diff options
Diffstat (limited to '35559-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 35559-h/35559-h.htm | 4665 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35559-h/images/printer.jpg | bin | 0 -> 15106 bytes |
2 files changed, 4665 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/35559-h/35559-h.htm b/35559-h/35559-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7bcb7cb --- /dev/null +++ b/35559-h/35559-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4665 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Edwin C. Woolley. + </title> + + <style type="text/css"> + + p {margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .75em;} + + body {margin-left: 12%; margin-right: 12%;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right; font-style: normal;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; clear: both;} + + hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + .br {border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .blr {border-left: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bbr {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .btr {border-top: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .btrl {border-top: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; border-left: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bbrl {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; border-left: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bbtr {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bbtrl {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-top: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; border-left: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + + .huge {font-size: 150%} + .big {font-size: 125%} + + .blockquot {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .note {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + .dent {margin-left: 2%;} + + .right {text-align: right;} + .center {text-align: center;} + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .spacer {padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;} + .spacer2 {padding-left: 5em; padding-right: 5em;} + .spacer3 {padding-left: 1.5em; padding-right: 1.5em;} + + ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin solid gray;} + + .verts {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + + .hang {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;} + + .fnanchor {font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + a:link {color:#0000ff; text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#6633cc; text-decoration:none} + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +Project Gutenberg's The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Edwin C. Woolley + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Reconstruction of Georgia + Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1901 + +Author: Edwin C. Woolley + +Release Date: March 12, 2011 [EBook #35559] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA *** + + + + +Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + +<p class="center"><span class="big">3</span></p> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA</span></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center">STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW</p> +<p class="center"><small>EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF<br />COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY</small></p> +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Volume XIII</span>]<span class="spacer2"> </span>[<span class="smcap">Number 3</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE</span><br /><br /><span class="huge">RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">BY<br /><span class="big">EDWIN C. WOOLLEY, Ph.D.</span></p> +<p> </p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/printer.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">New York<br />THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS<br />THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, AGENTS<br /> +<span class="smcap">London: P. S. King & Son</span><br />1901</p> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<h2>TABLE OF CONTENTS</h2> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td> </td><td align="right"><small>PAGE</small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Presidential Reconstruction</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">The Johnson Government</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Congress and the Johnson Governments—The Reconstruction Acts of 1867</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">The Administrations of Pope and Meade</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">The Supposed Restoration of 1868</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_49">49</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">The Expulsion of the Negroes from the Legislature and the Uses to which this Event was applied</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Congressional Action Regarding Georgia from December, 1868, to December, 1869</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span><small><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">The Execution of the Act of December 22, 1869, and the Final Restoration</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Reconstruction and the State Government</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><small><a href="#CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X</a></small></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Conclusion</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_109">109</a></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Bibliography</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td></tr></table> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p> +<h2>LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS</h2> + +<div class="note"> +<p>A. A. C. = American Annual Cyclopaedia.</p> + +<p>B. A. = Address of Bullock to the people of Georgia, a pamphlet dated 1872.</p> + +<p>B. L. = Letter from Bullock to the chairman of the Ku Klux Committee, published in Atlanta in 1871.</p> + +<p>C. G. = Congressional Globe.</p> + +<p>C. R. = Report of the State Comptroller.</p> + +<p>E. D. = United States Executive Documents.</p> + +<p>E. M. = Executive Minutes (of Georgia).</p> + +<p>G. O. D. S. = General Orders issued in the Department of the South.</p> + +<p>G. O. H. = General Orders issued from the headquarters of the army.</p> + +<p>G. O. M. D. G. = General Orders issued in the Military District of Georgia.</p> + +<p>G. O. T. M. D. = General Orders issued in the Third Military District.</p> + +<p>H. J. = Journal of the Georgia House of Representatives.</p> + +<p>H. M. D. = United States House Miscellaneous Documents.</p> + +<p>J. C., 1865 = Journal of the Georgia Constitutional Convention of 1865.</p> + +<p>J. C., 1867-8 = Journal of the Georgia Constitutional Convention of 1867-8.</p> + +<p>K. K. R. = Ku Klux Report (Report of the Joint Committee of Congress on +the Conditions in the Late Insurrectionary States, submitted at the 2d +session of the 42d Congress, 1872).</p> + +<p>M. C. U. = Milledgeville <i>Confederate Union</i>.</p> + +<p>M. F. U. = Milledgeville <i>Federal Union</i>.</p> + +<p>R. C. = Reports of Committees of the United States House of Representatives.</p> + +<p>R. S. W. = Report of the Secretary of War.</p> + +<p>S. D. = United States Senate Documents.</p> + +<p>S. J. = Journal of the Georgia Senate.</p> + +<p>S. L. = Session Laws of Georgia.</p> + +<p>S. R. = United States Senate Reports.</p> + +<p>S. O. M. D. G. = Special Orders issued in the Military District of Georgia.</p> + +<p>S. O. T. M. D. = Special Orders issued in the Third Military District.</p> + +<p>U. S. L. = United States Statutes at Large.</p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION</span></p> + +<p>The question, what political disposition should be made of the Confederate +States after the destruction of their military power, began to be +prominent in public discussion in December, 1863. It was then that +President Lincoln announced his policy upon the subject, which was to +restore each state to its former position in the Union as soon as +one-tenth of its population had taken the oath of allegiance prescribed in +his amnesty proclamation and had organized a state government pledged to +abolish slavery. This policy Lincoln applied to those states which were +subdued by the federal forces during his administration, viz., Tennessee, +Arkansas and Louisiana. When the remaining states of the Confederacy +surrendered in 1865, President Johnson applied the same policy, with some +modifications, to each of them (except Virginia, where he simply +recognized the Pierpont government).</p> + +<p>Before this policy was put into operation, however, an effort was made by +some of the leaders of the Confederacy to secure the restoration of those +states to the Union without the reconstruction and the pledge required by +the President. After the surrender of Lee’s army (April 9, 1865), General +J. E. Johnston, acting under the authority of Jefferson Davis and with the +advice of Breckenridge, the Confederate Secretary of War, and Reagan, the +Confederate Postmaster General, proposed to General Sherman the surrender +of all the Confederate armies then in existence on certain <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span>conditions. +Among these was the condition that the executive of the United States +should recognize the lately hostile state governments upon the renewal by +their officers of their oath of allegiance to the federal Constitution, +and that the people of the states so recognized should be guaranteed, so +far as this lay in the power of the executive, their political rights as +defined by the federal Constitution. Sherman signed a convention with +Johnston agreeing to these terms, on April 18. That he intended by the +agreement to commit the federal government to any permanent policy is +doubtful. But when the convention was communicated for ratification to his +superiors at headquarters, they showed the most decided opposition to +granting the terms proposed even temporarily. The convention was +emphatically disavowed, and on April 26 Sherman had to content himself +with the surrender of Johnston’s army only, agreed to on purely military +terms.<a name="fna1_1" id="fna1_1"></a><a href="#f1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> + +<p>Georgia formed a part of the district under the command of General +Johnston. As soon, therefore, as the news of the surrender could reach +that state, hostilities there ceased. On May 3, Governor Brown issued a +summons for a meeting of the state legislature to take place on May 22, in +order that measures might be taken “to prevent anarchy, restore and +preserve order, and save what [could be saved] of liberty and +civilization.”<a name="fna2_2" id="fna2_2"></a><a href="#f2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> At a time of general consternation, when military +operations had displaced local government and closed the courts in many +places, when the whole population was in want<a name="fna3_3" id="fna3_3"></a><a href="#f3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> through the devastation +of the war or through the collapse of the Confederate currency which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> +followed the collapse of the Confederate army,<a name="fna4_4" id="fna4_4"></a><a href="#f4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> the need of such +measures was apparent.</p> + +<p>The calling of the legislature incurred the disapproval of the federal +authorities for two reasons. First, they regarded it as an attempt to +prepare for further hostilities, and they accordingly arrested Brown, +carried him to Washington, and put him in prison.<a name="fna5_5" id="fna5_5"></a><a href="#f5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> Second, in any case, +as the disavowal of the convention of April 18 had shown, they did not +intend to allow the state governments of the South to resume their regular +activities at once, and accordingly the commander of the Department of the +South issued orders on May 15, declaring void the proclamation of Joseph +E. Brown, “styling himself Governor of Georgia,” and forbidding obedience +thereto.<a name="fna6_6" id="fna6_6"></a><a href="#f6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> + +<p>The federal army now took control of the entire state government. +Detachments were stationed in all the principal towns and county seats, +and the commanders sometimes removed the civil officers and appointed +others, sometimes allowed them to remain, subject to their direction. +Military orders were issued regarding a wide range of civil affairs, such +as school administration, sanitary provisions, the regulation of trade, +the fixing of prices at which commodities should be sold, etc.<a name="fna7_7" id="fna7_7"></a><a href="#f7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> The +provost marshal’s courts were <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span>further useful, to some extent, as +substitutes for the state courts, whose operations were largely +interrupted.<a name="fna8_8" id="fna8_8"></a><a href="#f8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> Directions to the officers of the Department admonished +them that “the military authority should sustain, not assume the functions +of, civil authority,” except when the latter course was necessary to +preserve the peace.<a name="fna9_9" id="fna9_9"></a><a href="#f9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> This admonition from headquarters, issued after the +President’s plan for reinstating Georgia in the Union had been put into +operation, reflects his desire for a quick restoration of normal +government.</p> + +<p>President Johnson announced his policy toward the seceded states in his +proclamation of May 29, 1865, regarding North Carolina. By it a +provisional governor was appointed for that state, with the duty of making +the necessary arrangements for the meeting of a <ins class="correction" title="original: consitutional">constitutional</ins> convention, +to be composed of and elected by men who had taken the oath of allegiance +prescribed by, the President’s amnesty proclamation of the same date, and +who were qualified voters according to the laws of the state in force +before the war. The proclamation did not state what the President would +require of the <ins class="correction" title="original: conventton">convention</ins>, but we may mention by way of anticipation that +his requirements were the revocation of the ordinance of secession, the +construction of a new state government in place of the rebel government, +the <ins class="correction" title="original: repudiaation">repudiation</ins> of the rebel debt, and the abolition of slavery within the +state. The provisional governor was further authorized to do whatever was +“necessary and proper to enable [the] loyal people of the state of North +Carolina to restore said state to its constitutional relations to the +federal government.”<a name="fna10_10" id="fna10_10"></a><a href="#f10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>For each of the states subdued in 1865, except Virginia, a provisional +governor was appointed by a similar proclamation. On June 17, James +Johnson, a citizen of Georgia, was appointed to the position in that +state.<a name="fna11_11" id="fna11_11"></a><a href="#f11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> On July 13th, he issued a proclamation providing for the +election of the convention. Delegates were distributed on the basis of the +legislature of 1860; the first Wednesday in October was set for the +election, and the fourth Wednesday in the same month for the meeting of +the convention.<a name="fna12_12" id="fna12_12"></a><a href="#f12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> Next, the provisional governor undertook the task of +securing popular support to the programme of restoration. To encourage +subscription to the amnesty oath (a prerequisite to voting for delegates +to the convention) he removed the disagreeable necessity of taking it +before the military authorities by directing the ordinary and the clerk of +the Superior Court of each county to administer it.<a name="fna13_13" id="fna13_13"></a><a href="#f13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> He made many +speeches throughout the state urging the citizens to take the amnesty +oath, to enter earnestly into the election of the convention, and to +submit quietly to the conditions imposed by the President.</p> + +<p>His efforts were very successful. This was partly due to the place he held +in public estimation. He was a lawyer widely known and universally +respected. It was also partly due to the attitude of Governor Brown. +Brown, after a confinement of several weeks in prison at Washington, +secured an interview with President Johnson, and satisfied the President +that his object in calling the legislature was simply public relief, that +he had no intention to prolong the war, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> calmly submitted to the fact +that his side was defeated.<a name="fna14_14" id="fna14_14"></a><a href="#f14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> This explanation and the spirit displayed +were so satisfactory to Johnson that Brown was released, and permitted to +return to Georgia. His return, remarked Johnson, “can be turned to good +account. He will at once go to work and do all he can in restoring the +state.”<a name="fna15_15" id="fna15_15"></a><a href="#f15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> This prediction proved correct. The war governor of Georgia +became the type of those Secessionists who practised and counseled quiet +acceptance of the terms imposed by the conqueror, as the most sensible and +advantageous course. On June 29th he issued an address to the people of +Georgia, resigning the governorship, and advising acquiescence in the +abolition of slavery and active participation in the reorganization of the +state government according to the President’s wishes.<a name="fna16_16" id="fna16_16"></a><a href="#f16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> The assumption +of this attitude by Brown grieved and offended some of his fellow +Secessionists. But the majority shared his opinion. The provisional +governor was welcomed, <ins class="correction" title="original: and and">and</ins> his speeches approved on all sides.<a name="fna17_17" id="fna17_17"></a><a href="#f17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> The +result was that the convention which met on October 25th was a body +distinguished for the reputation and ability of its members.</p> + +<p>The convention was called to order by the provisional governor, and chose +as permanent chairman Herschel V. Johnson.<a name="fna18_18" id="fna18_18"></a><a href="#f18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> Then a message from the +provisional governor was read, suggesting certain measures of finance and +other state business requiring immediate action, suggesting also certain +alterations in the state judiciary, but especially pointing out the chief +objects of the convention, viz., the passage of those acts requisite for +the restoration of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> +state.<a name="fna19_19" id="fna19_19"></a><a href="#f19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> These measures the convention quickly +proceeded to pass. On October 26th it repealed the ordinance of secession +and the ordinance ratifying the Confederate constitution;<a name="fna20_20" id="fna20_20"></a><a href="#f20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> by paragraph +20 of article I. of the new constitution it abolished slavery in the +state; and on November 8th, the last day of the session, it declared the +state debt contracted to aid the Confederacy void.<a name="fna21_21" id="fna21_21"></a><a href="#f21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> The convention +provided for a general state election on the following November 15th, and +to expedite complete restoration, anticipated the regular work of the +legislature by creating congressional districts, in order that Georgia’s +representatives might be chosen at that election.<a name="fna22_22" id="fna22_22"></a><a href="#f22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p> + +<p>One thing now remained to be done before the President would withdraw +federal power and leave the state to its own government, viz., +ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The legislature elected on +November 15th assembled on December 4th.<a name="fna23_23" id="fna23_23"></a><a href="#f23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> The provisional governor, +according to the President’s directions,<a name="fna24_24" id="fna24_24"></a><a href="#f24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> laid the Thirteenth Amendment +before it. The Amendment was ratified on December 9th.<a name="fna25_25" id="fna25_25"></a><a href="#f25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> After this the +provisional governor was relieved, the governor elect was inaugurated +(December 14th), and the President sent a courteous message of recognition +to the latter.<a name="fna26_26" id="fna26_26"></a><a href="#f26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> + +<p>Thus the President, having reconstructed the state government, had +restored Georgia to statehood so far as its internal government was +concerned. There remained only the admission of its representatives to +Congress to complete the restoration.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE JOHNSON GOVERNMENT</span></p> + +<p>From the conduct of the state governments formed in Georgia and the other +southern states under the direction of President Johnson, the public +opinion of the North drew conclusions regarding three things; the +disposition of the people represented by those governments toward the +emancipated slaves, their attitude toward the cause for which they had +fought, and their feeling toward the power which had subdued them. This +chapter treats the Johnson government of Georgia from the same points of +view.</p> + +<p>Whatever may have been the prevailing disposition of the white people +toward the slaves while slavery flourished, shortly before the close of +the war that disposition was characterized by benevolence and gratitude. +In spite of the opportunities of escape, and of plunder and other +violence, offered by the times, the slaves had acted with singular +faithfulness and devotion.<a name="fna27_27" id="fna27_27"></a><a href="#f27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> The gratitude of their masters even went so +far as to propose plans for the general education of the negroes.<a name="fna28_28" id="fna28_28"></a><a href="#f28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> + +<p>The close of the war and the advent of emancipation produced a change in +the conduct of the negroes, which in time produced a change in the +attitude of the white people. The negroes, from the talk which they heard +and did not understand, and from their ignorant imaginations, conceived +strange ideas of emancipation. They supposed it meant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> governmental +bounty, idleness, and wealth. They abandoned their work, wandered about +the country, collected in towns—in short, manifested a general +restlessness and demoralization. This caused alarm and apprehension among +the white people. There were other causes of friction between the two +races. Many negroes, on discovering that they were free, assumed what are +known as “airs;” and then as now, among things intolerable to a southern +white man a “sassy nigger” held a curious pre-eminence. The airs of the +negro and the wrath of the white man were both augmented by officious +members of the Freedmen’s Bureau. Moreover, because the negroes had gained +by the humiliation of the South, they received a share of the venom of +defeat. Another element of discord was furnished by a particular part of +the white population, the so-called poor whites. These saw in the new +<i>protégés</i> of the United States not only a rival laboring class, but a +menace to their social position, and hence assumed an attitude of jealousy +and hatred. Such were the conditions favorable to social disturbance which +followed emancipation. In the latter part of 1865 they had already begun +to produce their natural result. Violent encounters between negroes and +white men (in which the latter were almost always the aggressors) were +noticeably frequent.<a name="fna29_29" id="fna29_29"></a><a href="#f29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> + +<p>To this social demoralization was added economic distress and perplexity. +The devastation of the war had fallen with especial severity upon Georgia. +Worse still, the people seemed unable to repair the damage or to return to +productive activity. Planters seemed unable to adapt themselves to the new +economic conditions. Slavery, the system which they understood, was gone; +they used the new system with little success, all the less because of the +restlessness of the negroes.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span>Such were the conditions and dangers with which the Johnson government had +to deal as it best could. It was believed by northern statesmen that the +situation would be mastered by enfranchising the negroes and investing +them with a citizenship exactly equal to that of white persons.<a name="fna30_30" id="fna30_30"></a><a href="#f30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> The +Georgia constitution of 1865 made it clear that the Georgia law-makers +were not disciples of that school. That constitution confined the +electoral franchise to “free white male citizens.”<a name="fna31_31" id="fna31_31"></a><a href="#f31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> It ordered the +legislature at its first session “to provide by law for the government of +free persons of color,” for “guarding them and the state against any evil +that may arise from their sudden emancipation,” and “for the regulation of +their transactions with citizens;” also “to create county courts with +jurisdiction in criminal cases excepted from the exclusive jurisdiction of +the Superior [county] Court, and in civil cases whereto free persons of +color may be parties,” and to make rules “prescribing in what cases their +testimony shall be admitted in the courts.”<a name="fna32_32" id="fna32_32"></a><a href="#f32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> + +<p>The legislation enacted in 1866 in the interest of the public peace and +order consisted of—</p> + +<p>1. An apprentice law. By this it was made the duty of the judges of the +county courts to bind out minors whose parents were dead or unable to +support them as apprentices until the age of twenty-one. A master +receiving an apprentice under this law was to teach him a trade, furnish +him food, clothes, and medicine, teach him habits of industry, honesty, +and morality, teach him to read the English language, and govern him with +humanity. On default of any of these requirements a master was to be +fined. The judge having charge of this law might, on application from an +apprentice or an apprentice’s friend, dissolve the contract<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> on account of +cruelty on the part of the master. An apprentice at the end of his term +was entitled to an allowance from the master “with which to begin life.” +The amount was left to the master’s generosity, but if he offered less +than $100 the apprentice might complain to the court, which should then +fix the amount.<a name="fna33_33" id="fna33_33"></a><a href="#f33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p> + +<p>2. A vagrancy law. Vagrancy was defined in the usual language of our +criminal codes. The penalty was heavier than these usually provide, +because the need of suppressing the vice was more urgent than usual. A +vagrant might be fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the court, or +sentenced to labor on the public works for not more than one year; or he +might, at the discretion of the court “be bound out to some person for a +time not more than one year, upon such valuable consideration as the court +may prescribe.”<a name="fna34_34" id="fna34_34"></a><a href="#f34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p> + +<p>3. Alterations in the penal laws. These alterations were of two +contrasting kinds. The penalty for burglary in the night, arson, horse +stealing and rape was changed from long imprisonment<a name="fna35_35" id="fna35_35"></a><a href="#f35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> +to death,<a name="fna36_36" id="fna36_36"></a><a href="#f36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> +which, however, might be in every case commuted to life imprisonment.<a name="fna37_37" id="fna37_37"></a><a href="#f37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> +On the other hand, several hundred crimes, including all the species of +larceny except that mentioned above, were reduced from felonies to +misdemeanors, and the penalties from imprisonment in the penitentiary to +fine, imprisonment in the county jail, or whipping, at the discretion of +the court.