868,
;
nominated for presidency,
;
the campaign,
et seq.
Townsend, E. D., orders from Stanton,
;
in temporary charge of war department,
Trumbull, Lyman, reports thirteenth amendment,
;
in convention of 1866,
;
opinion on impeachment,
;
view of the Stanton case,
;
vote on impeachment,
;
proposal as to Tenure-of-Office Act,
;
joins liberal republicans,
;
candidate for presidential nomination,
;
counsel before electoral commission,
Twenty-second joint rule of Congress,
,
Union Leagues, formation of,
,
Vallandigham, Clement L., in convention of 1866,
Van Winkle, Peter G., view of the Stanton case,
;
vote on impeachment,
Vermont, election of 1866 in,
;
ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
;
election of 1872 in,
Vicksburg, Miss., made head-quarters of fourth military district,
Virginia, reconstruction in,
;
omission from Lincoln's proclamation,
;
electoral vote of 1864 rejected,
;
reconstruction in,
;
vote on thirteenth amendment,
;
in the reconstruction bill,
,
;
registration in,
;
election in,
;
disfranchisements in,
;
martial law in,
;
no share in election of 1868,
;
question in Congress as to representation,
;
partition of,
;
the vagrant act,
,
;
a military district,
,
;
restored to federal relations,
;
escape from negro rule,
,
Wade, Benjamin F., bill on reconstruction,
;
protest against Lincoln's proclamation,
;
opinion of Johnson,
;
commissioner to Santo Domingo,
Waite, Morrison R.,
;
at Geneva arbitration,
Walker, Robert J., in case of Mississippi vs. Johnson,
War Department, Freedmen's Bureau organized in,
Ward, Hamilton, on impeachment committee,
Warmoth, Henry C., connection with Louisiana corruption,
;
contest for control in Louisiana,
Washburne, Elihu B., on joint committee on reconstruction,
;
becomes secretary of state,
;
resigns,
Washington, treaty of,
,
,
Watts, John W., Oregon elector in 1876,
,
Welles, Gideon, accompanies Johnson to the west,
Wells, David A., joins liberal republicans,
Wells, J. Madison, in contest for control of Louisiana,
Welsh pays Halifax award,
West Virginia ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Wharton, John, in Louisiana politics,
,
Wheeler, William A., nominated for vice-presidency,
;
election formally declared,
Wheeling, W. Va., government at,
Whipper, W. J., judge-elect of South Carolina,
Whiskey ring,
White, Andrew D., commissioner to Santo Domingo,
White, Horace, joins liberal republicans,
White vs. Clements,
Whitney, William C., counsel before electoral commission,
William I., Emperor, award as to northwest boundary,
Williams, George H., offers bill on reconstruction,
;
introduces tenure-of-office bill,
;
impeachment manager,
;
motions,
;
on Joint High Commission,
Wilson, Henry, theory of reconstruction,
;
on impeachment committee,
;
impeachment manager,
;
elected vice-president,
Windom, William, introduces thirteenth amendment in House,
Winthrop, Robert C., in convention of 1866,
Wisconsin ratifies fourteenth amendment,
,
Wood, Fernando, in convention of 1866,
Wool, John E., in Cleveland convention,
THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES
Seven volumes, 12mo, with maps and plans.
Price per volume, $1.00, net.
THE COLONIAL ERA.—By Rev. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale University.
THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION.—By WILLIAM M. SLOANE, Ph.D., Professor of History in Columbia University.
THE MAKING OF THE NATION.—By General FRANCIS A. WALKER, LL.D., late President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
THE MIDDLE PERIOD.—By JOHN W. BURGESS. Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.
THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University. 2 vols.
RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By JOHN W. BURGESS, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.