<a name="fna38_38" id="fna38_38"></a><a href="#f38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> This mitigation of punishment was made in consideration of +the negroes’ ignorance of the nature of their offences, due to the fact +that these had before been punished by their masters and not by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> the law. +Probably the capacity of the penitentiary was also considered.</p> + +<p>To facilitate the transition from the old labor system to the new by +remedying in some degree the instability of the labor supply, the +legislature made it a crime to employ any servant during the term for +which he had contracted to work for another, or to induce a servant to +quit the service of an employer before the close of the period contracted +for.<a name="fna39_39" id="fna39_39"></a><a href="#f39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> + +<p>Regarding the civil rights and relations of the negroes the following +legislation was passed:</p> + +<p>1. A law in these words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>That persons of color shall have the right to make and enforce +contracts; to sue, be sued; to be parties and give evidence; to +inherit; to purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal +property; and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and +proceedings for the security of person and estate; and shall not be +subject to any other or different punishment, pain or penalty for the +commission of any act or offence than such as are prescribed for +white persons committing like acts or offences.<a name="fna40_40" id="fna40_40"></a><a href="#f40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p></div> + +<p>2. A provision, implied in the law above quoted, that negroes were to be +held competent witnesses in all courts in cases, civil or criminal, +whereto persons of color should be parties.<a name="fna41_41" id="fna41_41"></a><a href="#f41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> + +<p>3. Certain provisions for establishing among the negroes the regular +relations between husband and wife, parent and child, in place of the +irregular relations which had prevailed under slavery.<a name="fna42_42" id="fna42_42"></a><a href="#f42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a></p> + +<p>4. The prohibition of marriage between negroes and white persons.<a name="fna43_43" id="fna43_43"></a><a href="#f43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p> + +<p>This last provision, and also the exclusion of the testimony of negroes +from cases whereto a colored person was not party, are of social rather +than legal importance, since their effect was to separate the two races, +but not to deprive the negroes of the equal protection and benefit of the +law. They<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> were like the school law, which provided that only “free white +inhabitants of the state” were entitled to instruction in the public +schools.<a name="fna44_44" id="fna44_44"></a><a href="#f44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a></p> + +<p>The Johnson government thus assigned to the negroes a position of +political incapacity, social inferiority, but equality of civil rights. +This plan was very remote from that in favor in the North, but it is not +thereby condemned. As to the measures of the Johnson government for +remedying industrial distress and guarding against social dangers, we +search them in vain for the inhuman harshness to the negroes which they +were reputed to embody. This legislation of Georgia was more favorable to +the negroes than that of the other Johnson governments. But the North +looked at the conquered South as a whole, and if the difference of the +laws of Georgia from those of other states was noticed, it was quickly +forgotten. To northern public opinion the scheme for the treatment of the +negroes embodied in the Georgia laws, even if its mildness had been +recognized, would have been a cause of indignation. This was the +consummate hour of a humanitarian enthusiasm sprung from forty years of +anti-slavery agitation, and now intensified by the passions of the war. In +such an hour a plan which frankly denied to the negroes political and +social equality was looked upon as an offence against justice and +humanity. The Georgia law-makers had sought for a plan to meet immediate +necessities, not a plan for the elevation of the black race. To demand +that Georgia, stricken and menaced as she was, should pass by the needs of +the present and enter upon a vague scheme of philanthropy, was +unreasonable. It was just as unreasonable to conclude from the course +which Georgia took, that the black race in Georgia would be forever held +down, or that positive encouragement would be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> withheld as time went on. +Nevertheless the public opinion of the North made this demand and drew +these conclusions.</p> + +<p>Having stated the attitude of the Johnson government to the emancipated +slave, we next come to its <ins class="correction" title="original: attitnde">attitude</ins> toward the fallen Confederacy and +toward the federal government. And with reference to this subject the +following facts are to be noticed:</p> + +<p>1. Almost the first act of the constitutional convention was to vote a +memorial to the President in behalf of Jefferson Davis.<a name="fna45_45" id="fna45_45"></a><a href="#f45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p> + +<p>2. The convention, instead of declaring that the ordinance of secession +was an act of illegality and error, and was null and void, laconically +declared it “repealed.”<a name="fna46_46" id="fna46_46"></a><a href="#f46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p> + +<p>3. The convention anticipated the function of the legislature in order to +provide pensions for the wounded Confederate soldiers and for widows of +the dead.<a name="fna47_47" id="fna47_47"></a><a href="#f47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p> + +<p>Through the legislature Georgia showed herself equally frank in expressing +affection and regret for the lost cause, and equally wanting in an +attitude of humility to the federal government—or at least to the +dominant party in Congress. On the recommendation of the governor she +rejected the Fourteenth Amendment by an almost unanimous vote, largely +because of the disabilities it imposed on the leaders of the +Confederacy.<a name="fna48_48" id="fna48_48"></a><a href="#f48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> Instead of remaining a humbly silent spectator of the +controversy between the President and Congress, she boldly thanked the +President for his “regard for the constitutional rights of states,” and +for “the determined will that says to a still hostile faction of her +recent foes, ‘Thus far shalt thou go and no farther. Peace, be +still.’”<a name="fna49_49" id="fna49_49"></a><a href="#f49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>She continued to provide for the unfortunate champions of +the Confederacy, characterizing this action as “a holy and patriotic +duty.”<a name="fna50_50" id="fna50_50"></a><a href="#f50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> She extended expressions of “sincerest condolence and warmest +sympathy” to the illustrious state prisoner, Jefferson Davis, declaring +that her “warmest affections cluster[ed] around the fallen chief of a once +dear but now abandoned cause.”<a name="fna51_51" id="fna51_51"></a><a href="#f51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p> + +<p>These acts and resolutions expressed through the government the spirit +which was found among the people by direct observers—a spirit of +submission to irresistible force, in some cases sullen, in most cases +unrepentant.<a name="fna52_52" id="fna52_52"></a><a href="#f52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> At that time the absence of that spirit would have been +extraordinary. But the public opinion of the North regarded it not as the +aftermath of war, which would soon pass, but as a spirit which, if left +undisciplined, would break out in another war.</p> + +<p>This belief, and the belief that the negroes were destined by the southern +governments to suffer injustice and debasement, and that the ballot was +their only salvation, gave rise to two corresponding purposes—to chasten +the rebellious spirit of the South, and to invest the negroes with the +voting franchise by force. To destroy the state governments of the South +and rebuild them on a basis of negro suffrage would accomplish both these +purposes. This plan was also supported for the sake of a third purpose, +viz., to secure for the Republican party the votes of the negroes. There +were thus three classes of men bent on abolishing the Johnson government. +We may call them the Disciplinarians, the Humanitarians, and the +Republican Politicians.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">CONGRESSIONAL DELIBERATIONS AND ACTIONS CONCERNING THE JOHNSON<br /> +GOVERNMENTS, ENDING IN THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS OF 1867</span></p> + +<p>When Congress met on December 4, 1865, President Johnson informed it of +the measures he had taken for restoring the southern states and of the +conditions he had required as necessary to restoration. He emphasized the +requirement that the Thirteenth Amendment be ratified (which, as stated in +Chapter I, was complied with in Georgia five days later).</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>It is not too much to ask [he said], in the name of the whole people, +that, on the one side, the plan of restoration shall proceed in +conformity with a willingness to cast the disorders of the past into +oblivion; and that, on the other, the evidence of sincerity in the +future maintenance of the Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the +ratification of the proposed amendment.... The amendment to the +Constitution being adopted, it would remain for the states ... to +resume their places in the two branches of the national +legislature.<a name="fna53_53" id="fna53_53"></a><a href="#f53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a></p></div> + +<p>That Congress was not entirely pleased with the President’s course; that +it did not agree with him considering the adoption of the Thirteenth +Amendment, the most that could be asked of the southern states, and that +it did not intend to give effect to his last suggestion, soon became +apparent. In the Senate, on the day on which the President’s message was +read, Sumner offered resolutions to the effect that before the southern +states should be admitted to representation in Congress they must +enfranchise “all citizens,” establish systems of education open to negroes +equally<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> with white people, and choose loyal persons for state and +national offices.<a name="fna54_54" id="fna54_54"></a><a href="#f54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> The resolutions concluded: “That the states cannot +be precipitated back to political power and independence, but they must +wait until these conditions are in all respects fulfilled.”<a name="fna55_55" id="fna55_55"></a><a href="#f55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a></p> + +<p>The House of Representatives, after organizing, immediately proposed to +the Senate a joint committee to “inquire into the condition of the states +which formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report +whether they, or any of them, are entitled to be represented in either +house of Congress.” The Senate accepted the proposal, and on December 13 +the committee was formed.<a name="fna56_56" id="fna56_56"></a><a href="#f56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p> + +<p>Five months passed before the committee reported. During that interval +Congress took no action determining the question at issue. A vast number +of bills and resolutions was introduced proposing various modes of +treatment for the southern states and various theories regarding their +status, which are interesting to the historian, but all of which fell by +the way. The Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, if it had become law during this +period, would have implied that in the opinion of Congress the late +Confederate States were simply territory of the United States and not +states in the Union.<a name="fna57_57" id="fna57_57"></a><a href="#f57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> But this bill failed to be repassed over the +President’s veto.<a name="fna58_58" id="fna58_58"></a><a href="#f58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> The Civil Rights Bill, which became law on April 9, +1866, made it a crime to discriminate against any person on account of his +race or color under the alleged authority of any state law or custom, gave +the federal judicial authorities power to arrest and punish any person +guilty of this offense,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> and also gave the federal courts jurisdiction +over any case before a state court in which such discrimination was +attempted.<a name="fna59_59" id="fna59_59"></a><a href="#f59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> This law created entirely new relations between federal and +state authority, but since it was passed as an act to enforce the +Thirteenth Amendment,<a name="fna60_60" id="fna60_60"></a><a href="#f60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> and applied to all states alike, it committed +Congress to no declaration regarding the status of the southern states.</p> + +<p>The joint committee made its long-expected report on April 30, 1866.<a name="fna61_61" id="fna61_61"></a><a href="#f61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> A +great number of witnesses had been examined regarding conditions in the +South, whose testimony fills a large volume and purports to be the basis +of the committee’s report. The committee thought that since the Johnson +governments had been set up under the military authority of the President +and were merely instruments through which he had exercised that power in +governing conquered territory, they were not regular state governments. +This belief was confirmed by the fact that the existing state +constitutions had been framed by conventions acting under the constant +direction of the President, and also by the fact that they had not been +submitted to the people for adoption. The Johnson governments then were +not state governments at all, and so could not send representatives to +Congress.</p> + +<p>The committee appealed less to this constitutional argument than to +arguments of policy. It was willing to grant the “profitless abstraction” +that the southern states still remained states. The people of those states +had waged war on the United States. Though subdued, they were defiant, +disloyal, and abusive. They showed no disposition to abate their hatred +for the Union or their affection for the Confederacy. To accord to such a +people entire independence,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> taking no measures for security from future +danger; to admit their representatives to Congress; to allow conquered +enemies “to participate in making laws for their conquerors;” to turn over +to the custody of recent enemies the treasury, the army, the whole +administration—this would be madness unexampled.</p> + +<p>For these reasons the committee recommended a joint resolution and two +bills. The resolution proposed an amendment to the Constitution forbidding +any state to abridge the civil rights of citizens of the United States, or +to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, providing that a +state which withheld the electoral franchise from negroes should suffer a +deduction from its Congressional representation, and providing that until +1870 all adherents to the Confederacy should be excluded from voting for +members of Congress and for Presidential electors. The first of the two +bills was to enact “that whenever the above recited amendment [should] +have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, and any state +lately in insurrection [should] have ratified the same, and [should] have +modified its constitution and laws in accordance therewith,” then its +representatives might be admitted to Congress. The second bill was to make +ineligible to office under the United States men who had been prominent in +the service of the Confederacy.</p> + +<p>A minority of the committee took issue with the majority on both its legal +and its political views. The states under consideration, said the +minority, had never gone out of the Union; therefore, being states of the +Union, Congress could not lawfully deprive them of their rights as states. +That the Johnson governments were only the machinery of military +occupation, set up by the conquering general, was denied.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>We know [said the minority report] that [the southern states] have +governments completely organized, with legislative, executive, and +judicial functions. We<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> know that they are now in successful +operation; no one within their limits questions their legality, or is +denied their protection. How they were formed, under what auspices +they were formed, are inquiries with which Congress has no concern.</p></div> + +<p>A state is under no restriction as to the mode of altering its +constitution; if it chooses to receive assistance from the President, or +any one else, the validity of the amended constitution is not affected.</p> + +<p>To the statement of the majority regarding the disposition of the southern +people, the minority opposed the high authority of General Grant. In an +official report he had said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the +present situation of affairs in good faith.... [They] are in earnest +in wishing to do what they think is required by the government ... +and if such a course was pointed out they would pursue it in good +faith.</p></div> + +<p>The right way in which to deal with the southern people was, then, to +conciliate them, as the President had tried to do, not to perpetuate their +hostility.</p> + +<p>If Congress adopted the program recommended by the majority, said the +minority, it would repudiate its own solemn declaration made in 1861,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, +nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or +established institutions of those 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.<a name="fna62_62" id="fna62_62"></a><a href="#f62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p></div> + +<p>The proposed provisions regarding ineligibility would dishonor the +government by annulling the pardons granted by the President. Further, the +program contradicted itself, since it proposed to treat the southern +communities as states, in submitting a constitutional amendment to them, +while at the same time imposing on them conditions to which a state could +not lawfully be subjected.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>After a debate of which these two opposing reports are a convenient +summary, Congress adopted the program of the committee. The joint +resolution, changed into a form embodying the present Fourteenth +Amendment, was passed on June 13, 1866.<a name="fna63_63" id="fna63_63"></a><a href="#f63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> The two bills proposed were +taken up, but Congress adjourned without bringing them to a final vote, +leaving the South to be regulated during the recess by the Civil Rights +Act, and by an act, passed over the President’s veto on July 16, embodying +in a less drastic form the provisions of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill which +had failed in February.<a name="fna64_64" id="fna64_64"></a><a href="#f64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> + +<p>When Congress met in December, 1866, the same voluminous mass of +reconstruction proposals and declaratory resolutions appeared in both +houses as at the last session. But the denunciation of the President and +of the Johnson governments was more emphatic in these bills and +resolutions, as well as in the debates. Sumner proposed a resolution to +this effect:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>That all proceedings with a view to reconstruction originating in +executive power are in the nature of usurpation; that this usurpation +becomes especially offensive when it sets aside the fundamental +truths of our institutions; that it is shocking to common sense when +it undertakes to derive new governments from the hostile populations +which have just been engaged in armed rebellion, and that all +governments having such origin are necessarily illegal and void.<a name="fna65_65" id="fna65_65"></a><a href="#f65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p></div> + +<p>Another resolution proposed that the committee of the House on territories +be instructed to take steps for organizing the districts known as +Virginia, North Carolina, etc., into states. Cullom said in a speech:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>During the last session of this Congress we sent to the country a +proposed amendment to the Constitution.... The people of the rebel +states by their pretended legislatures are treating it with scorn and +contempt.... It is time, sir, that the people of the states were +informed in language not to be misunderstood<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> that the people who +saved this country are going to reconstruct it in their own way, the +opposition of rebels to the contrary notwithstanding.<a name="fna66_66" id="fna66_66"></a><a href="#f66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p></div> + +<p>Another fact which appeared prominently in the speeches and resolutions of +this session was the growing fear, real or assumed, that freedmen and +loyal persons in the South were in mortal danger. Bills for their +protection were introduced by the dozen.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Shall we shut our eyes [said a speaker] to the abuse and murders of +loyal men in the South, and the continued destruction of their +property by wicked men, and give them no means of protection?<a name="fna67_67" id="fna67_67"></a><a href="#f67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a></p></div> + +<p>Stevens exclaimed that the United States would be disgraced</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>unless Congress proceed[ed] at once to do something to protect these +people from the barbarians who [were] daily murdering them; who +[were] murdering the loyal whites daily, and daily putting into +secret graves not only hundreds but thousands of the colored +people.<a name="fna68_68" id="fna68_68"></a><a href="#f68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p></div> + +<p>At first the lower house resumed its consideration of the bills +recommended at the last session by the joint committee. But early in +February, 1867, these were dropped in favor of a new bill. This was the +Reconstruction Bill which became law on March 2. It provided that the +South should be divided into five districts, each to comprise the +territory of one or more of the southern states. The President should +assign to each district a military officer not below the rank of +brigadier-general, and should detail for his use a sufficient military +force. The duties of these officers should be “to protect all persons in +their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder +and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, disturbers of the +public peace and criminals.” To this end they might either allow local +courts to exercise their usual jurisdiction or organize special military +courts, for the procedure of which a few general regulations were provided +in the bill. Until the states should be by law restored to the Union, the +governments existing in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> them were declared “provisional only, and in all +respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States, at any +time to abolish, modify, control or suspend the same.”</p> + +<p>In section 5 of this bill were stated the conditions upon which the +southern states might regain their places in the Union. In each of them a +constitutional convention should be elected. For members of this +convention all male “citizens” of the voting age should vote, except those +excluded from office by the pending Fourteenth Amendment. These were +forbidden to sit in the convention or to vote for delegates. The +convention thus formed should frame a new constitution, which should give +the franchise to all persons qualified to vote for delegates by the +present bill. The constitution should be submitted to the people of the +state for ratification, and to Congress for approval. When these should +have been received, and when the legislature elected under the new +constitution should have ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, then Congress +should pass an act admitting the reconstructed state to Congressional +representation, and the present law should cease to operate in that +state.<a name="fna69_69" id="fna69_69"></a><a href="#f69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a></p> + +<p>The principle of this bill was the same as that of the reconstruction +measures first undertaken at the suggestion of the joint committee, namely +the punishment of an enemy. The debate in the House was opened by a +felicitous quotation from Vattel on the public law applicable to the case +of a conquered enemy.<a name="fna70_70" id="fna70_70"></a><a href="#f70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> The punishment here provided was, however, more +severe than that first proposed. The former program was designed to offer +to the states the alternative of adopting the Fourteenth Amendment or +remaining out of the Union and under the Freedman’s Bureau—which was, +indeed, regarded as a very obnoxious alternative. But the present bill +required them not only to ratify the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span>amendment, but to adopt new +constitutions, elect new governments, enfranchise the negroes, and +disfranchise their most prominent and respected citizens; and meanwhile +imposed upon them not simply a bureau, to interfere in individual cases, +but the virtually absolute rule of a military governor.</p> + +<p>This bill was passed over Johnson’s veto on March 2, 1867. On March 23 a +supplementary act was passed, providing means for executing section 5 of +the preceding act. The initiative in calling the constitutional +conventions, instead of being left to the states, to be exercised or not, +as they chose, was now assigned to the military governor. He, with the +assistance of such boards of registry as he might create, was directed to +register all persons qualified to vote for delegates. He should then fix +the number of delegates and arrange the plan of representation, set the +day for election and summon the convention.<a name="fna71_71" id="fna71_71"></a><a href="#f71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a></p> + +<p>A third reconstruction act was passed on July 19, 1867. It is unnecessary +to discuss it, since it was only explanatory of the acts of March 2 and +23, and added nothing which needs mention here to their provisions.<a name="fna72_72" id="fna72_72"></a><a href="#f72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Were the Reconstruction Acts constitutional? Since the Supreme Court has +failed, either voluntarily or otherwise, to decide every case brought +before it depending upon this question,<a name="fna73_73" id="fna73_73"></a><a href="#f73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> reasoning is not rendered idle +by authority. The Supreme Court has indeed expressed a definite opinion on +the subject, but has given no decision.</p> + +<p>The opinion referred to was expressed in the case of Texas <i>versus</i> +White.<a name="fna74_74" id="fna74_74"></a><a href="#f74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> The Court said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>These new relations [namely, those created by the civil war] imposed +new duties<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> upon the United States. The first was that of suppressing +the rebellion. The next was that of re-establishing the broken +relations of the states with the Union. The authority for the +performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress +insurrection and to carry on war; for the performance of the second, +authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to +guarantee to every state a republican form of government.</p></div> + +<p>This the Court considered good authority for the passage of the +Reconstruction Acts. Most of the advocates of the acts based them upon +this theory.</p> + +<p>Now, upon that clause of Article IV., Section 4, of the Constitution which +says: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a +republican form of government,” the <i>Federalist</i> remarks:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>It may possibly be asked whether [this clause] may not become a +pretext for alterations in the state governments without the +concurrence of the states themselves.... But the authority extends no +further than to a <i>guarantee</i> [the <i>Federalist’s</i> italics] of a +republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing +government of the form which is to be guaranteed.<a name="fna75_75" id="fna75_75"></a><a href="#f75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a></p></div> + +<p>The intention of the clause, says the <i>Federalist</i> in the same paper, is +simply to guard “against aristocratic or monarchic innovations.” To one +not interested in establishing the constitutionality of the Reconstruction +Acts, it seems indisputable that the clause is rightly interpreted by the +<i>Federalist</i>. Story accepts this interpretation as a matter of course.<a name="fna76_76" id="fna76_76"></a><a href="#f76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> +Cooley groups the clause with that which forbids the states to grant +titles of nobility.<a name="fna77_77" id="fna77_77"></a><a href="#f77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> If this interpretation is correct, then the +guarantee clause gives no authority for destroying a state government of a +republican form and substituting another.</p> + +<p>There is, however, a constitutional basis for the Reconstruction Acts. It +is the war power of Congress.</p> + +<p>If a section of the people of a stale rebel against the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>government, the +resulting contest is not a war, in the sense of international law. But as +it may assume the physical character of a war, so it may call into +existence the rights and customs incident to war. Upon this principle the +federal government acquired the rights of war in the contest of +1861-1865.<a name="fna78_78" id="fna78_78"></a><a href="#f78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> Now the rights of war do not end with military operations; +one of these rights is the right of the victorious party, after an +unconditional surrender, to occupy the territory of the defeated party, to +govern or punish the people as it sees fit. If the United States +government acquired the rights of war, this right was included. The close +of a war is not simultaneous with the cessation of fighting. The surrender +of the southern armies was an important incident in the civil war; it was +not the end. If the federal government had the rights of war before this +incident, it had them after.</p> + +<p>The United States government might therefore say to the persons composing +the military power which it had subdued: As the terms of war, you are to +be governed by military government. If the persons against whom this +sentence is assumed to have been pronounced formed the majority of the +population of a state, one result of the sentence would be to suspend +independent state government. The United States government might choose +another punishment. It might say to the lately hostile persons: We forbid +you to participate in the federal government. If the persons so sentenced +form the majority of the population of a state, that state can send no +representatives to Congress while the sentence remains. These sentences +might be imposed permanently or only until such time as the people +sentenced should fulfil certain demands—hold certain conventions, pass +certain laws, adopt certain resolutions in certain ways. The federal +government can thus effect through<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> its war powers what it cannot effect +through any power to interfere directly with a state government. It had no +right to reconstruct the government of Maine in 1865, because Maine had no +body of people over whom the federal government could exercise war powers. +It had the right to reconstruct the government of Georgia, because +nine-tenths of the people of Georgia were lawfully at its mercy as a +conqueror.</p> + +<p>Even if it be admitted, however, that the federal government had the power +described, it may still be argued that the Reconstruction Acts are not +legally justified. A conqueror has a right to govern a conquered people as +he pleases and as long as he pleases; he also has a right to alter his +mode of treatment and substitute another mode. But after he has imposed +certain terms as final, after the requirements of these terms have been +complied with, after he has restored the conquered people to their normal +position and rights and has unmistakably terminated the relation of +conqueror to conquered—then his rights of war are at an end. It may be +argued that this was the case when the Reconstruction Acts were passed. It +may be argued that in December, 1865, the federal government had, through +the President, terminated its capacity as a conqueror, and could regain +that capacity only by another war; that after that termination it had no +more power to reconstruct Georgia than to reconstruct Maine.</p> + +<p>This argument is irrefutable if we assume that the President had full +power to act for the federal government in the disposition of the defeated +Secessionists, and that therefore his acts of 1865 were the acts of the +federal government. In case of an international war, which is closed by a +treaty, the President may (if supported by the Senate) act finally for the +federal government, and estop that government (so far as international law +is concerned) from further action. But at the close of a civil war he +cannot exercise his diplomatic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> power. The disposition of the defeated +people in this case falls to the legislative branch of the government.</p> + +<p>If the President had pardoned a great majority of the Secessionists, that +fact perhaps might have legally estopped Congress from passing the +Reconstruction Acts. These acts were a war punishment, and a pardon cuts +off further punishment.<a name="fna79_79" id="fna79_79"></a><a href="#f79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> But the total number of persons who received +amnesty under the proclamation of May 29, 1865, was 13,596,<a name="fna80_80" id="fna80_80"></a><a href="#f80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> which was +of course only a small fraction of the Secessionist population.</p> + +<p>The passage of the Reconstruction Acts may thus be regarded, from a legal +point of view, as simply the substitution of one method of treating the +defeated enemy for another. The change was from mildness to harshness. It +was doubly bitter to the defeated enemy, after he had been led to believe +that his punishment was over, to be subjected to a worse one. But these +are not legal considerations.</p> + +<p>That the Reconstruction Acts required communities not states to ratify a +constitutional amendment did not affect their legality. That an amendment +depended for its validity on such ratification might make the amendment +void (though even from this result there is a means of escape in the +theory of relation, to be mentioned later), but that would not affect the +act requiring the ratification. That this requirement was not made with +the exclusive purpose of obtaining votes for the passage of the amendment +is shown by a resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on +July 21, 1867, which reads:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in ratifying amendments to the Constitution of the +United States ... the said several states ... are wholly incapable +either of accepting or rejecting any such amendment so as to bind the +loyal states of the Union, ... and that when any amendment ... shall +be adopted by three-fourths of the states<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> recognized by the Congress +as lawfully entitled to do so, ... the same shall become thereby a +part of the Constitution.<a name="fna81_81" id="fna81_81"></a><a href="#f81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p></div> + +<p>What virtues the Reconstruction Acts had besides legal regularity will be +discussed later.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF POPE AND MEADE</span></p> + +<p>In the Third Military District, of which Georgia was a part, the +Reconstruction Acts were administered from April 1, 1867, to January 6, +1868, by General Pope, and from January 6 to July 30, 1868, by General +Meade.<a name="fna82_82" id="fna82_82"></a><a href="#f82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> The present chapter will describe, first, the manner in which +these men conducted the political rebuilding of Georgia, and second, the +manner in which they governed during this process.</p> + +<p>On April 8 Pope issued his first orders regarding the registration of +voters. The three officers commanding respectively in the sub-districts of +Georgia, Florida and Alabama were directed to divide the territory under +them into registration districts, and for each of these to appoint a board +of registry consisting as far as possible of civilians.<a name="fna83_83" id="fna83_83"></a><a href="#f83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> On May 2 the +scheme of districts for Georgia was published. The state was divided into +forty-four districts of three counties each, and three districts of a city +each. For each district the names of two white registrars were announced, +and each of these pairs was ordered to complete the board by selecting a +negro colleague. The compensation of registrars was to be from fifteen +cents to forty cents for every name registered, varying according to the +density or sparseness of the population. It was made the duty of +registrars to explain to those unused to the enjoyment of suffrage the +nature of this function. After the lists were complete they were to be +published for ten days.<a name="fna84_84" id="fna84_84"></a><a href="#f84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span>The unsettled condition of the negro population suggested to Pope the +possibility that many negroes would lose their right to vote by change of +residence. He therefore ordered on August 15 that persons removing from +the district where they were registered should be furnished by the board +of registry with a certificate of registration, which should entitle them +to vote anywhere in the state.<a name="fna85_85" id="fna85_85"></a><a href="#f85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a></p> + +<p>The election for deciding whether a constitutional convention should be +held, and for choosing delegates in case the affirmative vote prevailed, +was ordered to begin on October 29 and to continue three days. Registrars +were ordered to revise their lists during the fortnight preceding the +election, to erase names wrongly registered, and to add the names of +persons entitled to be registered. The boards of registry were to act as +judges of election, but registrars who were candidates for election were +forbidden to serve in the districts where they sought election.<a name="fna86_86" id="fna86_86"></a><a href="#f86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p> + +<p>The election was to occupy the last three days of October. On October 30 +Pope extended the time to the night of November 2, in order to give the +negroes ample opportunity to vote, which in their inexperience they might +otherwise fail to do.<a name="fna87_87" id="fna87_87"></a><a href="#f87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a></p> + +<p>After the election the following figures were announced:<a name="fna88_88" id="fna88_88"></a><a href="#f88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>Number of registered voters in Georgia </td><td align="right">188,647</td></tr> +<tr><td>Of these the negroes numbered</td><td align="right">93,457</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">" the white men<a name="fna89_89" id="fna89_89"></a><a href="#f89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></span></td><td align="right">95,214</td></tr> +<tr><td>Number of votes polled</td><td align="right">106,410</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">"<span class="spacer3"> </span>" for a convention</span></td><td align="right">102,283</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">"<span class="spacer3"> </span>" against a convention</span></td><td align="right">4,127</td></tr></table> + +<p>The delegates elected were ordered to meet in convention<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> on December +9th.<a name="fna90_90" id="fna90_90"></a><a href="#f90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> On that day the convention met in Atlanta. Its business was not +completed until the middle of March in the following year. The +constitution which it framed more than met the demands of the +Reconstruction Acts. A single citizenship was established for all +residents of the state, in language borrowed from the Fourteenth Amendment +to the federal Constitution.<a name="fna91_91" id="fna91_91"></a><a href="#f91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> Legislation on the subject of social +status of citizens was forever prohibited.<a name="fna92_92" id="fna92_92"></a><a href="#f92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> The electoral right was +given to all male persons born or naturalized in the United States who +should have resided six months in Georgia.<a name="fna93_93" id="fna93_93"></a><a href="#f93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> Electors were privileged +from arrest (except for treason, felony or breach of the peace) for five +days before, during, and for two days after, elections, and the +legislature was ordered to provide such other means for the protection of +electors as might be necessary.<a name="fna94_94" id="fna94_94"></a><a href="#f94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> Other provisions presumably acceptable +to northern sentiment were the prohibition of whipping as a penalty for +crime,<a name="fna95_95" id="fna95_95"></a><a href="#f95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> and the command that the legislature should create a system of +public schools free to all children of the state.<a name="fna96_96" id="fna96_96"></a><a href="#f96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> + +<p>By an ordinance of the convention, made valid by being embodied in +military orders, April 20, 1868, was appointed for the submission of the +new constitution to popular vote, and also for the election of members of +Congress and officers of the new state government.<a name="fna97_97" id="fna97_97"></a><a href="#f97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> This election +resulted in the adoption of the constitution by a majority of 17,699 +votes, and in the election of a governor (Rufus B. Bullock by name), a +legislature, and a full delegation to the lower house of Congress.<a name="fna98_98" id="fna98_98"></a><a href="#f98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> The +remaining requirement of the Reconstruction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> Acts was that the new +legislature convene and ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. This transaction +will be reserved for the next chapter.</p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>General Pope was inspired by the ideas and emotions from which +reconstruction had sprung. He was an ardent friend of the reconstruction +measures. He was convinced of the importance of suppressing the old +political leaders in his district. He held with enthusiasm the optimistic +views prevalent in the North regarding the negroes. Their recent progress +in “education and knowledge,” he said, was “marvellous,” and if continued, +in five years the intelligence of the community would shift to the colored +portion.<a name="fna99_99" id="fna99_99"></a><a href="#f99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> The purport of his orders, the didactic style in which they +are couched, the declarations of his principles which frequently accompany +these orders, indicate the spirit in which he administered the office of +military governor.</p> + +<p>Most of the official acts of Pope concerned either the enforcement of +obedience and the suppression of disobedience to the letter and spirit of +the Reconstruction Acts, or the protection and promotion of the present +interests of the freedmen.</p> + +<p>In assuming command he announced that in the absence of special orders all +persons holding office under the state government would be permitted to +retain their positions until the expiration of their terms. Their +successors, however, were to be appointed by Pope alone; no elections +should be held in the state except those required by Congress. The general +expressed the hope that no necessity for interference in the regular +operation of the state government would arise. It could arise, he said, +only from the failure of state tribunals to do equal justice to all +persons.<a name="fna100_100" id="fna100_100"></a><a href="#f100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> +A few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> weeks later he announced that this necessity would +also arise if any state officer interfered with or opposed the +reconstruction measures; such an officer, it was “distinctly announced,” +would be deposed.<a name="fna101_101" id="fna101_101"></a><a href="#f101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> Governor Jenkins, on April 10, had issued a letter +to the public, advising them to abstain from registering and voting under +the Reconstruction Acts. Pope had excused him with a lecture, and then +issued the order referred to, to make clear that no more advice of that +sort from state officers would be permitted.<a name="fna102_102" id="fna102_102"></a><a href="#f102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> Opposition to +reconstruction by state officers was declared to include also the awarding +of state printing to newspapers which opposed reconstruction, and it was +ordered that thereafter the state’s patronage should be given only to +loyal papers.<a name="fna103_103" id="fna103_103"></a><a href="#f103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> Another measure to the same end was the order that no +state court should entertain any action against any person for any acts +done under the military authority.<a name="fna104_104" id="fna104_104"></a><a href="#f104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> But while opposition by state +officers was thus dealt with, freedom of public opinion was emphatically +declared. The declaration accompanied a public reprimand administered to +the post commander at Mobile for interference with a newspaper.<a name="fna105_105" id="fna105_105"></a><a href="#f105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p> + +<p>The careful consideration for the needs of the freedmen shown in the +general’s method of forming the boards of registry, in his instructions to +the registrars, in his provision of certificates of registration to +migrating citizens, and in his extension of the time of election, has been +pointed out. Of a similar character was the warning to employers that any +attempt to prevent laborers from voting, or to influence their votes by +docking wages, threats, or any other means, would be severely dealt +with.<a name="fna106_106" id="fna106_106"></a><a href="#f106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></p> + +<p>In his first general orders, as we have said, Pope warned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> the judiciary +against racial prejudice. It was probably disregard of this warning which +caused the removal of about a dozen judges, justices of the peace, and +sheriffs.<a name="fna107_107" id="fna107_107"></a><a href="#f107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> In the interest of equal justice, Pope also ordered that +grand and petit jurors should be selected impartially from the lists of +voters registered under the Reconstruction Acts.<a name="fna108_108" id="fna108_108"></a><a href="#f108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> Besides this general +protection, individual relief was given by release from arrest, mitigation +of the conditions of confinement, reduction of fines, and other special +dispensations.<a name="fna109_109" id="fna109_109"></a><a href="#f109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> The method of securing justice mentioned in the Act of +March 2, 1867, namely by ordering the trial of cases by military +commissions, was employed by Pope only once.<a name="fna110_110" id="fna110_110"></a><a href="#f110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> + +<p>Such was the administration of Pope. Its influence on the <i>personnel</i> of +the state government was large, but was exercised only slightly through +removal, chiefly through appointment to fill vacancies. Pope removed about +fifteen state officers (almost all of whom were the judicial officers +mentioned in the preceding paragraph). He filled about two hundred +vacancies.<a name="fna111_111" id="fna111_111"></a><a href="#f111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> It is significant that a great number of these were caused +by resignation. His acts of interference with the action of state officers +were few, and with all his zeal for the success of reconstruction, he +favored freedom of speech. Nevertheless, his opinions and his personal +character, combined with such interference as he did practice, served to +gain for him the dislike of the people and the rather unjust reputation of +a petty tyrant.</p> + +<p>Though Meade lacked Pope’s zealous enthusiasm for reconstruction, yet he +held much the same opinion as his predecessor regarding the duties with +which he was charged. Like Pope, he forbade the bestowal of public +patronage on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> anti-reconstruction +newspapers.<a name="fna112_112" id="fna112_112"></a><a href="#f112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> Like Pope, he thought +it his duty to depose state officers who opposed the execution of the +Reconstruction Acts. When he assumed command he found the convention at +loggerheads with the governor and the state treasurer. The convention had +levied a tax to pay its expenses, and pending the collection of it had +directed the treasurer to advance forty thousand dollars.<a name="fna113_113" id="fna113_113"></a><a href="#f113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> The +treasurer (Jones by name) declined to do this except on a warrant from the +governor, according to the regular practice. Meade requested Jenkins to +issue the warrant. Jenkins refused, on the ground that the act would +violate the state constitution under which he held office, and that even +if it were authorized by the Reconstruction Acts (which he denied), that +was an authorization contrary to the Constitution of the United States, +upon which he would not act.<a name="fna114_114" id="fna114_114"></a><a href="#f114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> Thereupon, on January 13, 1868, Meade +issued an order by which the governor (designated as the “provisional +governor”) and the treasurer (also designated as “provisional”) were +removed and Brigadier-General Ruger and Captain Rockwell “detailed” to act +as governor and treasurer respectively.<a name="fna115_115" id="fna115_115"></a><a href="#f115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> For this act the convention +rewarded Meade with a resolution of gratitude.<a name="fna116_116" id="fna116_116"></a><a href="#f116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> Before the end of the +same month the state comptroller and the secretary of state were also +removed for <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>obstructing +reconstruction,<a name="fna117_117" id="fna117_117"></a><a href="#f117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> and later the mayor and the +entire board of aldermen of Columbus shared the same fate.<a name="fna118_118" id="fna118_118"></a><a href="#f118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a></p> + +<p>Toward the freedmen General Meade assumed the attitude of his predecessor. +He made similar rules to protect them, in voting, from coercion by +employers.<a name="fna119_119" id="fna119_119"></a><a href="#f119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> On the other hand, observing that too frequent enticement +of negroes to political meetings was disturbing industry, he announced +that interference of this sort with the rights of employers by political +agitators would meet with the same punishment as interference with the +rights of freedmen.<a name="fna120_120" id="fna120_120"></a><a href="#f120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p> + +<p>Besides following the two policies of suppressing resistance and +protecting freedmen, Meade used his power to a great extent simply in the +interest of the general welfare. Public peace and order seemed threatened +on the eve of the April election. Orders issued on April 4 expressed the +belief that there existed a concerted plan, extending widely through the +Third District and apparently emanating from a secret organization, to +overawe the population and affect elections. Both military and civil +officers were ordered to arrest publishers of incendiary articles and to +organize special patrols.<a name="fna121_121" id="fna121_121"></a><a href="#f121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> Troops were distributed so as to command +the parts chiefly in danger,<a name="fna122_122" id="fna122_122"></a><a href="#f122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> and the frequent resignation of office +by sheriffs occasioned the order that no more resignations would be +permitted, but that the sheriffs must retain their offices and execute the +law.<a name="fna123_123" id="fna123_123"></a><a href="#f123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> By way of benevolent despotism, Meade, at the request of the +convention, suspended the operation of the bail process and of the writ of +<i>capias satisfaciendum</i>, and promulgated the provisions of the new +constitution for the relief of debtors until the constitution should +become law.<a name="fna124_124" id="fna124_124"></a><a href="#f124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> Likewise he gave special orders in eight or ten cases +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>suspending trails, releasing prisoners, and otherwise preventing hardship +or failure of justice. Whereas Pope had convened one military court, Meade +convened six,<a name="fna125_125" id="fna125_125"></a><a href="#f125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> and before these thirty two cases were tried. Meade +appointed about seventy state officers and removed about twenty.</p> + +<p>These facts show that the two administrations we are considering were +alike in policy, and that in action Meade’s was the more vigorous. +Nevertheless, while Pope was disliked, Meade, thanks to a more attractive +character, enjoyed a certain popularity.</p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Such was the process by which the Disciplinarians, the Humanitarians, and +the Republican Politicians hoped to gain their respective purposes. What +were the results of the process by the end of the administration of Meade?</p> + +<p>For the Disciplinarians they were not encouraging. Military government was +received not as discipline but as bullying. The spirit which +reconstruction was designed to quell was only embittered; for to those who +entertained it reconstruction was not the chastening of the nation, but +the domineering of a political party, which it was hoped and believed +would soon lose its ascendency.<a name="fna126_126" id="fna126_126"></a><a href="#f126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a></p> + +<p>For the Humanitarians reconstruction had produced written laws regarding +equality of civil and political rights, which were deemed a subject of +congratulation. Outside the laws they would have found less encouragement. +The kindness of the white people toward the negroes had been changed to +apprehension by the events of 1865. When the advent of negro suffrage +brought the carpet-baggers to the South to marshal the negro voters for +their own benefit, and when these men began to disturb the negroes by +organizing them into mysterious Union Leagues and giving them<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +indigestible ideas of their rights, apprehension became alarm. Negroes +seized property of all kinds—including even plantations—by violence, +supposing this to be one of their new rights. Already they had raised a +new terror by crimes against white women, hitherto unknown. Some +thoughtful men believed that the best defence against the dangers +apprehended from the disturbed black population was kindness and friendly +influence.<a name="fna127_127" id="fna127_127"></a><a href="#f127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> That opinion was not heard after the arrival of the +carpet-baggers; its methods were then seen to be inadequate. Secret +organizations were formed by white men for protection against the negroes. +These organizations, which sowed the seed of a subsequent harvest of +crime, at first included men of the best character and of the highest +standing.<a name="fna128_128" id="fna128_128"></a><a href="#f128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> Thus reconstruction, together with its written laws, had +produced conditions which made the net Humanitarian results doubtful, at +least for the moment.</p> + +<p>For the Republican Politicians reconstruction did not produce in Georgia +all that was to be desired. When the enterprise was first launched some of +the white men, though offended, favored accepting the inevitable and +endeavoring to elect good men to the constitutional convention and to the +new state government.<a name="fna129_129" id="fna129_129"></a><a href="#f129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> Others, carried further by their anger, +determined to take no part in elevating the negroes and debasing their +heroes. Prominent among these, as we have said, was Governor Jenkins. +These men stayed at home on October 29, 1867, contemptuously ignoring the +“bogus concern called an election,” which occurred on that day.<a name="fna130_130" id="fna130_130"></a><a href="#f130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> Many +of these latter, by the time the “motley crew assembled at Atlanta” had +finished its labors, decided to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> follow the example of the former. A +convention met at Macon on December 5, 1867, formed a party, the Georgia +Conservatives, named a ticket, with John B. Gordon at the head, and began +a powerful campaign for the defeat of negroes and adventurers at the April +election.<a name="fna131_131" id="fna131_131"></a><a href="#f131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> To make an active fight was recognized as a better course +than to stand in ineffectual scorn.<a name="fna132_132" id="fna132_132"></a><a href="#f132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> As a result the sweeping victory +expected by the Republican Politicians did not occur in Georgia. A +Republican governor was elected; but in the state senate the seats were +equally divided between the Republicans and the Conservatives, in the +state house of representatives the Conservatives obtained a large +majority, and of the seven Congressmen elected three were +Conservatives.<a name="fna133_133" id="fna133_133"></a><a href="#f133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE SUPPOSED RESTORATION OF 1868</span></p> + +<p>The passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 determined the course of +reconstruction, but did not stop discussion. When Congress met in +December, 1867, the acts passed continued to be attacked and defended and +new bills to be introduced and dropped. But the plan as adopted remained +untouched, with one exception.</p> + +<p>One of the reasons given by the joint committee on reconstruction for +abolishing the Johnson governments was that the Johnson constitutions had +not been ratified by popular vote, and therefore did not rest upon the +consent of a majority of the people. To avoid a like defect in the new +governments the act of March 23 had provided that the new constitutions +should be regarded as adopted only if a majority of the registered voters +took part in the vote on the question of adoption. At its next session +Congress repented of this provision; it was now seen to involve the risk +that the opponents of reconstruction in the southern states would defeat +the new constitutions by the plan of inaction. This risk should be +avoided, since the adoption of a state constitution probably meant the +election of a Republican state government, and hence of Republican +Senators, as well as Republican Congressional Representatives and +Republican Presidential Electors in November, 1868. These advantages would +be lost if the new constitutions were defeated. Therefore, by an act which +became law on March 11, 1868, the reconstruction legislation was amended +so as to provide that elections held under that legislation should be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> +decided by a majority of the votes cast. This act also adopted as part of +the general scheme two expedients already employed by Pope in the Third +District. That is to say, it provided that any registered voter might vote +in any election district in his state, provided he had lived there ten +days, and that the elections should be “continued from day to day.”<a name="fna134_134" id="fna134_134"></a><a href="#f134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a></p> + +<p>Aside from these alterations, Congress allowed reconstruction to complete +its course according to the first plan. Within the first six months of +1868 North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana and Florida, besides +Georgia, had adopted new constitutions. According to the Act of March 2, +1867, two more steps would complete the process for these states; namely, +the ratification by their legislatures of the Fourteenth Amendment, and +the declaration “by law” (provided Congress approved the constitutions) +that they were entitled to representation in Congress.<a name="fna135_135" id="fna135_135"></a><a href="#f135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> Congress now +decided, instead of waiting for the ratification of the amendment, to pass +the declaratory law at once, which should operate as soon as the +ratification should have occurred. By this method one act would suffice +for all the states which had adopted constitutions.</p> + +<p>The bill for this purpose was called the Omnibus Bill. It provided that +North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and also +Alabama,<a name="fna136_136" id="fna136_136"></a><a href="#f136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> should be admitted to representation in Congress as soon as +their legislatures elected under the new constitution should have ratified +the Fourteenth Amendment, on condition that the provisions of that +amendment regarding eligibility to office should at once<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> go into +operation in those states, and on condition that the constitution of none +of them should ever be amended so as to deprive of the right to vote any +citizens entitled to that right as the constitutions then stood. A special +condition was imposed on Georgia; namely, that Article V., section 17, §§ +1 and 3 of her constitution be declared void by the legislature. A +precedent for such a requirement was found in the act of 1821, admitting +Missouri to statehood.<a name="fna137_137" id="fna137_137"></a><a href="#f137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> The bill gave the governors-elect in the +states concerned authority to call the legislatures immediately to fulfill +the required conditions.<a name="fna138_138" id="fna138_138"></a><a href="#f138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a></p> + +<p>The Omnibus Bill became law on June 25, 1868. On the same day Rufus B. +Bullock, the governor-elect of Georgia, issued a proclamation in +accordance with the act, summoning the legislature to meet on July +4th.<a name="fna139_139" id="fna139_139"></a><a href="#f139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p> + +<p>Now, the Reconstruction Act of July 10th, 1867, had provided as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>All persons hereafter elected or appointed to office in said military +districts, under any so-called state or municipal authority, or by +detail or appointment of the district commanders, shall be required +to take ... the oath of office prescribed by law for officers of the +United States.<a name="fna140_140" id="fna140_140"></a><a href="#f140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a></p></div> + +<p>On April 15th Meade had announced that in accordance with this provision +the members of the legislature to be elected on April 20th would be +required to subscribe to the Test Oath. But he was later advised from +headquarters, and by certain prominent members of Congress, that the +persons contemplated by the act of July 19, 1867, were those elected under +the Johnson government, not under the new government; and that therefore +the men elected on April<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> 20th were not “officers elected under any +so-called state authority” in the sense of the act of July 19th. The +eligibility of these men, he was told, was to be determined by the +provisions of the new constitution and by the Fourteenth Amendment, and +they were not required to take the Test Oath.<a name="fna142_142" id="fna142_142"></a><a href="#f142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> Meade therefore did not +enforce his order. But though the new government was exempt from this one +requirement of the Reconstruction Acts, it was subject to the provision +which said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... until the people of said rebel states shall be by law admitted to +representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil +government which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, +and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United +States.</p></div> + +<p>Over the new state government, as over the old, Meade would exercise the +powers of a district commander until the legislature by complying with the +requirements of the Omnibus Act, should have made that act operative.</p> + +<p>On June 28 Meade relieved General Ruger of the office of governor and +appointed in his place the governor-elect, Bullock, whom he directed to +organize the legislature on July 4.<a name="fna143_143" id="fna143_143"></a><a href="#f143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> When the legislature met on that +day, therefore, Bullock called each house to order in turn, and under his +direction as chairman the members were sworn in (by the official oath +prescribed in the state constitution), and the presiding officers elected.</p> + +<p>On July 7 the legislature informed the governor that it was organized and +ready to proceed to business. Bullock, instead of replying, wrote to +Meade, stating that it was alleged that a number of men seated in the +legislature were ineligible to office according to the proposed Fourteenth +Amendment, and hence were disqualified from holding their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> seats by the +Omnibus Act.<a name="fna144_144" id="fna144_144"></a><a href="#f144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> Meade replied on July 8 that the allegation was serious, +and that he would not recognize as valid any act of the legislature until +satisfactory evidence should be presented that the legislature contained +no member who would be disqualified from office by the Fourteenth +Amendment.<a name="fna145_145" id="fna145_145"></a><a href="#f145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> Bullock sent Meade’s letter to the legislature, and both +houses appointed committees to investigate the eligibility of every +member. These committees reported on July 17. The senate committee +reported that no senators were ineligible. A minority of the committee +found, on evidence detailed in its report, that four were ineligible. +After much debate the majority report was adopted.<a name="fna146_146" id="fna146_146"></a><a href="#f146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> The house +committee reported that two representatives were ineligible. A minority +report found three ineligible. A second minority report found that none +were ineligible. The last was adopted.<a name="fna147_147" id="fna147_147"></a><a href="#f147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p> + +<p>The conclusions of the two houses may be regarded, in view of these +proceedings, with some just suspicion. Bullock in informing Meade of them +expressed the opinion that the legislature had failed to furnish the +“satisfactory evidence” upon which Meade had conditioned his +recognition.<a name="fna148_148" id="fna148_148"></a><a href="#f148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> If Meade had desired to know the exact truth, he might +well have accepted Bullock’s advice and ignored the reports, investigated +the records of the legislators himself, and excluded those whom he found +ineligible. But Meade desired only to see that the acts of Congress were +complied with. “Satisfactory evidence” was evidence not logically, but +formally satisfactory. Meade followed the established principle that +legislative bodies are the final judges of the eligibility of their +members. He considered the statement of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> the legislature that its members +were all eligible formally satisfactory evidence that the acts of Congress +were obeyed. Having this evidence, he refused to interfere further. His +decision was influenced partly by reluctance to interfere more than was +necessary, and partly by aversion to aiding Bullock to gain a party +advantage, which he alleged to be the governor’s chief motive in urging +the rejection of the reports.<a name="fna149_149" id="fna149_149"></a><a href="#f149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> He acted with the approval of the +general of the army.<a name="fna150_150" id="fna150_150"></a><a href="#f150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p> + +<p>He notified the governor that the legislature was legally organized from +the date of the adoption of the reports (July 17).<a name="fna151_151" id="fna151_151"></a><a href="#f151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> Bullock +transmitted this message to the legislature on July 21. On that day both +houses ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and declared void the sections of +the constitution required to be so declared by the Omnibus Act.<a name="fna152_152" id="fna152_152"></a><a href="#f152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a></p> + +<p>As soon as the legislature had performed these acts Georgia was, +presumably, according to the acts of Congress, a state of the Union. On +July 22 Meade directed all state officers holding by military appointment +to turn over their offices to those elected or appointed under the new +government.<a name="fna153_153" id="fna153_153"></a><a href="#f153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> On July 28 orders issued from the headquarters of the +army stating that the general commanding in the Third Military District +had ceased to exercise authority under the Reconstruction Acts, and that +Georgia, Florida and Alabama no longer constituted a military district, +but should henceforth constitute an ordinary military circumscription—the +Department of the South.<a name="fna154_154" id="fna154_154"></a><a href="#f154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> On July 22 Bullock, who had up to that time +been governor by military appointment, was inaugurated in the regular +manner and became governor under the state constitution.<a name="fna155_155" id="fna155_155"></a><a href="#f155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> On July 25, +the seven<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> congressmen-elect from Georgia were seated in the House of +Representatives.<a name="fna156_156" id="fna156_156"></a><a href="#f156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> The Georgia Senators would doubtless have been +seated at this time if they had arrived before the close of the session; +but they were elected by the legislature on July 29,<a name="fna157_157" id="fna157_157"></a><a href="#f157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> two days after +Congress adjourned.<a name="fna158_158" id="fna158_158"></a><a href="#f158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> In view of Georgia’s compliance with the +Reconstruction Acts and the Omnibus Act, and in view of the various +official recognitions that that compliance was complete, there could now +be no doubt that her reconstruction was accomplished and her statehood +regained.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE EXPULSION OF THE NEGROES FROM THE LEGISLATURE<br />AND THE USES TO WHICH +THIS EVENT WAS APPLIED</span></p> + +<p>When the Georgia Republicans, or Radicals, as they were locally called, +found that instead of a sweeping victory they had won only a governorship +hemmed in by a hostile legislature, an effort was made, as we have said, +to improve their position through the interference of Meade. Meade refused +to aid them. When, a short time afterwards, federal power, on which they +had hitherto relied, was completely withdrawn, they seemed left to make +the best of an uncomfortable position without any assistance. At this +point a god appeared from the machine.</p> + +<p>In the state senate there were three negroes, in the lower house +twenty-five.<a name="fna159_159" id="fna159_159"></a><a href="#f159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> Their presence was an offense. It was an offense not +merely to the Conservative members. Some of the Republicans entertained +Conservative sentiments and principles, but supported reconstruction +simply in order to hasten the liberation of the state from Congressional +interference.<a name="fna160_160" id="fna160_160"></a><a href="#f160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> To them as well as to the Conservatives “negro rule” +was obnoxious. Negro rule, so far as it consisted in negro suffrage, was +established by the constitution. But negro office-holding was not so +established expressly. As early as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> July 25, 1868, the question, whether +negroes were eligible to the legislature, was raised in the state +senate.<a name="fna161_161" id="fna161_161"></a><a href="#f161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a></p> + +<p>Legally considered, the question had two sides, each supported by eminent +lawyers. For the negroes it was argued that Irwin’s Code, which was made +part of the law of the state by the constitution,<a name="fna162_162" id="fna162_162"></a><a href="#f162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> enumerated among +the rights of citizens the right to hold office.<a name="fna163_163" id="fna163_163"></a><a href="#f163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> Negroes were made +citizens of equal rights with all other citizens by the new +constitution.<a name="fna164_164" id="fna164_164"></a><a href="#f164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> Therefore they had the right to hold office. It was +true that the constitution did not grant the right to hold office to the +negroes expressly, as it granted the right to vote; but in view of the +fact that the convention which made the constitution was elected by 25,000 +white and 85,000 colored men, and that that constitution was adopted by +35,000 white and 70,000 colored men, it would be absurd to suppose that +the intent of that instrument was to withhold office from the +negroes.<a name="fna165_165" id="fna165_165"></a><a href="#f165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> On the other side, it was argued that the right to hold +office did not belong to every citizen, but only to such citizens as the +law specially designated, or to such as possessed it by common law or +custom. Irwin’s Code could not be cited to prove that negroes had the +right, because that law had been enacted before the negroes had been made +citizens, and the word <i>citizens</i> in it referred to those who were +citizens at that time. As the negro had no right to hold office because he +was a citizen, and as he could not claim the right from common law or +custom, he could obtain it only by specific grant of law. There was no +such grant. The argument for the negro was made by the Supreme Court of +the state in 1869, the opposing argument by one of the justices of that +court in a dissenting opinion.<a name="fna166_166" id="fna166_166"></a><a href="#f166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span>Such were the legal aspects of the question, which were of course less +important than the political and the emotional aspects. The legislature +passed upon the issue in the early part of September, 1868, by declaring +all the colored members ineligible, and admitting to the vacated seats the +candidates who had received respectively the next highest number of +votes.<a name="fna167_167" id="fna167_167"></a><a href="#f167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> If there was some legal ground for unseating the negroes, +there was none for seating the minority candidates. It was done on the +authority of the clause in Irwin’s Code which said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>If at any popular election to fill any office the person elected is +ineligible, ... the person having the next highest number of votes, +who is eligible, whenever a plurality elects, shall be declared +elected.<a name="fna168_168" id="fna168_168"></a><a href="#f168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a></p></div> + +<p>But this clause is found under the title “Of the Executive Department,” +and under the sub-head “Regulations as to All Executive Offices and +Officers.” Under the next title “Of the Legislative Department,” there is +no such provision.</p> + +<p>For a legislature to unseat some of the elected members because on not +untenable legal grounds it finds them ineligible, is not unusual. But the +act of the Georgia legislature could not, under the circumstances, be +regarded in the ordinary way. It showed strong racial prejudice. It was a +startling breach of the system which reconstruction had been designed to +institute, committed the very moment after the federal government withdrew +its hand. It fixed on Georgia at once the earnest and unfavorable +attention of northern public opinion. This fact enabled the Georgia +Republicans to bring the federal government again to their assistance.</p> + +<p>Their leader, Governor Bullock, at the next session of Congress (December, +1868), presented a letter to the Senate, saying that Georgia had not yet +been admitted to the Union.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> She had not been admitted by the Omnibus Act, +for that act provided that she should be admitted when certain things had +been done, and those things had not been done. By the Reconstruction Act +of July 19, 1867, all persons elected in Georgia were required to take the +Test Oath. The members of the present legislature had never taken it. +Therefore the action which that body had taken on July 21st, regarding the +Fourteenth Amendment, was not a ratification by a legislature formed +<ins class="correction" title="original: acording">according</ins> to the Reconstruction Acts; it was simply a ratification by a +body which called itself the legislature. Hence the Omnibus Act had not +yet gone into effect as to Georgia, and Georgia was not yet entitled to +representation in Congress.<a name="fna169_169" id="fna169_169"></a><a href="#f169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p> + +<p>If this argument was valid in the winter of 1868, it must also have been +valid in the preceding summer. Yet in July Bullock had made no objection +to being inaugurated as governor of Georgia, on the ground that Georgia +had not become a state. He had not refused on that ground to issue on +September 10th a commission to Joshua Hill, reciting that he had been +regularly elected to the Senate of the United States by the legislature of +the state, and signed “Rufus B. Bullock, governor.”<a name="fna170_170" id="fna170_170"></a><a href="#f170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> The argument was +an afterthought, not advanced until the expulsion of the negroes created a +favorable opportunity for a hearing. It conflicted with the declarations +and acts of the military authorities, and of the House of Representatives, +but the sentiment aroused by the expulsion of the negroes was considered +strong enough to sustain a repudiation of those declarations and acts.</p> + +<p>Direct appeal to this sentiment was the auxiliary to the above argument. +Bullock’s letter to the Senate was accompanied by a memorial from a +convention of colored men held at Macon in October. It said that there +existed in Georgia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> a spirit of hatred toward the negroes and their +friends, which resulted in the persecution, political repression, +terrorizing, outrage and murder of the negroes, in the burning of their +schools, and in the slander, ostracism and abuse of their teachers and +political friends. Of this the act of the legislature was an instance and +an evidence. The aid of the federal government was implored.<a name="fna171_171" id="fna171_171"></a><a href="#f171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a></p> + +<p>Similar charges had been made, it will be remembered, in the debates of +1866 and 1867. Now, however, they began to be urged with an earnestness +and persistence altogether new. So conspicuous is this fact in the debates +in Congress that a southern writer ironically remarks: “From this time +forth the entire white race of the South devoted itself to the killing of +negroes.”<a name="fna172_172" id="fna172_172"></a><a href="#f172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> The rest of this chapter will be devoted to considering how +much truth there was in the reported abuse of negroes and “loyal” persons.</p> + +<p>We stated in Chapter II. that after the war a bitter jealousy and +animosity toward the negroes arose among the lower class of the white +population, and in Chapter IV. that the restless conduct of the negroes +under the influences of reconstruction filled the upper class with such +alarm that they formed secret organizations in self-defence. This +practice, at first supported and led by good men of the higher class, +simply for defence, soon fell into the hands of the poor white class, the +criminal class, and the turbulent and discontented young men of all +classes, and became an instrument of revenge, crime and oppression. The +change, however, was not a complete transformation. A great deal of the +whipping inflicted upon negroes was <i>bona fide</i> chastisement for actual +misdemeanors. This mode of punishment was the natural product of the +transition from the old social conditions, when the negroes were +disciplined by their masters,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> to +the new conditions.<a name="fna173_173" id="fna173_173"></a><a href="#f173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> But besides +these acts of correction many outrages were committed upon negroes, and +also upon white men, simply from malice or vengeance, or other private +motive.<a name="fna174_174" id="fna174_174"></a><a href="#f174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> These outrages included some homicides.<a name="fna175_175" id="fna175_175"></a><a href="#f175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> The testimony of +credible contemporaries belonging to both political parties agrees that +the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations were used only to a very small +extent for political purposes.<a name="fna176_176" id="fna176_176"></a><a href="#f176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a></p> + +<p>How many of these corrective or purely vicious acts were perpetrated upon +negroes? Democrats of that time commonly said that the number was +insignificant, that the peace was as well kept in Georgia as in any +northern state, and that statements to the contrary were invented for +political purposes.<a name="fna177_177" id="fna177_177"></a><a href="#f177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> The number was, indeed, greatly exaggerated by +Republicans, as some of the Republicans themselves admitted.<a name="fna178_178" id="fna178_178"></a><a href="#f178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Making +allowance for the warping of the truth in both directions, and considering +the statements of the moderate Republicans,<a name="fna179_179" id="fna179_179"></a><a href="#f179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> and the admissions of +some of the Democrats,<a name="fna180_180" id="fna180_180"></a><a href="#f180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> remembering also the recent disbandment of the +army and the disturbed conditions of society, we must conclude that the +attacks on negroes, made by disguised bands and otherwise, were very +numerous.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>The friends of the negroes also fared badly. Philanthropic women who came +from the North to teach in the negro schools were almost invariably +treated with contempt and avoided by the white people.<a name="fna181_181" id="fna181_181"></a><a href="#f181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> This was due +partly to the lingering bitterness of the war and partly to the connection +of the negro schools with the Freedmen’s Bureau. This institution, the +office of which was to set up strangers, from a recently hostile country, +to instruct the southern people in their private affairs, was in itself +odious. It was rendered more odious by the want of intelligence and tact, +and even of honesty, which is said to have frequently characterized its +officers. That the hatred thus aroused should be visited upon true +philanthropists who were connected with the Bureau was unfortunate, but +inevitable. As for the political friends of the negroes, the “loyal” men, +or in other words the white men who supported reconstruction, they were +habitually treated by the Conservative press and by Conservative speakers +with violent invective. Conservative editors and orators neither engaged +in nor recommended the slaughter or outrage of Radicals, but by +continually voicing furious sentiments, they furnished encouragement to +action of that sort by men of less intelligence and self-control.<a name="fna182_182" id="fna182_182"></a><a href="#f182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a></p> + +<p>The accounts of lawlessness and persecution in Georgia, though +exaggerated, undoubtedly had a substantial foundation. Whether this fact +was a good argument for renewed interference in the state government by +Congress is another question.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REGARDING GEORGIA FROM DECEMBER, 1868, TO DECEMBER, 1869</span></p> + +<p>On December 7, 1868, the credentials of Joshua Hill, one of the Senators +elected by the Georgia legislature in the previous July, were presented in +the United States Senate. Immediately the letter of Governor Bullock and +the memorial of the negro convention were also presented. These documents, +seconded by a speech from a Senator dwelling on the fact that Georgia was +under “rebel control,” secured the reference of Hill’s credentials to the +committee on the judiciary.<a name="fna183_183" id="fna183_183"></a><a href="#f183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> This committee on January 25, 1869, +recommended that Hill be not admitted to the Senate.<a name="fna184_184" id="fna184_184"></a><a href="#f184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a></p> + +<p>The reason for this recommendation, said the committee’s report, was that +Georgia had failed to comply with the requirements of the Omnibus Act, and +so was not yet entitled to representation in Congress. The failure here +referred to was not that alleged by Bullock—that the members of the +legislature had not taken the Test Oath—but the failure of the two houses +to exclude persons disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Omnibus +Act had provided that Georgia should be entitled to representation in +Congress when her legislature had “<i>duly</i>” ratified the Fourteenth +Amendment. The word <i>duly</i> meant <i>in a certain manner</i>—namely, the manner +required by the rest of the act. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> failure to exclude the disqualified +members was a departure from this manner.</p> + +<p>We saw in Chapter V. that each of the committees appointed by the Georgia +legislature in July to investigate the eligibility of members was divided, +that both houses voted that all were eligible in the face of detailed +evidence to the contrary, that the decision of the lower house +contradicted the majority of its committee, and that Meade accepted the +decision rather for the sake of convenience and finality than because it +was indisputably correct. On these facts and on some independent +investigation the Senate judiciary committee based its belief that the +legislature had failed to obey the Omnibus Act in this respect.</p> + +<p>Trumbull, of this committee, submitted a minority report. He admitted that +the decision of the legislature may have been incorrect. But he protested +that if the United States government intended to regard the presence of +half a dozen ineligible members in a body of two hundred and nineteen as +entirely vitiating the action of the legislature, it should have taken +this stand at first. If at first it had, through its representative, +Meade, overlooked the irregularity as a trifle, it seemed only just to +continue to overlook it, and not to make it now the occasion for +augmenting the turmoil in the state by fresh interference.</p> + +<p>But the majority rejoined that there were very good reasons for not +overlooking the irregularity. It was not a mere trifling departure from +the letter of the act of Congress, it was a violation of the spirit of +that act. “The obvious design” of the Omnibus Act “was to prevent the new +organization from falling under the control of enemies of the United +States.” The expulsion of the negroes showed that that design had been +frustrated and that the government was under “rebel control;” it showed a +“common purpose to ... resist the authority of the United States.” +Moreover, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> “disorganized condition of society” in the state made it +necessary for the federal government to intervene again in Georgia, not +only to vindicate its law, but to preserve order.</p> + +<p>The protest of Trumbull is significant as an early sign of the growth +within the Republican party of an opposition to the prolongation of +Congressional interference with the southern state governments.</p> + +<p>The report of the judiciary committee was not acted upon, and thus the +Senate avoided a categorical decision. But Hill was not admitted. A number +of bills relating to Georgia were introduced; a bill “to carry out the +Reconstruction Acts in Georgia” by Sumner,<a name="fna185_185" id="fna185_185"></a><a href="#f185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> a bill to repeal the act +of June 25, 1868, in so far as it admitted Georgia, and to provide for a +provisional government in that state, by Edmunds,<a name="fna186_186" id="fna186_186"></a><a href="#f186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> and others. All of +these soon lapsed.</p> + +<p>Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives the committee on reconstruction +had been instructed to examine the public affairs of Georgia and to +inquire what measures ought to be taken regarding the representatives of +Georgia in the House.<a name="fna187_187" id="fna187_187"></a><a href="#f187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> Many citizens of Georgia, black and white, +testified before the committee.<a name="fna188_188" id="fna188_188"></a><a href="#f188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> Among them Governor Bullock was +conspicuous, advocating the enforcement of the Test Oath qualification—a +fact which aroused great indignation in the state.</p> + +<p>The doubtful position in which Georgia now hung raised the question, what +should be done with her electoral votes in February, 1869? Congress had +passed a joint resolution on July 20, 1868, to the effect that none of the +states affected by the Omnibus Act should be entitled to vote in the +Electoral College in 1869 unless at the time for choosing electors it had +become entitled to representation in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> +Congress.<a name="fna189_189" id="fna189_189"></a><a href="#f189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> As February 10, the +day for counting the votes, approached, it was considered desirable, in +order that the ceremony might pass off smoothly, that the Senate and the +House should agree by a special rule what should be done with Georgia’s +votes. Now, the Senate could not agree to a rule declaring that the votes +should be counted, for that would imply that the state had become entitled +to representation in Congress, and the Senate had refused to admit Hill. +But the House could not concur in declaring that the votes should not be +counted; for that would imply that the state had not become entitled to +representation in Congress, and the House had admitted seven +Representatives from the state. It was therefore agreed by a concurrent +resolution passed February 8, that at the count of the electoral votes, in +case the Georgia votes should be found not to affect the result +essentially (which it was well known would be the case), then the +presiding officer should make the following announcement:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Were the votes presented as of the state of Georgia to be counted, +the result would be for —— for President of the United States, — +votes; if not counted, for ——, for President of the United States, +— votes; but in either case —— is elected President of the United +States;</p></div> + +<p>and a similar announcement of the votes for Vice-President.<a name="fna190_190" id="fna190_190"></a><a href="#f190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> +Accordingly, on February 10, amid the wildest uproar, caused by the +blunders of a perplexed chairman and the violent protest of a group of +Representatives, led by Butler, against the execution of the special rule, +which had been rushed through the House without their knowledge, it was +announced that the electoral vote was as follows:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>For Grant and Colfax</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Including Georgia’s votes</span></td><td align="right">214</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Excluding Georgia’s votes</span> </td><td align="right">214</td></tr> +<tr><td> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></td></tr> +<tr><td>For Seymour and Blair</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Including Georgia’s votes</span></td><td align="right">80</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Excluding Georgia’s votes</span></td><td align="right">71</td></tr></table> + +<p>and that in either case Grant and Colfax were elected.<a name="fna191_191" id="fna191_191"></a><a href="#f191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a></p> + +<p>On March 5, the first day of the forty-first Congress, the House of +Representatives was able to get rid of the Georgia Representatives on a +technicality. The same delegation which had represented Georgia since +July, 1868, appeared again to finish its supposed term. Their credentials +failed to state to what Congress they had been elected, but authorized +them to take seats in the House of Representatives according to the +ordinance of the Georgia constitutional convention passed March 10, 1868. +Now, this ordinance provided that all the public officers who should be +elected on April 20 should enter on their duties as soon as authorized by +Congress or by the general commanding the military district, but should +continue in the same as long as they would if elected in the November +following.<a name="fna192_192" id="fna192_192"></a><a href="#f192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> These Congressmen, then, were elected to serve as if +elected in November, 1868, that is, they were elected members of the +forty-first Congress. But they had already served several months in the +fortieth. If they should serve through the forty-first they would exceed +the constitutional term. The convention of Georgia could make the first +term of all state officers longer than the regular term subsequently to +obtain; it could not so lengthen the term of members of the Congress of +the United States. The credentials were referred to the committee of +elections, and the House was thus relieved of the presence of the Georgia +representatives, which would have been an embarrassment in the subsequent +proceedings.<a name="fna193_193" id="fna193_193"></a><a href="#f193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span>Several bills relating to Georgia were then introduced, which, though they +were not advanced very far, are worth noticing.<a name="fna194_194" id="fna194_194"></a><a href="#f194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> Their titles indicate +the purpose “to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.” Now, the Fourteenth +Amendment consists principally of prohibitions on states; it could not be +enforced in Georgia unless Georgia was a state. Georgia had (it was +assumed) admitted to her legislature men subject to the disqualifications +of the Fourteenth Amendment, and had excluded men from the legislature on +the ground of color, thus denying the equal protection of the laws to +citizens. The latter act had been done after the Fourteenth Amendment went +into effect (July 28, 1868<a name="fna195_195" id="fna195_195"></a><a href="#f195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a>), the former before, but its effect +continued. If Georgia was a state, then, she had violated the amendment, +and Congress might correct these two acts by virtue of its power to +enforce the amendment. If Georgia was not a state, she had not violated +the Fourteenth Amendment, but her acts were subject to correction by +Congress, because her government was “provisional only.” If, therefore, +Congress proposed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in Georgia, it +acknowledged that Georgia was a state, and so debarred itself from any +interference not necessary to enforce that Amendment. If it proposed to +interfere simply as with a provisional government, there was no such +limitation.</p> + +<p>The bills of the first session of the forty-first Congress proposed to +enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. To secure the enforcement of the +disqualification clause they provided that each member of the legislature +should be required to take an oath saying that he was not disqualified by +the amendment, and that those who did not so swear should be excluded. To +secure equal rights to the colored legislators they provided that all +persons elected to the legislature <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>(according to General Meade’s +announcement of the result of the election of 1868) who should take the +test oath required should be admitted, and that the expulsion of the +negroes should be declared void. The federal military authority was to +assist in executing these measures if requested by the governor. These +measures, it will be observed, were only such as might legally be taken +regarding Massachusetts if it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> + +<p>At the next session of Congress, beginning in December, 1869, the policy +of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment was abandoned for the alternative +policy of legislating for a provisional government. The reason for the +change was an emergency in which the Republican Politicians found +themselves. In the previous February Congress had passed the joint +resolution proposing the Fifteenth Amendment. By December it seemed +certain that the number of ratifying states would fall short of the +required three-fourths by just one, unless Congress could prevent it.<a name="fna196_196" id="fna196_196"></a><a href="#f196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> +Georgia furnished the means of preventing it. In March her legislature had +rejected the proposed amendment.<a name="fna197_197" id="fna197_197"></a><a href="#f197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> It could now be forced to ratify and +thus complete the necessary majority. Georgia must then be treated not as +a state which had violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but as a provisional +organization subject to the uncontrolled will of Congress. A bill was +accordingly prepared containing the same provisions as the bills of the +preceding session, but adding this clause: “That the legislature shall +ratify the Fifteenth Amendment before Senators and Representatives from +Georgia are admitted to seats in Congress.” In accordance with its +different legal basis the bill was entitled: “An act to promote the +reconstruction of the state of Georgia.”</p> + +<p>Little need be said of the manner in which this bill was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> passed. The +usual partisan abuse prevailed on both sides. The Democrats made a +remarkable opposition, led by Beck of Kentucky.<a name="fna198_198" id="fna198_198"></a><a href="#f198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> The Republicans were +aided by a message from President Grant urging the intervention of +Congress,<a name="fna199_199" id="fna199_199"></a><a href="#f199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> by the report of the reconstruction committee on affairs in +Georgia,<a name="fna200_200" id="fna200_200"></a><a href="#f200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> and by a report from General Terry, who was stationed in the +Department of the South, alleging that disorder was rampant in Georgia and +the need of further military government by federal authority +imperative.<a name="fna201_201" id="fna201_201"></a><a href="#f201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> Terry’s superior officer, General Halleck, added a +postscript to Terry’s report to the effect that Terry was mistaken, that +the disorder in Georgia was much less than was commonly believed, and that +federal interference was highly inadvisable.<a name="fna202_202" id="fna202_202"></a><a href="#f202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> Aided by the report and +undeterred by the postscript, the Republicans discoursed of “rebel +control” and “murder” with unprecedented effect. Butler said that Congress +must act instantly; if action on the bill is postponed, he said, “the rest +of the Republican majority of that state may be murdered, even during +Christmas week, when the Son of God came on earth to bring peace and good +will to man.”<a name="fna203_203" id="fna203_203"></a><a href="#f203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></p> + +<p>The bill became law on December 22, 1869.<a name="fna204_204" id="fna204_204"></a><a href="#f204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> Congress thus decided at +last to adopt the opinion of the Senate judiciary committee, that Georgia +had not become a state through the Omnibus Act. General Meade, in +declaring the contrary, had been mistaken. Bullock, in calling himself +governor, had been mistaken. The House of Representatives, in admitting +members sent from Georgia, had been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> mistaken; they were <i>de facto</i> +members, but had no legal right there.<a name="fna205_205" id="fna205_205"></a><a href="#f205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> The legal basis of the act of +December 22 was then the same as that of the original Reconstruction Acts.</p> + +<p>The question which had been raised in the debates on these acts—What +legal effect could the action of a body not the legislature of a state +have on the adoption of an amendment to the constitution?—was raised +again here. Some of the Republicans argued that such action could have no +effect and should not be required.<a name="fna206_206" id="fna206_206"></a><a href="#f206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> Under these circumstances there +was a more earnest effort than any heretofore made to defend such a +requirement. It was answered: True, the body which will ratify the +amendment in Georgia will not be a state legislature at the time; but it +will later become a state legislature, and then by relation the +ratification will be imputed to the state legislature and will thus have +legal effect. Relation, an operation known to private law, had been +applied to constitutional law in several previous cases, in order to give +to acts done by the legislatures of territories the same effect as if they +had been done after statehood was obtained.<a name="fna207_207" id="fna207_207"></a><a href="#f207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> The ratification by +Georgia would be valid by relation.<a name="fna208_208" id="fna208_208"></a><a href="#f208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1869, AND THE FINAL RESTORATION</span></p> + + +<p>Before relating the manner in which the act of December 22, 1869 (which we +shall call the Reorganization Act), was executed, we must mention its +provisions in more detail than we did in the last chapter. It first +“authorized and directed” the governor by proclamation to summon +“forthwith” all persons elected to the legislature in April, 1868, +according to Meade’s announcement of the result of the election then +held,<a name="fna209_209" id="fna209_209"></a><a href="#f209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> to meet in special session “on some day certain.” The act +continued:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>and thereupon the said general assembly shall proceed to perfect its +organization in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the +United States, according to the provisions of this act.</p></div> + +<p>When the legislature was assembled, every person claiming to be a member +should take a test oath prescribed in the act, to the effect that he had +never been a member of Congress or of a state legislature, nor held any +civil office created by law for the administration of any general law of a +state, or for the administration of justice in any state, or under the +laws of the United States, nor served in the military or naval forces of +the United States as an officer, and thereafter engaged in or supported +hostilities against the United States; each person should take this oath +or else an oath (also prescribed <i>verbatim</i>) that he had been relieved +from disability by Congress according to section 3 of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> Fourteenth +Amendment. The exclusion on the ground of color of any person elected and +otherwise qualified, the act declared “would be illegal and +revolutionary,” and was “prohibited.” The act directed the President to +use force in executing the act upon application from the governor.</p> + +<p>The process ordered by the act seems simple and obvious, but the general +of the army deduced much from it not apparent on its face. This act, he +reasoned, implies that the Georgia government is provisional, and has +never ceased to be so since March 2, 1867. And in that case the act of +March 2, 1867, has never ceased to operate as to Georgia, since by its own +terms it is to remain in force in each “rebel state” until each +respectively has been “by law admitted to representation in the congress +of the United States.” Georgia has not been so admitted, since she did not +comply with the Omnibus Act. Therefore the Reconstruction Acts are still +in force in Georgia, and the general orders of July 28, 1868, declaring +the Third Military District abolished were a mistake. Accordingly those +orders were countermanded by the general of the army on January 4, 1870, +and General Terry, a prominent advocate, as we have seen, of the revival +of military government in Georgia, was placed in command of the remnant of +the Third Military District.<a name="fna210_210" id="fna210_210"></a><a href="#f210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a></p> + +<p>The War Department’s deduction from the Reorganization Act of authority to +institute again the system of the Reconstruction Acts came a month or two +later under the consideration of the Senate judiciary committee, and was +pronounced a gratuitous perversion of the act last passed. That act +implied, to be sure, that the Georgia government was provisional; but it +was plainly intended not to revive but to supersede the former regulations +regarding that government. The purpose of the Reorganization Act was +simply that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> legislature should reorganize itself and ratify the +Fifteenth Amendment. To this purpose military government had no relation. +The Reconstruction Acts had not expired according to their own provisions +as to Georgia, it was true, but they had been repealed by the +Reorganization Act. This was further proved by the latter’s provision that +military force should be used “upon the application of the governor.” The +Reorganization Act, said the committee, “invokes military action in what +it provides shall be done, and no more.”<a name="fna211_211" id="fna211_211"></a><a href="#f211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> Unfortunately this opinion +was delivered some time after the theory which it demolished had been in +practical operation.</p> + +<p>Terry, having received the <i>rôle</i> of military governor, played it as the +true heir to the power of his great predecessors. He removed from office +three sheriffs and a county ordinary and appointed successors.<a name="fna212_212" id="fna212_212"></a><a href="#f212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> He +intervened in eight private controversies and composed them with a strong +hand.<a name="fna213_213" id="fna213_213"></a><a href="#f213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> In two cases before the state courts he substituted his command +for the regular process.<a name="fna214_214" id="fna214_214"></a><a href="#f214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> Still more apparent was the official +character which he had assumed, in his conduct toward the legislature. +Possessing the power wielded by Pope and Meade, he could issue any orders +he pleased to that body. For this reason, and because he was in sympathy +with them, the Georgia Republicans ardently embraced and tenaciously clung +to the theory that he was not a mere assistant in executing the +Reorganization Act, but a military governor under the Reconstruction Acts.</p> + +<p>On December 22, 1869, Governor Bullock issued his proclamation (which he +signed “Rufus B. Bullock, Provisional Governor”), summoning the men +elected to the legislature in 1868 to meet in Atlanta on January 10 +following.<a name="fna215_215" id="fna215_215"></a><a href="#f215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> +This<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> duty, besides that of calling on the President for +aid if he saw fit, was the only one expressly entrusted to Bullock by the +Reorganization Act. Another one, however, was deduced by the following +process of reasoning: The legislature can do nothing before its members +are qualified according to the act. Since it can do nothing, it cannot +even organize itself. But it is the purpose of the act that the +legislature be organized. Therefore some one else must be intended to +organize it. This duty naturally belongs to the governor, since the +cognate duty of convening the body is imposed on him. In accordance with +this reasoning, Bullock appointed a temporary clerk for each house, who +should call the house to order and preside until all the members should be +qualified or declared disqualified, by taking or failing to take one of +the test oaths of the Reorganization Act.<a name="fna216_216" id="fna216_216"></a><a href="#f216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> This appointment of Bullock +rested not only upon the reasoning stated above, but upon the approval of +Terry, who, whether the reasoning was correct or not, could do, or order +to be done, to the legislature anything he chose.<a name="fna217_217" id="fna217_217"></a><a href="#f217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a></p> + +<p>When the legislature convened on January 10, each house was called to +order by its temporary clerk, who proceeded to call the roll of names +announced by Meade after the election of 1868, for the administration to +each person of one of the required test oaths. On the same day the upper +house completed the roll call and the swearing in of members, and effected +a permanent organization. A Republican (Conley) was elected president by a +large majority. On assuming the chair he delivered an oration, the spirit +of which may be perceived from the following sentence: “The government has +determined that in this republic, which is not, never was, and never can +be, a democracy—that in this republic Republicans shall rule.”<a name="fna218_218" id="fna218_218"></a><a href="#f218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>Far different was the course of events in the lower house. When that house +assembled it found one Harris in the chair. Forgetting that his +appointment had been indorsed by Terry and that he was, therefore, the +virtual agent of a military governor who had the power to do anything he +chose to the legislature, the Conservatives raised objection to his +presiding and attempted to elect a temporary chairman in the usual way. +This attempt precipitated a violent scene in the house, but was +unsuccessful. Harris kept his seat and ordered the roll call for the +swearing in of members to proceed. The names of seventy-eight persons were +called and as many of these as were present were sworn in. At this point, +the journal records, “the clerk <i>pro tem.</i> announced that the house would +take a recess” until the next day. This the house did.<a name="fna219_219" id="fna219_219"></a><a href="#f219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> On January 11 +and 12, the same proceedings occurred, the swearing in continuing until it +was suspended and the house adjourned by the “clerk <i>pro tem.</i>”<a name="fna220_220" id="fna220_220"></a><a href="#f220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a></p> + +<p>Without the theory that the Reconstruction Acts were still in force these +proceedings in the lower house would have constituted the plainest +illegality. But if Terry was a military governor and Harris his agent, +they were legal. Though the Senate judiciary committee later declared this +a false interpretation of the law, yet it was the official interpretation +of the War Department, as we saw by the order appointing Terry.<a name="fna221_221" id="fna221_221"></a><a href="#f221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> The +War Department had a right to decide what the Reorganization Act, which it +was to aid in executing, meant. Its decision, whatever its character, was +never officially overruled. Therefore the proceedings in the legislature +were officially regular.</p> + +<p>Before the legislature met, the Conservative papers had published an +article by a state judge on the meaning of the first test oath of the +Reorganization Act. It concerned<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> especially the phrase: “any civil office +created by law for the administration of any general law of a state.” It +was argued that there were many state offices not included in this +phrase—among them those of mayor, alderman and state librarian. Since +these offices were not “for the administration of any general law,” but +only for that of special or local law, former occupants of them who had +supported the Confederacy could take the present test oath.<a name="fna222_222" id="fna222_222"></a><a href="#f222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> This +construction would give an advantage to the Conservatives. To counteract +it, Bullock applied to the attorney general for an official +interpretation. That officer (Farrow by name) responded with a very +reasonable opinion. He admitted that officers with merely local functions +were not included in the phrase in question, but pointed out that many +municipal officers had the powers of a justice of the peace. In such cases +they were charged with the administration of general law and were included +in the phrase. The state librarian, said Farrow, executed general law and +was included.<a name="fna223_223" id="fna223_223"></a><a href="#f223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a></p> + +<p>After the swearing in of members had gone on in the house of +representatives, as we have said, it was believed by the Radicals that +some Conservatives were acting upon the judge’s interpretation and +disregarding the attorney general’s, and that others had sworn or intended +to swear falsely who were debarred even by the former. Ordinarily, if a +man intends to swear falsely to a test oath there is no way of preventing +him. In the existing state of public opinion, prosecution for perjury +after the oath of office was taken was impossible. But Georgia had a +military governor. By issuing orders he could prevent men whom he believed +ineligible from swearing and could unseat those whom he believed to have +sworn falsely. This Terry decided to do.</p> + +<p>On January 13 he detailed a board of soldiers to investigate the cases of +twenty-one members elect whose eligibility<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> was +questioned.<a name="fna224_224" id="fna224_224"></a><a href="#f224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> This +board sat for two weeks, and found five men ineligible<a name="fna225_225" id="fna225_225"></a><a href="#f225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> and eleven +eligible.<a name="fna226_226" id="fna226_226"></a><a href="#f226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> Terry accordingly forbade the five, and ordered the eleven, +to be sworn in. The remaining five of the twenty-one, together with +nineteen others, confessed ineligibility by filing with Bullock +application for the removal of their disabilities by Congress. These also +Terry forbade to be sworn in.<a name="fna227_227" id="fna227_227"></a><a href="#f227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> The actions and the decision of the +board of inquiry were pronounced fair and honorable even by the +Conservatives.<a name="fna228_228" id="fna228_228"></a><a href="#f228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> The nineteen applications for Congressional grace were +said to have been procured by the Radicals through intimidation and +fraud.<a name="fna229_229" id="fna229_229"></a><a href="#f229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> If the applicants were in fact ineligible but intended +nevertheless to take the oath, then we must admire the cleverness of the +Radicals in dissuading them, by whatever means they did it. If they used +intimidation and fraud, their means were no worse than the end sought by +their victims—the frustration of a law by perjury. On the other hand, if +nineteen Conservatives who were eligible were induced by Radicals to +petition for the removal of ineligibility, the fact may excite disapproval +of the Radicals, but hardly pity for the Conservatives.</p> + +<p>On January 13, when the board of inquiry was appointed, the “clerk <i>pro +tem.</i>” of the lower house, by order of Bullock countersigned by Terry, had +declared the house adjourned till January 17, to await the decision of the +board.<a name="fna230_230" id="fna230_230"></a><a href="#f230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> On the 17th the house met and listened to the reading of two +orders from Bullock indorsed by Terry; the one directing the state +treasurer to issue fifty dollars to each member of the house,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> the other +ordering the house to adjourn till January 19.<a name="fna231_231" id="fna231_231"></a><a href="#f231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> On the 19th the house +met, and after one man had been sworn in was adjourned in the same manner +till the 24th.<a name="fna232_232" id="fna232_232"></a><a href="#f232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> On the 24th it met and after two men had been sworn in +was again adjourned by order of the governor.<a name="fna233_233" id="fna233_233"></a><a href="#f233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> On the morning of the +25th it met and was adjourned till afternoon. In the afternoon it was +adjourned as soon as it had met till the next day. To the countersignature +of Terry in this case was added the promise that this was the last +adjournment of the series, since the board had now rendered so much of its +decision as related to members of the lower house. The house was therefore +ordered to swear in, on the next day, all the remaining members elect +except those found or confessed ineligible, and to elect its permanent +officers.<a name="fna234_234" id="fna234_234"></a><a href="#f234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> On January 26 this order was complied with; the Radical +candidate for chairman was elected by a large majority, and the +redoubtable “clerk <i>pro tem.</i>,” having presided for the last time, +retired.<a name="fna235_235" id="fna235_235"></a><a href="#f235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a></p> + +<p>The reorganized legislature on February 2 complied with the remaining +requirements of the Reorganization Act by ratifying the Fifteenth +Amendment. On the advice of Bullock it also repassed the resolutions of +July, 1868, required by the Omnibus Act. This was not necessary to +re-admission. It is true, the requirements of the Omnibus Act had, by the +hypothesis of the Reorganization Act, never been “duly” fulfilled. But the +Omnibus Act had been superseded by other legislation, which made new +requirements and did not renew the old. The renewal of the unfulfilled +requirements had been discussed in Congress and rejected.<a name="fna236_236" id="fna236_236"></a><a href="#f236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> +Nevertheless, the resolutions were passed gratuitously.<a name="fna237_237" id="fna237_237"></a><a href="#f237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> + +<p>The Omnibus Act had definitely said that Georgia should<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> be “entitled and +admitted to representation in Congress as a state of the union when the +legislature” had complied with the conditions mentioned in the act. The +Reorganization Act was not so definite. It said; “The legislature shall +ratify the Fifteenth Amendment ... before Senators and Representatives +from Georgia are admitted to seats in Congress.” This might be construed +as granting title to representation as a state as soon as the Fifteenth +Amendment should be ratified, or as merely requiring the ratification and +making no definite provision as to restoration but leaving that subject to +be provided for by another act. The latter construction was adopted by the +Georgia Radicals, since it prolonged the tenure of their military +governor. It followed from this construction that the state government was +still “provisional” and could not proceed with its business like a regular +state government. So after electing United States Senators (the election +of July, 1868, being regarded as invalid,<a name="fna238_238" id="fna238_238"></a><a href="#f238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> and the present election +probably being designed to become valid by relation), the legislature +adjourned until April 18, to await Congressional action.<a name="fna239_239" id="fna239_239"></a><a href="#f239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> In April +Congress had taken no action, and the legislature, after sitting a +fortnight, took another recess of two months.<a name="fna240_240" id="fna240_240"></a><a href="#f240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> Meantime the theory of +military government had been faithfully observed. Though the legislature +was only provisional, it could legislate with Terry’s permission. It +passed a stay law on February 17, and asked Terry to enforce it.<a name="fna241_241" id="fna241_241"></a><a href="#f241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> On +May 2 it passed revenue and appropriation acts,<a name="fna242_242" id="fna242_242"></a><a href="#f242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> but not before Terry +had informed it through the governor that he would allow those acts to +have the validity of regularly issued military orders.<a name="fna243_243" id="fna243_243"></a><a href="#f243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Whatever may have been the merits of the construction of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> the +Reorganization Act adopted by the War Department, it is certain that the +proceedings taken under it greatly astonished those who had passed the +act. On January 19 the House of Representatives adopted a resolution +requesting the general of the army to inform it by what authority three +United States soldiers were acting as a committee in the legislature of +Georgia.<a name="fna244_244" id="fna244_244"></a><a href="#f244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> On February 4 the Senate asked for official information +regarding the proceedings had under the Reorganization Act.<a name="fna245_245" id="fna245_245"></a><a href="#f245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> The facts +disclosed in response to this request created such surprise that the +Senate directed the judiciary committee to inquire and report whether the +act had been complied with.<a name="fna246_246" id="fna246_246"></a><a href="#f246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> The answer of the committee, as we saw in +the early part of the chapter, was that the act had been misconstrued and +violated. The appointment of presiding officers by the governor, the acts +of those officers, the revival of the military governorship, and in +particular the interference of Terry in the organization of the +legislature—these, said the committee, were wholly unlawful. But though +unlawful they had resulted in no substantial injustice, since all the men +debarred by Terry were undoubtedly ineligible. And in any case a general +state election was approaching, so that if any injustice had been done it +would soon be righted. For these reasons the committee recommended that +Congress undertake no more legislation for Georgia, but admit her +representatives to each house as soon as possible.<a name="fna247_247" id="fna247_247"></a><a href="#f247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a></p> + +<p>The committee believed that the Reorganization Act was to be construed as +a law entitling Georgia to representation in Congress as soon as she had +ratified the Fifteenth Amendment. This opinion was held by many +Republicans, who had followed Trumbull’s example and who appeared from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> +this time on as opponents of further Congressional interference in the +South. The radical Republicans, however, led by Butler—those Republicans +characterized by a Republican paper of the time as “the screeching wing” +of the party<a name="fna248_248" id="fna248_248"></a><a href="#f248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a>—insisted that Georgia must be admitted, as the first +Reconstruction Act had said, “by law,” and that no law to that effect had +been passed. The reason why this argument was urged was that the passage +of a new act for restoring the state would give an opportunity to annex +other provisions besides the declaration of restoration. The particular +provisions designed to be annexed were for the purpose of prolonging the +term of the present state government.</p> + +<p>On February 25 Butler introduced the bill to admit Georgia.<a name="fna249_249" id="fna249_249"></a><a href="#f249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> One of +its sections was as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>That the power granted by the constitution of Georgia to the general +assembly to change the time of holding elections ... shall not be so +exercised as to postpone the election for members of the next general +assembly beyond the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the +year 1872.</p></div> + +<p>The power here referred to was that conferred by Article III., section 1, +of the state constitution;</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The election for members of the general assembly shall begin on +Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every second year ... +but the general assembly may by law change the time of election, and +members shall hold until their successors are elected and qualified.</p></div> + +<p>The constitutional term of the present legislature (except of one-half of +the senators, who held four years) would expire in November, 1870. But +this section of the constitution, Butler pointed out, would enable the +legislature to postpone the election and perpetuate its power. This grave +danger he proposed to remove by the clause of his bill above quoted. In +order to prevent the legislature from prolonging its tenure forever, he +proposed, not to forbid prolongation, but to allow it for two years.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>I also propose [he said] by this [clause] to give to the present +State officers of Georgia a two years’ term of office in that state +as a state in this Union.</p></div> + +<p>That Congress should pose as the defender of the people of Georgia against +a usurping legislature, and at the same time by the guaranty of its +approval encourage that legislature to double its constitutional +term—this was a conception of political genius which, independently of +its realization, should make Butler immortal.</p> + +<p>The moderate Republicans of the House of Representatives were willing, for +the sake of settling doubt, to pass a bill declaring Georgia restored, but +were decidedly opposed the scheme to use the bill as a means of prolonging +the tenure of the Georgia Radicals. An <ins class="correction" title="original: admendment">amendment</ins> to Butler’s bill, known +as the Bingham amendment, was offered, to the following effect:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... neither shall this act be construed to extend the official tenure +of any officer of said state beyond the term limited by the +constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such +officer.<a name="fna250_250" id="fna250_250"></a><a href="#f250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a></p></div> + +<p>The bill with this amendment passed the House by a large majority on March +8.<a name="fna251_251" id="fna251_251"></a><a href="#f251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a></p> + +<p>In the Senate the necessity of any bill and the propriety of the Bingham +amendment were warmly debated for some weeks. Then the so-called Drake +amendment was offered. It provided that whenever the legislature or +governor of any state should inform the President of the existence within +that state of associations organized for the purpose of obstructing the +law and doing violence to persons, then the President should send troops +to that state, declare martial law, suspend the privileges of the writ of +<i>habeas corpus</i>, and take such other military measures as he saw fit, and +should levy the cost of the expedition on the people of the state.<a name="fna252_252" id="fna252_252"></a><a href="#f252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> +The propriety of grafting this general measure on a special bill like the +present should not be discussed, it was said, in view of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> the pressing +necessity of passing it in some way, no matter how.<a name="fna253_253" id="fna253_253"></a><a href="#f253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> The debate thus +complicated continued until April 19, when the bill went to the committee +of the whole. There, the night being far spent, two entirely new +amendments were suddenly offered. One commanded Georgia to hold a general +election in the present year; the other declared that the existing +government of Georgia was still “provisional” and provided that the +Reconstruction Acts of 1867 should continue to be enforced there. These +amendments were adopted by the committee. The Drake amendment was also +adopted. Finally, the entire bill as it came from the house was stricken +out.<a name="fna254_254" id="fna254_254"></a><a href="#f254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> Thus transformed so that, as a Senator said, “it would not be +recognized by the oldest inhabitant,” the bill was passed by the +Senate.<a name="fna255_255" id="fna255_255"></a><a href="#f255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a></p> + +<p>The House of Representatives did not take up the bill again until June 23. +On June 24 it decided to insist on the passage of the bill substantially +as before passed.<a name="fna256_256" id="fna256_256"></a><a href="#f256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> As a result of the conference following, the Senate +yielded to the House. The bill became law on July 15, 1870. It said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... It is hereby declared that the state of Georgia is entitled to +representation in the Congress of the United States. But nothing in +this act contained shall be construed to deprive the people of +Georgia of the right to an election for members of the general +assembly of said state, as provided for in the constitution +thereof.<a name="fna257_257" id="fna257_257"></a><a href="#f257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a></p></div> + +<p>One would suppose that this act of July 15 should close the chapter; that +it recognized Georgia as a state, and that henceforth all peculiar +relations between Georgia and the federal government were at an end. The +Georgia Radicals were able to avoid this conclusion. In a message to the +legislature on July 18 the governor said that according to the act of +March 2, 1867, the federal military power was to <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span>remain until the state +was not only entitled to representation but actually represented in +Congress. Section 5 of that act contained this language:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>When ... any one of said rebel states shall have [fulfilled all +requirements], said state shall be declared entitled to +representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall be +admitted therefrom ... and then and thereafter the preceding sections +of this act shall be inoperative in said state.</p></div> + +<p>Hence, the military authority, said Bullock, would continue in Georgia +until the following December. But he informed the legislature that it +might proceed with legislation, since Terry had informed him that he would +allow it.<a name="fna258_258" id="fna258_258"></a><a href="#f258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a></p> + +<p>The Radicals in the legislature took advantage of the theory announced by +the governor to make one last attempt at prolongation of power. On July 26 +a resolution was offered in the upper house to this effect: That the +authority of the United States was still paramount in Georgia; that no +offence ought to be offered to Congress by an apparent denial of this +fact; that therefore no election should be held in the state until +Congress had fully recognized its statehood by receiving its +representatives.<a name="fna259_259" id="fna259_259"></a><a href="#f259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> On July 29 the senate adopted a resolution similar +to this, but the lower house rejected it by a few votes.<a name="fna260_260" id="fna260_260"></a><a href="#f260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> With the +failure of this attempt, the Reconstruction Acts ceased to operate in +Georgia, either in fact or in any one’s theory.</p> + +<p>At the next session of Congress a delegation from Georgia composed of men +elected in December, 1870, was seated in the House of Representatives.<a name="fna261_261" id="fna261_261"></a><a href="#f261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> +In the Senate, Farrow and Whitely, elected by the legislature in February, +1870, presented credentials. They were referred to the judiciary +committee, which reported adversely. It recommended that Hill, elected in +1868, be seated, and reported that Miller,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> elected with Hill, would be +entitled to a seat except that he was unable to take the Test Oath +required of members of Congress by the act of July 2, 1862.<a name="fna262_262" id="fna262_262"></a><a href="#f262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> Since +this committee had decided in January, 1869, that the Georgia legislature +was not legally organized in 1868, and in March, 1870, that its +organization in January of that year was also illegal, and since therefore +the election of Hill and Miller and that of Farrow and Whitely were both +illegal, the committee had to decide the question: To which of these +illegal elections ought we to give <i>de facto</i> validity? It decided in +favor of the earlier one on grounds of equity. The Senate adopted the +committee’s opinion. The Test Oath act was suspended in favor of Miller by +a special act of Congress, and he and Hill were sworn in, in February, +1871.<a name="fna263_263" id="fna263_263"></a><a href="#f263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a></p> + +<p>Thus, after federal intervention had been imposed in 1865 and apparently +withdrawn in the same year, again imposed in 1867 and again apparently +withdrawn in 1868, and yet again imposed in 1869, it was now withdrawn for +the last time, and Georgia was completely restored to statehood.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="big">RECONSTRUCTION AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT</span></p> + +<p>In the preceding chapters we have mentioned the immediate effect of +reconstruction upon social conditions. To its immediate effects upon +political conditions, in other words to the character and conduct of the +new state government, which have been mentioned only incidentally, we +shall now give a more direct and consecutive consideration.</p> + +<p>With reference to the political reforms of reconstruction the white men of +Georgia formed three distinct parties. There were those who favored them, +either on their ethical and political merits or (more often) as a means of +attaining political power otherwise unattainable. They were called +Scalawags, Carpet-baggers and Radicals, of which terms <ins class="correction" title="original: we we">we</ins> shall adopt the +last. There were those unalterably opposed to them, called Rebels by their +critics and Conservatives by themselves. There were, thirdly, those who +supported them not upon their merits, which they doubted, but because they +saw the state at the mercy of a conqueror and believed that, bad as the +measures were, it was better to accept them quickly than to make a vain +resistance, which could only prolong the social and commercial +disturbances in the state, and which might occasion the administration of +a still worse dose. This group embraced many of the commercial class, +which was especially large in Georgia, and one of the men prominent in +former politics, namely Governor Brown. They were classed by the +Conservatives with the basest of Radicals, but we shall call them the +Moderate Republicans. The admixture of this group with the Radical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> party +had important consequences. Differing from their party in principle and +allying themselves with it to bring peace to the state, when the peace of +the state seemed secure, they sometimes adhered to their principles rather +than to their party. It is true, many of them became so interested in the +great game of politics then going on that they played it for its own sake, +but some party splits of importance occurred.</p> + +<p>The first fruit of the policy of negro enfranchisement and rebel +disenfranchisement was the constitutional convention of 1867-68. It was +stated in the latter part of Chapter IV. that in the election for members +of this convention many Conservatives declined to take part. For this +reason the Radicals obtained a predominance in the convention which they +did not retain in the state government after the Conservatives decided to +fight. The convention, in fact, was extremely Radical. The constitution +which it framed shows the thoroughness with which it entered into the +Humanitarian reforms. The speeches and resolutions show that a close +sympathy with the Republican party and a bitter antagonism to the +Conservatives were entertained by most of the members. The temporary +chairman, Foster Blodgett, in his opening speech, mentioned the +suspicious, hostile and contemptuous attitude of the Conservatives toward +the convention. He said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>They may stand and rail at us and strive to distract us from our +patriotic labors; but we are engaged in a great work ... we are +building up the walls of a great state.<a name="fna264_264" id="fna264_264"></a><a href="#f264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p></div> + +<p>Parrot, the permanent chairman, said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Many of us come here from amongst a people who have spurned us and +spit upon us ... the enemies of the convention are watching with +envious eyes to see whether we shall be able to meet public +expectation.... We should form a state government for an unwilling +people based upon the soundest principles ... and in governing them +rescue human liberty from the grave, and prevent them from trampling +us under foot.</p></div> + +<p>On the other side, he said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span>The Republican party of the nation is waiting with intense anxiety +the movements of this body. Our friends will soon be able to +determine whether we shall be a burden upon them ... or aid them in +the great work of restoring our state.<a name="fna265_265" id="fna265_265"></a><a href="#f265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a></p></div> + +<p>When Governor Jenkins brought suit against Stanton on behalf of the state, +the convention declared the action unauthorized and in the name of the +people of Georgia demanded that the suit be dismissed.<a name="fna266_266" id="fna266_266"></a><a href="#f266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> On December +17, 1867, a resolution was passed, asking Pope to appoint, in lieu of +Governor Jenkins, a provisional governor, and asking that the person +appointed be Rufus B. Bullock.<a name="fna267_267" id="fna267_267"></a><a href="#f267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> Unsuccessful here, the convention +tried again on January 21. It requested Congress to allow it to vacate the +governorship and all other offices now filled by men unfriendly to +reconstruction and to fill them with new appointees.<a name="fna268_268" id="fna268_268"></a><a href="#f268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> These two last +named resolutions suggest not only Radical sentiment, but also Radical +organization in the convention.</p> + +<p>The attitude of the convention toward the military authorities was most +cordial. On December 20, a reception was given to Pope. The general made a +speech and received an ovation.<a name="fna269_269" id="fna269_269"></a><a href="#f269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> Resolutions of friendship and +gratitude were voted him on his departure.<a name="fna270_270" id="fna270_270"></a><a href="#f270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> Meade, on his arrival, +received resolutions of welcome,<a name="fna271_271" id="fna271_271"></a><a href="#f271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> and resolutions of friendly import +on various other occasions.<a name="fna272_272" id="fna272_272"></a><a href="#f272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> Meade did not entirely reciprocate this +cordiality.</p> + +<p>Toward Congress the convention was not only cordial; it was almost filial. +Not only was the United States government eloquently thanked for its +magnanimity,<a name="fna273_273" id="fna273_273"></a><a href="#f273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> but it was appealed to by the convention as a kind +parent by a child confident of favor. It was petitioned to appropriate +thirty million dollars to be loaned on mortgage to southern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> +planters;<a name="fna274_274" id="fna274_274"></a><a href="#f274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> to loan a hundred thousand dollars to the South Georgia and +Florida railroad,<a name="fna275_275" id="fna275_275"></a><a href="#f275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> and “to make a liberal appropriation” for building +the proposed Air Line railroad.<a name="fna276_276" id="fna276_276"></a><a href="#f276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a></p> + +<p>The constitutional convention of 1865 had met on October 25, and adjourned +on November 8, thus completing its work in fourteen days. This dispatch, +as well as the style of its resolutions and of the speeches of its +members,<a name="fna277_277" id="fna277_277"></a><a href="#f277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> had marked it as a body where good taste, decorum and public +spirit prevailed.</p> + +<p>The reconstruction convention met on December 9, 1867, and continued in +session (excepting a recess from December 24 to January 7), until March +11, 1868. The first article of the new constitution on which the +convention took action was reported on January 9.<a name="fna278_278" id="fna278_278"></a><a href="#f278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a> Before that time +many resolutions and ordinances were introduced. Most of them related to +“relief” (such as suspension of tax collections, homestead exemption, stay +of execution for debt, etc.), or to the pay and mileage of delegates, and +only rarely was anything said about the constitution. On December 16 the +more conscientious members secured the appointment of a committee to +inquire whether the convention had power to do any business besides frame +a constitution.<a name="fna279_279" id="fna279_279"></a><a href="#f279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> This committee did not discuss the law of the +question, but recommended on moral grounds a resolution to this effect:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>That all ordinances or other matter ... already introduced and +pending are hereby indefinitely postponed; and in future no ordinance +or other matter ... not necessarily connected with the fundamental +law shall be entertained by this convention [except relief +legislation].</p></div> + +<p>This report met with vigorous opposition. It was saved from the table by +two votes. But it was adopted.<a name="fna280_280" id="fna280_280"></a><a href="#f280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> +The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> contemporary Conservative press +describes the convention as very infamous and very disgusting.<a name="fna281_281" id="fna281_281"></a><a href="#f281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> It +contained thirty-three negroes, and the transactions recorded in the +official journal show that it was composed largely of men of low +character.</p> + +<p>Hence, to many of the delegates, framing the constitution was only a minor +incident of the convention, and the main part of that work was left to a +small number of men. Their work shows intelligence and ability. Moreover, +in the records of the convention there are not wanting traces of that +undoubted public spirit which animated many of the supporters of +<ins class="correction" title="original: reconstructien">reconstruction</ins>—the honest desire to repair and develop the material +welfare of the state. This spirit is evident in the speeches we have +cited, and in some of the resolutions.</p> + +<p>We have stated how the campaign of 1868 resulted in giving the +governorship to the Republicans and a majority of twenty-nine in the +legislature to the Conservatives; how Governor Bullock tried to reduce +that majority through Meade, and how Meade refused his aid; and how the +majority was more than doubled by the expulsion of the negroes and the +seating of the minority candidates. From that time to the reorganization +of the legislature in 1870, the most remarkable fact in the state politics +was the hostility between the governor and the legislature.</p> + +<p>After the expulsion of the negroes, the lower house asked the governor to +send it the names of the candidates who at the election had received the +next highest vote to the persons expelled. The governor sent the names and +with them a long protest against the expulsion of the negroes.<a name="fna282_282" id="fna282_282"></a><a href="#f282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> The +house, on hearing the message, adopted a tart resolution, reminding the +governor that the members of each house<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> were “the keepers of their own +consciences, and not his Excellency.”<a name="fna283_283" id="fna283_283"></a><a href="#f283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> A similar message to the upper +house in response to a similar request provoked a similar resolution, +which was defeated by two votes.<a name="fna284_284" id="fna284_284"></a><a href="#f284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a></p> + +<p>It will be remembered that in December, 1868, and January, 1869, the +governor urged upon Congress, through his letter presented in the Senate +and through his testimony before the Reconstruction Committee, the theory +that Georgia had not yet been restored. On January 15, 1869, he urged the +same view upon the legislature. He advised it to reorganize itself by +summoning all men elected members in 1868, requiring each to take the Test +Oath, excluding only those who should not take it, and thus constituted to +repass the resolutions required by the Omnibus Act. If the legislature did +not do this, it must submit to Congressional interference.<a name="fna285_285" id="fna285_285"></a><a href="#f285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> This +message apparently caused the legislature some apprehension. It adopted a +joint resolution to the effect that it desired the question of the +eligibility of negroes to office to be determined by the supreme court of +the state. The governor sent this resolution back with one of his +admirably keen and powerful messages. He said that Congress had two +grievances against the present legislature; that it had admitted members +disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment, contrary to the Omnibus Act, and +that it had expelled twenty-eight negroes. The present resolution, +intended to appease Congress, ignored the first grievance and proposed no +remedy for the second; therefore it was meaningless and absurd.<a name="fna286_286" id="fna286_286"></a><a href="#f286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a></p> + +<p>On January 21, 1869, the state treasurer, Angier, in response to an +inquiry from the house of representatives regarding the affairs of his +department, intimated that the governor had drawn money from the treasury +under suspicious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> +<ins class="correction" title="original: circumsances">circumstances</ins>.<a name="fna287_287" id="fna287_287"></a><a href="#f287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> Thus began the feud between the +governor and the treasurer which continued during the rest of Bullock’s +term. Angier’s report was referred to the committee on finance. The +majority of the committee reported that the governor’s acts had been +irregular but in good faith. The minority reported that his acts were +culpable and his explanations inadequate, and concluded: “The facts herein +set forth develop the necessity for further legislation for the security +of the treasury.”<a name="fna288_288" id="fna288_288"></a><a href="#f288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> This report the house adopted by a large +majority.<a name="fna289_289" id="fna289_289"></a><a href="#f289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a></p> + +<p>Another index of the relations between the governor and the legislature is +furnished by the governor’s message submitting the proposed Fifteenth +Amendment. It opened thus:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>It is especially gratifying to learn, as I do from the published +proceedings of your honorable body, that senators and representatives +who have heretofore acted with a political organization which adopted +as one of its principles a denunciation of the acts of a Republican +Congress ... should now give expression to their anxious desire to +lose no time in embracing this opportunity of ratifying one of the +fundamental principles of the Republican party ... and I very much +regret that the preparation necessary for a proper presentation of +this subject to your honorable body has necessarily caused a short +delay, and thereby prolonged the suspense of those who are so anxious +to concur.<a name="fna290_290" id="fna290_290"></a><a href="#f290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a></p></div> + +<p>The radicals probably desired the rejection of the amendment, since it +would furnish another strong argument to Congress in favor of reorganizing +the legislature. Hence, the Radical governor, as his message shows, did +not do his best to induce the legislature to ratify, and probably some +Radical members for the same reason voted against the amendment or +refrained from voting for it. It was defeated in the lower house on March +12,<a name="fna291_291" id="fna291_291"></a><a href="#f291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> and in the upper on March 18.<a name="fna292_292" id="fna292_292"></a><a href="#f292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> + +<p>In the last chapter we saw that Terry excluded five men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> from the +legislature because the board of inquiry had found them ineligible, and +excluded nineteen others because they had failed to take the required +oath, and had applied to Congress for removal of disabilities. It is safe +to assume that all of these twenty-four men were conservatives. Nineteen +of them had been elected to the lower house, five to the senate.<a name="fna293_293" id="fna293_293"></a><a href="#f293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> +Immediately after organization, on advice of Bullock and with the sanction +of Terry, the senate gave the five vacated seats to the minority +candidates,<a name="fna294_294" id="fna294_294"></a><a href="#f294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> and the house gave fourteen of its vacated seats to the +minority candidates.<a name="fna295_295" id="fna295_295"></a><a href="#f295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> The result was that the Republicans secured a +majority in each house.<a name="fna296_296" id="fna296_296"></a><a href="#f296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> The +Republican control thus secured remained<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> +uninterrupted for the remainder of 1870. Perfect accord now existed +between the governor and legislature, and in the quarrel between Bullock +and Angier, which went on with increased acerbity in the press and before +a congressional committee,<a name="fna297_297" id="fna297_297"></a><a href="#f297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a> the legislature proceeded to transfer its +support to the governor.<a name="fna298_298" id="fna298_298"></a><a href="#f298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a></p> + +<p>But Republican supremacy was in danger. It was threatened by the Moderate +Republicans. J. E. Bryant, a Republican, prominent in the state politics +since the beginning of the new <i>régime</i>, in testifying before the +Reconstruction Committee in January, 1869, had advocated reorganization of +the legislature, but had opposed any other interference, especially the +restoration of military government.<a name="fna299_299" id="fna299_299"></a><a href="#f299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> He and other Republicans who +shared his opinion were disgusted with the proceedings of Bullock and +Terry. As early as January 12, 1870, there were reports that the Radicals +were apprehensive of a combination between the Moderate Republicans and +the Conservatives.<a name="fna300_300" id="fna300_300"></a><a href="#f300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> Probably the strenuous efforts of the Radicals to +take and make every possible advantage for themselves in the +reorganization is partly accounted for by this apprehension. On February +2, Bryant caused to be entered on the journal of the house of +representatives a protest denouncing the reorganization proceedings as +illegal.<a name="fna301_301" id="fna301_301"></a><a href="#f301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> Shortly afterwards he published a statement of his position. +He said that he was a Republican, but was opposed to the corrupt ring +which controlled the party in Georgia.<a name="fna302_302" id="fna302_302"></a><a href="#f302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> +From<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> this time on the papers +frequently referred to the alliance between the followers of Bryant and +the Conservatives as the salvation of the state.<a name="fna303_303" id="fna303_303"></a><a href="#f303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a></p> + +<p>The Radical majority was not quite strong enough to pass a resolution +declaring that there should be no election in 1870, as was attempted in +August of that year.<a name="fna304_304" id="fna304_304"></a><a href="#f304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> But it was strong enough to pass an election law +very favorable to the Radical party. It changed the date of the election +from the regular time in November to December 22, and following the +example set by General Pope in 1867, provided that it should continue +three days. It established a board of five election managers for each +county, three to be appointed by the governor and senate, and two by the +county ordinary. It provided that the board should have “no power to +refuse the ballot of any male person of apparent full age, a resident of +the county, who [had] not previously voted at the said election.” Also it +said: “They [the managers] shall not permit any person to challenge any +vote.”<a name="fna305_305" id="fna305_305"></a><a href="#f305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> Another act was passed, calculated to prevent the loss of +Republican votes through disqualification of negroes for non-payment of +taxes. It declared the poll tax levied in 1868, 1869 and 1870 +illegal.<a name="fna306_306" id="fna306_306"></a><a href="#f306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a></p> + +<p>At the election thus provided for were to be chosen a new legislature +(except half of the senators, who held four years) and Congressmen. To +what extent the Republicans availed themselves of the advantages offered +by the election law we do not know. At any rate, the Conservatives +obtained two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, and five of the seven +seats in Congress.<a name="fna307_307" id="fna307_307"></a><a href="#f307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a></p> + +<p>This result meant trouble for the governor, whose term ran to November, +1872. His efforts to secure Congressional interference, his conduct in +January, 1870, and the accusations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> of extravagance, corruption, and other +crimes continually made by an intemperate press, had raised public +indignation to a high point. It was certain that when the new legislature +met it would investigate the charges, and it was hoped that the governor +would be impeached.<a name="fna308_308" id="fna308_308"></a><a href="#f308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> The time of reckoning had been postponed, +however, by the prudence of the outgoing legislature, which had provided +that the next session of the legislature should begin, instead of in +January, the regular time set by the constitution,<a name="fna309_309" id="fna309_309"></a><a href="#f309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> on the first +Wednesday in November, 1871.<a name="fna310_310" id="fna310_310"></a><a href="#f310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a></p> + +<p>The first Wednesday in November, 1871, was November 1. On October 23, the +governor recorded in the executive minutes that he resigned his office, +for “good and sufficient reasons,” the resignation to take effect on +October 30.<a name="fna311_311" id="fna311_311"></a><a href="#f311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> He then quietly left the state. The fact that he had +resigned was kept secret until October 30.<a name="fna312_312" id="fna312_312"></a><a href="#f312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a></p> + +<p>In case of a vacancy in the office of governor, the constitution directed +the president of the senate to fill the office.<a name="fna313_313" id="fna313_313"></a><a href="#f313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a> On October 30, +therefore, Conley, the president of the senate at its last session, +hastened to be sworn in as governor.<a name="fna314_314" id="fna314_314"></a><a href="#f314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> By resigning just before the +meeting of the incoming Conservative legislature, Bullock had thus +cleverly prolonged Republican power, while at the same time resigning. The +question whether under the constitution the governor’s office should not +be filled by the president of the newly-organized senate, was raised by +the papers.<a name="fna315_315" id="fna315_315"></a><a href="#f315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a> But Conley was by common consent left in possession of +the office. Though, as he said in his first message to the +legislature,<a name="fna316_316" id="fna316_316"></a><a href="#f316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> “a staunch +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>Republican,” he was not personally +unpopular.<a name="fna317_317" id="fna317_317"></a><a href="#f317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> Moreover, the legislature intended to furnish a successor +very soon.</p> + +<p>On November 22, a bill was passed ordering a special election for governor +for the remainder of the unexpired term, to be held on the third Tuesday +in December.<a name="fna318_318" id="fna318_318"></a><a href="#f318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a> The authority for this act was found in the following +provision of the constitution: “The general assembly shall have power to +provide by law for filling unexpired terms by a special election.”<a name="fna319_319" id="fna319_319"></a><a href="#f319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> +Conley vetoed the bill, on the ground that the section of the constitution +quoted empowered the legislature to make general provisions for filling +unexpired terms, not to make special provision for single cases.<a name="fna320_320" id="fna320_320"></a><a href="#f320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> The +bill was passed over his veto.</p> + +<p>Although Republican power was now doomed in a few weeks, and although +resistance to a legislature which could easily override his vetoes was +futile, yet Conley stubbornly continued to offer obstructions to the +legislature at every possible point up to the very day when his successor +was inaugurated.<a name="fna321_321" id="fna321_321"></a><a href="#f321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> He exhibited a courage and a political efficiency +worthy of his predecessor, but accomplished nothing. He was able, however, +to help his friends by means of the pardoning power. Several prominent +Republicans were indicted at this time for various acts of public +malfeasance. On the ground that in the existing state of public excitement +these men could not obtain a fair trial, Conley ordered proceedings +against several of these to be discontinued.<a name="fna322_322" id="fna322_322"></a><a href="#f322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a></p> + +<p>On January 11, 1872, the returns from the special election<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> were sent to +the legislature by Conley, under protest,<a name="fna323_323" id="fna323_323"></a><a href="#f323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> and James M. Smith was +declared elected. On January 12, Smith was inaugurated. Conley assisted at +this ceremony, thus yielding the last inch of Republican ground.<a name="fna324_324" id="fna324_324"></a><a href="#f324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a></p> + +<p>Reviewing the events recorded from the beginning of this chapter, we +observe that the period of reconstruction in Georgia was not a period when +a swarm of harpies took possession of the state government and preyed at +will upon a helpless people. The constitutional convention of 1867-68 +forebodes such a period, but when the Conservatives rouse themselves, from +that time on the stage presents an internecine war between two very well +matched enemies. This struggle is usually represented as between a wicked +assailant and a righteous assailed. That it was a struggle between +Republicans and Democrats is much more characteristic. In such a contest +mutual vilifying of course abounded, and it is not to be supposed <i>a +priori</i> that the vilifying of one party was more truthful than that of the +other.</p> + +<p>It is often vaguely said that reconstruction resulted in government by +carpet-baggers. John B. Gordon, the Conservative candidate for governor +who was defeated by Bullock, expressed before a Congressional committee in +1870 the belief that there were not more than a dozen men holding offices +in Georgia who had recently been non-residents. He further said that the +judges appointed by the Republican governor were entirely +satisfactory.<a name="fna325_325" id="fna325_325"></a><a href="#f325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a></p> + +<p>The reconstruction government is charged with having imposed such heavy +taxes that as a result the people were impoverished, industry was checked, +and many plantations went to waste. During the decade before the war the +law provided that a tax should be annually levied at such a rate as to +produce $375,000, provided the rate should not exceed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> one-twelfth of one +per cent.<a name="fna326_326" id="fna326_326"></a><a href="#f326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> The revenue law of 1866 provided that a tax should be +levied at such a rate as to produce $350,000.<a name="fna327_327" id="fna327_327"></a><a href="#f327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> Owing to the vast +destruction of property during the war, this necessitated a higher rate +than that before the war. The law of 1867 ordered a levy at such a rate as +to raise $500,000.<a name="fna328_328" id="fna328_328"></a><a href="#f328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> This law, made by the Johnson government, before +reconstruction began, was continued by the legislature in the four +following years.<a name="fna329_329" id="fna329_329"></a><a href="#f329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> In 1870 the rate of assessment was two-fifths of one +per cent.<a name="fna330_330" id="fna330_330"></a><a href="#f330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> This rate was much higher than the one prevailing before +the war, but this misfortune cannot be charged to reconstruction, since +the reconstruction government merely followed the example of the Johnson +government.</p> + +<p>That the reconstruction <i>régime</i> did not do the economic harm often +attributed to it is shown by the fact that during that <i>régime</i> the value +of land and of all property in the state steadily increased, as appears +from the following table:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td colspan="4"> </td><td colspan="3" align="center"><span class="smcap">Assessed Valuation.</span></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">Land.</td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Town and<br />City Property.</td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Total<br />Property.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1868<a name="fna331_331" id="fna331_331"></a><a href="#f331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a></td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$79,727,584</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$40,315,621</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$191,235,520</td></tr> +<tr><td>1869<a name="fna332_332" id="fna332_332"></a><a href="#f332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">84,577,166</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">44,368,096</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">204,481,706</span></td><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>1870<a name="fna333_333" id="fna333_333"></a><a href="#f333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">95,600,674</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">47,922,544</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">226,119,519</span></td></tr> +<tr><td>1871<a name="fna334_334" id="fna334_334"></a><a href="#f334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">96,857,512</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">52,159,734</span></td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">234,492,468</span></td></tr></table> + +<p>Nevertheless, the reconstruction government spent the public money +extravagantly. This fact is shown by a comparison of the expenditures of +the state under Bullock’s administration and under that of his +predecessor. Such a comparison, it is true, has been employed to prove the +contrary. Governor Bullock was wont to rebut charges of extravagance by +showing that the state spent more under Jenkins’ administration than under +his, in proportion to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> time +occupied by each.<a name="fna335_335" id="fna335_335"></a><a href="#f335_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> This was true, as +the following figures show:<a name="fna336_336" id="fna336_336"></a><a href="#f336_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>Gross expenditures in 1866 and 1867</td><td align="right">$3,223,323.46</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Average annual expenditure during these years</span></td><td align="right">1,601,661.73</td></tr> +<tr><td>Gross expenditures from August 11, 1868, to Jan. 1, 1870 </td><td align="right">2,260,252.15</td></tr> +<tr><td>Gross expenditures in 1870</td><td align="right">1,444,816.73</td></tr> +<tr><td>Gross expenditures in 1871</td><td align="right">1,476,978.86</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 1em;">Average annual expenditure during this period</span></td><td align="right">1,554,614.32</td></tr></table> + +<p>A comparison of gross expenditures, however, is of no significance unless +the sums contrasted represent payments for the same purposes. Under the +earlier administration the government undertook large <ins class="correction" title="original: expeditures">expenditures</ins> for the +relief of destitute persons, especially of wounded soldiers and the +relicts of soldiers.<a name="fna337_337" id="fna337_337"></a><a href="#f337_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a> This accounts for the remarkable size of the +amounts credited to “special appropriations” in the report for 1866 and +1867. Under Bullock’s administration the government spent nothing for +these purposes. For a fair comparison of the economy of the Johnson +government and the reconstruction government, it is necessary to compare +the amounts which they spent respectively for the same objects. Their +payments for the more important administrative purposes are shown in the +following table:<a name="fna338_338" id="fna338_338"></a><a href="#f338_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="table"> +<tr><td class="btrl"> </td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1866.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1867.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1868.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1869.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1870.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">1871.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="btrl">Civil Establishment</td> + <td class="btr">$20,771.66</td> + <td class="btr">$75,222.44</td> + <td class="btr">$50,373.72</td> + <td class="btr">$85,666.41</td> + <td class="btr">$77,851.77</td> + <td class="btr">$78,365.21</td></tr> +<tr><td class="blr">Contingent Fund</td> + <td class="br" align="right">6,128.62</td> + <td class="br" align="right">15,430.74</td> + <td class="br" align="right">10,059.06</td> + <td class="br" align="right">19,968.16</td> + <td class="br" align="right">38,284.44</td> + <td class="br" align="right">20,296.95</td></tr> +<tr><td class="blr">Printing Fund</td> + <td class="br" align="right">1,021.75</td> + <td class="br" align="right">16,114.90</td> + <td class="br" align="right">20,452.96</td> + <td class="br" align="right">7,673.38</td> + <td class="br" align="right">60,011.78</td> + <td class="br" align="right">20,000.00</td></tr> +<tr><td class="bbrl">Special Appropriations</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">304,955.05</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">879,897.77</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">210,916.11</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">261,097.37</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">260,442.05</td> + <td class="bbr" align="right">806,419.08</td></tr></table> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span>These figures show that almost all the annual expenditures of Bullock’s +administration, aside from “special appropriations,” were well above those +of the preceding administration, and that the payments from the printing +fund, especially in 1870, and from the contingent fund in 1870, were so +large as to convict the administration of great extravagance.</p> + +<p>The reconstruction legislature was reproached because of its large <i>per +diem</i>—nine dollars. This <i>per diem</i> was established by the Johnson +government,<a name="fna339_339" id="fna339_339"></a><a href="#f339_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a> and is, therefore, not a charge against reconstruction. +But the other expenses of the legislature fully corroborate the charges of +extravagance made against it. This is shown by the following table:<a name="fna340_340" id="fna340_340"></a><a href="#f340_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="table"> +<tr><td class="btrl"> </td> + <td class="btr" valign="bottom" align="center">Length of Session.</td> + <td class="btr" valign="bottom" align="center">Total<br />Expenditure.</td> + <td class="btr" valign="bottom" align="center">Average<br />Expenditure<br />per month.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="btrl" align="center" valign="middle">1865<br />and<br />1866.</td> + <td class="btr">Dec. 4 to Dec. 15.<br />Jan. 15 to March 13.<br />Nov. 1 to Dec. 14.<br /> + ————————<br /><span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">3⅔ months.</span></td> + <td class="btr" align="center" valign="middle">$121,759.75</td> + <td class="btr" align="center" valign="middle">$33,207.18</td></tr> +<tr><td class="btrl" align="center">1867.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">No session.</td> + <td class="btr"> </td> + <td class="btr"> </td></tr> +<tr><td class="btrl" align="center" valign="middle">1868<br />and<br />1869.</td> + <td class="btr">July 4 to Oct. 6.<br />Jan. 13 to March 18.<br /> + ————————<br /><span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">5<span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>3</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">10</span> months.</span></td> + <td class="btr" align="center" valign="middle">$446,055.00</td> + <td class="btr" align="center" valign="middle">$84,161.33</td></tr> +<tr><td class="bbtrl" align="center">1870.</td> + <td class="bbtr">Jan. 10 to Feb. 17.<br />Apr. 18 to May 4.<br />July 6 to Oct. 25.<br /> + ————————<br /><span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">5½ months.</span></td> + <td class="bbtr" align="center" valign="middle">$526,891.00</td> + <td class="bbtr" align="center" valign="middle">$95,798.32</td></tr></table> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span>The state debt created by the reconstruction government was of two kinds; +direct and contingent. When the reconstruction government went into +operation the state debt was $6,544,500.<a name="fna341_341" id="fna341_341"></a><a href="#f341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a> The reconstruction +government incurred a bonded debt of $4,880,000.<a name="fna342_342" id="fna342_342"></a><a href="#f342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> This includes bonds +to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> amount of $1,880,000 which were issued to a railroad in exchange +for its bonds to a greater amount and bearing interest at the same rate. +This amount, therefore, was not a burden on the state, provided the +railroad remained solvent; though in form a direct, it was virtually a +contingent liability. Further, $300,000 of the money borrowed was used to +pay the principal of the old debt. Deducting these two sums, we find that +the burden of direct debt was increased by $2,700,000.</p> + +<p>Contingent debt was incurred by the indorsement of railroad bonds. In 1868 +the state offered aid of this kind to three railroad companies,<a name="fna343_343" id="fna343_343"></a><a href="#f343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> in +1869 to four,<a name="fna344_344" id="fna344_344"></a><a href="#f344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> and in +1870 to thirty.<a name="fna345_345" id="fna345_345"></a><a href="#f345_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> The state offered to +indorse the bonds of each of these companies to the amount, usually, of +from $12,000 to $15,000 per mile, sometimes more and sometimes less. If +all the roads had accepted the full amount of aid offered, the state would +have become contingently liable for about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> +$30,000,000.<a name="fna346_346" id="fna346_346"></a><a href="#f346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> But only six +roads accepted, and the contingent liability thus created was +$6,923,400.<a name="fna347_347" id="fna347_347"></a><a href="#f347_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> The laws offering the aid involved little risk to the +state; they made substantial progress in construction and substantial +evidence of soundness conditions precedent to indorsement, and secured to +the state a lien on all the property of each road in case it defaulted. +The indorsement of railroad bonds is not a reproach to the reconstruction +government. The great policy of that government, when it was sufficiently +free from partisan labors to have a policy, was to repair the prosperity +of the state, and the construction of railroads was an important means to +this end.<a name="fna348_348" id="fna348_348"></a><a href="#f348_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a></p> + +<p>The worst stain on the reconstruction government is its management of the +state railroad. The Western and Atlantic Railroad, owned and operated by +the state until 1871, was placed under the superintendence of Foster +Blodgett by the governor in January, 1870.<a name="fna349_349" id="fna349_349"></a><a href="#f349_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a> Thenceforth hundreds of +employees were discharged to make room for Republican favorites; important +positions were filled by strangers to the business; the receipts were +stolen,<a name="fna350_350" id="fna350_350"></a><a href="#f350_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> or squandered in purchases made from other Republicans at +monstrous prices; and the road suffered great dilapidation.<a name="fna351_351" id="fna351_351"></a><a href="#f351_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a></p> + +<p>The preferred object of the Conservative abuse in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span>reconstruction +government was Governor Bullock. We have seen that he was remarkably +powerful as well as remarkably active in promoting the interests of his +party. He was abused for that. For the extravagance of the state +government the governor was held largely responsible. He was abused for +that. But he was further accused of fraud in financial matters.</p> + +<p>Although this charge has never been established, the public had some +excuse for believing it at the time. As a result of the quarrel between +the governor and the treasurer, the governor ordered the bankers who were +the financial agents of the state to hold no further communication with +the treasurer after June 3, 1869, but to communicate only with the +governor.<a name="fna352_352" id="fna352_352"></a><a href="#f352_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> The effect upon the public was an impression of great +confusion and irregularity in the finances. The treasurer’s reports could +not give a complete account of state moneys, and the governor was not +careful to inform the public of the condition of that part of the finances +over which he had assumed control. Moreover, the governor and the +treasurer kept up a constant <ins class="correction" title="original: iuterchange">interchange</ins> of accusation and insinuation in +the newspapers. In another way the governor put himself in an unfortunate +light. In his letter to the Ku Klux Committee his statements regarding his +bond transactions were so vague as to give the impression (rightly or +wrongly) of a desire to conceal something.<a name="fna353_353" id="fna353_353"></a><a href="#f353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> The same laxity of +statement appears in Conley’s statement of the use to which the bonds +issued by Bullock had been put.<a name="fna354_354" id="fna354_354"></a><a href="#f354_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> His sudden resignation and departure +on the eve of a threatened investigation seemed to confirm the evidence of +his guilt.</p> + +<p>But though he did not keep the public informed, it has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> never been +established that his accounts were wrong. He spent money freely, and in +some cases without authority;<a name="fna355_355" id="fna355_355"></a><a href="#f355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> but none of his accusers has ever +proved that he spent any without regular and correct record by the +comptroller. And though he issued bonds perhaps in excess, he issued none +without proper registration in the comptroller’s records.<a name="fna356_356" id="fna356_356"></a><a href="#f356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> His +apparent efforts to conceal facts do not prove fraud; a sufficient motive +would be furnished by desire to conceal the extravagance of his +administration. Furthermore, he has been positively acquitted of the +charge of fraud. In 1878 he returned to Georgia, and the courts proceeded +to give him “a speedy and public trial.” Of his many alleged crimes, +indictments were secured for three. One indictment was quashed.<a name="fna357_357" id="fna357_357"></a><a href="#f357_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> Upon +the other two the verdict was “not guilty.”<a name="fna358_358" id="fna358_358"></a><a href="#f358_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a> His resignation was +explained in a letter to <ins class="correction" title="original: hfs">his</ins> “political friends,” published on October 31, +1871.<a name="fna359_359" id="fna359_359"></a><a href="#f359_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> He said that he had obtained evidence of a concerted design +among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> certain prominent members of the incoming legislature to impeach +him (as they could easily do, with the immense Conservative majority), and +instal as governor the Conservative who would be elected president of the +senate. To resign and put the governorship in the hands of a Republican +who could not be impeached was the only way to defeat this “nefarious +scheme.” This explanation was of course ignored by Bullock’s enemies when +it was made; but in view of the lack of evidence that he was guilty of any +fraud, and in view of the positive evidence to the contrary, there is now +no reason to doubt it.</p> + +<p>The governor made extraordinary use of the pardoning power. According to a +statement sanctioned by him, he pardoned four hundred and ninety-eight +criminals, forty-one of whom were convicted or accused of murder, +fifty-two of burglary, five of arson, and eight of robbery.<a name="fna360_360" id="fna360_360"></a><a href="#f360_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> The +leader of the Conservative party at that time, B. H. Hill, emphatically +declared in a public statement that the governor had no worse motive than +“kindness of heart.”<a name="fna361_361" id="fna361_361"></a><a href="#f361_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a></p> + +<p>To sum up the case against the reconstruction government, we have seen +that it was extravagant, that it mismanaged the state railroad, and that +it pardoned a great many criminals. It was not guilty of the enormities +often associated with reconstruction; but it was a government composed of +men who obtained <ins class="correction" title="original: polictical">political</ins> position only through the interference of an +outside power—it was the product of a system conceived partly in +vengeance, partly in folly, and partly in political strategy, and imposed +by force. It was hated partly for what it did, but more for what it was.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X</h2> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><span class="big">CONCLUSION</span></p> + +<p>A Confederate veteran recently remarked amid great applause at an assembly +in Atlanta that there never was a conqueror so magnanimous as the North, +for within six years from the surrender of the southern armies she had +allowed the South to take part in her national councils. Nevertheless, +within those six years the Congressional Disciplinarians gave the South a +discipline which she will never forget. It did not result in permanent +estrangement between the North and the South, for sectional bitterness +seems extinct. But whether there was any profit in it—whether, in case +the South never again attempts to secede, that happy omission will be due +to reconstruction—may be doubted.</p> + +<p>Was there a clearer gain from the humanitarian point of view? We have seen +that at the close of the war a spirit of gratitude and philanthropy +prevailed among the most influential of the southern white people as +regards the negroes. Instead of allowing this spirit to develop and in the +course of time to produce its natural results, the North, believing that +suffrage was essential to the negro’s welfare and progress, forced the +South to enfranchise him, by reconstruction. This caused the negro untold +immediate harm (since reconstruction was a contributary cause of +Kukluxism), and delayed his ultimate advance by giving the friendly spirit +of the white people a check in its development from which it has not yet +recovered.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>From the point of view of the Republican Politicians, reconstruction at +first succeeded, but later proved a mistaken policy. By it they lost the +support of the southern white men who had been opposed to secession. These +formed a large party in Georgia. The victory of the federal arms had the +nature of a party victory for them. They would have added their strength +to the Republican party. Reconstruction, with its threat of negro +domination, drove them into the Democratic party, where they still remain. +For a time this loss was made good by negro votes, but not long.</p> + +<p>Without reconstruction there would have been no Fifteenth Amendment. But +the good will and philanthropy of the people among whom the negro lives, +which reconstruction took away, would have brought him more benefit than +the Fifteenth Amendment. Without reconstruction there would have been no +Fourteenth Amendment. But a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court +has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment did not achieve the +nationalization of civil rights—an end which might justify reconstruction +as a means. In short, reconstruction seems to have produced bad +government, political rancor, and social violence and disorder, without +compensating good.</p> + + +<p> </p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span></p> +<p class="center"><span class="big">BIBLIOGRAPHY.</span></p> + +<p>PUBLIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS.</p> + +<p><i>Of the United States Government.</i></p> + +<p class="dent">Congressional Globe.<br /> +Public Documents.<br /> +Statutes at Large.<br /> +Supreme Court Reports.<br /> +Military orders in the archives of the Department of War.<br /> +Correspondence in the same archives.<br /> +Correspondence in the archives of the Department of State.<br /> +Unpublished records in the same archives.</p> + +<p><i>Of the Government of Georgia.</i></p> + +<p class="dent">Journal of the constitutional convention of 1865.<br /> +Journal of the constitutional convention of 1867-8.<br /> +Journals of the legislature.<br /> +Reports of the four committees appointed by the legislature in December, 1871 to investigate respectively—<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">The management of the state railroad.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">The lease of the same road.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">The official conduct of Governor Bullock.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">The transactions of Governor Bullock’s administration relating to the issue of state bonds and the indorsement of railroad bonds.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">These reports were published in Atlanta in 1872.</span><br /> +Session Laws.<br /> +Supreme Court Reports.<br /> +Reports of the State Comptroller.<br /> +Executive minutes in the archives of the state in Atlanta.<br /> +Minutes of the Fulton County Superior Court in the office of that court in Atlanta.</p> + + +<p><br />NEWSPAPERS.</p> + +<p class="dent">Atlanta <i>New Era</i>.<br /> +Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>.<br /> +Milledgeville <i>Federal Union</i> (during the war called the <i>Confederate Union</i>).<br /> +Savannah <i>News</i>.<br /> +Savannah <i>Republican</i>.</p> + + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span><br />CONTEMPORARY PAMPHLETS.</p> + +<p class="dent">A letter from Rufus B. Bullock to the chairman of the Ku Klux committee, Atlanta, 1871.<br /> +Address of the same to the people of Georgia, dated October, 1872.<br /> +Letter from the same “to the Republican Senators and Representatives who support the Reconstruction Acts,” Washington, May 21, 1870.</p> + + +<p><br />HISTORICAL WORKS AND COMPENDIA.</p> + +<p class="dent"><i>American Annual Cyclopædia</i>. New York.<br /> +Avery, I. W., <i>History of Georgia</i>. New York, 1881.<br /> +Bancroft, F. A., <i>The Negro in Politics</i>. New York, 1885.<br /> +Clews, Henry, <i>Twenty-eight Years in Wall Street</i>. London, 1888.<br /> +Cox, S. S., <i>Three Decades of Federal Legislation</i>. Providence, 1886.<br /> +Dunning, W. A., <i>The Civil War and Reconstruction</i>. New York, 1898.<br /> +Fielder, H., <i>The Life and Times of Joseph E. Brown</i>. Springfield, Mass., 1883.<br /> +Hill, B. H., Jr., <i>The Life, Speeches and Writings of Benjamin H. Hill</i>. Atlanta, 1891.<br /> +Lalor, J. J., <i>Cyclopædia of Political Science</i>. New York, 1893. Articles on Reconstruction, Georgia, and Ku Klux.<br /> +Poor, H. V., <i>Manual of the Railroads of the United States</i>. New York, published yearly.<br /> +Sherman, W. T., <i>Memoirs</i>. New York, 1875.<br /> +Stephens, Alex., <i>The War between the States</i>. Philadelphia, 1868-70.<br /> +Taylor, Richard, <i>Destruction and Reconstruction</i>. New York, 1893.<br /> +<i>Tribune Almanac</i>. New York.<br /> +Wilson, Henry, <i>History of the Reconstruction Measures</i>. Hartford, 1868.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<div class="verts"> +<p class="center"><span class="huge">STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW</span><br /> +EDITED BY THE<br />FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME I, 1891-2. Second Edition, 1897. 396 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. The Divorce Problem—A Study in Statistics. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 75¢.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from +Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D. (<i>Not sold separately.</i>)</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME II, 1892-93. 503 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. The Economics of the Russian Village. By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D. (<i>Out of print.</i>)</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. Special Assessments: A Study in Municipal Finance. By Victor Rosewater, Ph. D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. By Cortlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p class="dent"><i>Vol. III, no. 1, may also be obtained bound.</i> Price, $2.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. By George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.50</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. Financial History of Virginia. By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. (<i>Out of print.</i>)</p> + +<p class="hang">3. History of Taxation in Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. Double Taxation in the United States. By Francis Walker, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. By William Bondy, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D. Price $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. By William Robert Shepherd, Ph. D. Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME VII, 1896. 512 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME VIII, 1896-98. 551 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction. By Charles Ernest Chadsey, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administration. By William Clarence Webster, Ph. D. Price, 75¢.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. By Francis R. Stark, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">4. Public Administration in Massachusetts. The Relation of Central to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whitten, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME IX, 1897-98. 617 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of Central +and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbie, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.</p> + +<p class="dent"><i>Vol. IX, no. 1, may also be obtained bound.</i> Price, $2.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. German Wage Theories. A History of their Development. By James W. Crook, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. The Centralization of Administration in New York State. By John Archibald Fairlie, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME X, 1898-99. 500 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.00; bound, $3.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. Sympathetic Strikes and Sympathetic Lockouts. By Fred S. Hall, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. By Frank Greene Bates, Ph.D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. Centralized Administration of Liquor Laws in the American +Commonwealths. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">The Growth of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Weber, Ph.D. Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. By William Maxwell Burke, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Colonial Immigration Laws. By Edward Emberson Proper, A.M. Price, 75¢.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">4. History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. By Charles E. Merriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp.</p> +<p class="center">Price, $3.50; bound, $4.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. The Legal Property Relations of Married Parties. By Isidor Loeb, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. Political Nativism in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco; Ph. D. Price, $2.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woolley, Ph. D. Price, $1.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME XIV, 1901.</p> + +<p class="hang">1. Loyalism in New York during the American Revolution. By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett, Ph. D. Price, $1.50.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">VOLUME XV, 1901.</p> + +<p class="hang">Civilization through Crime. By Arthur Cleveland Hall. [<i>Ready in July.</i>]</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="hang">The set of thirteen volumes (except that Vol. II can be supplied only in +unbound nos. 2 and 3) is offered bound for $43.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>For further information apply to</p> + +<p><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Columbia University,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;">or to THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, New York,</span><br /> +London: P. S. KING & SON, Orchard House, Westminster.</p></div> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p> + +<p><a name="f1_1" id="f1_1"></a><a href="#fna1_1">[1]</a> Alex. Stephens, <i>The War Between the States</i>, vol. ii, p. +623; W. T. Sherman, <i>Memoirs</i>, vol. ii, pp. 346-362.</p> + +<p><a name="f2_2" id="f2_2"></a><a href="#fna2_2">[2]</a> M. C. U., May 9, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f3_3" id="f3_3"></a><a href="#fna3_3">[3]</a> See the account of the gigantic relief operations of the +federal army, A. A. C., 1865, p. 392.</p> + +<p><a name="f4_4" id="f4_4"></a><a href="#fna4_4">[4]</a> M. C. U., May 9, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f5_5" id="f5_5"></a><a href="#fna5_5">[5]</a> Letter from Joseph E. Brown to Andrew Johnson, dated May 20, +1865, in the Department of War, Washington. Brown was arrested on May 10. +On May 8, upon surrendering the state troops to the federal general +Wilson, he had been paroled. (The parole paper is in the above mentioned +archives.) Hence the arrest was a violation of his parole. When Wilson +entered into the parole engagement he had not been informed how his +superiors would regard the summoning of the legislature. Immediately +afterward he probably received orders from the central authorities to +arrest Brown. He preferred obeying orders to observing his engagement.</p> + +<p><a name="f6_6" id="f6_6"></a><a href="#fna6_6">[6]</a> G. O. D. S., 1865, no. 63.</p> + +<p><a name="f7_7" id="f7_7"></a><a href="#fna7_7">[7]</a> See G. O. D. S., 1865, <i>passim</i>. Also Savannah <i>Republican</i>, +May 1, 2, 3, etc., 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f8_8" id="f8_8"></a><a href="#fna8_8">[8]</a> Savannah <i>Republican</i>, July 4, 1865. See also James Johnson’s +proclamation of July 13, 1865, M. F. U. of same date.</p> + +<p><a name="f9_9" id="f9_9"></a><a href="#fna9_9">[9]</a> M. F. U., July 25, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f10_10" id="f10_10"></a><a href="#fna10_10">[10]</a> U. S. L., vol. 13, 760. The provisional governorship, it may +be remarked, was characterized by the Secretary of War as “ancillary to +the withdrawal of military force, the disbandment of armies, and the +reduction of military expenditure by provisional [civil organizations] to +take the place of armed force.” The salaries of the provisional governors +were paid from the army contingencies fund. See S. D., 39th Congress, 1st +session, no. 26.</p> + +<p><a name="f11_11" id="f11_11"></a><a href="#fna11_11">[11]</a> U. S. L., vol. 13, p. 764.</p> + +<p><a name="f12_12" id="f12_12"></a><a href="#fna12_12">[12]</a> M. F. U., July 13, 1865; A. A. C., 1865, p. 394.</p> + +<p><a name="f13_13" id="f13_13"></a><a href="#fna13_13">[13]</a> M. F. U., August 15, 1865; A. A. C., <i>loc. cit.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f14_14" id="f14_14"></a><a href="#fna14_14">[14]</a> Letter from Brown to Johnson, dated May 20, 1865, archives +of the Department of War, Washington.</p> + +<p><a name="f15_15" id="f15_15"></a><a href="#fna15_15">[15]</a> Letter from Johnson to Stanton dated June 3, 1865, in same +archives.</p> + +<p><a name="f16_16" id="f16_16"></a><a href="#fna16_16">[16]</a> M. F. U., July 11, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f17_17" id="f17_17"></a><a href="#fna17_17">[17]</a> M. F. U., July 18. Savannah <i>Republican</i>, July 1 and 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f18_18" id="f18_18"></a><a href="#fna18_18">[18]</a> J. C., 1865, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f19_19" id="f19_19"></a><a href="#fna19_19">[19]</a> J. C., 1865, p. 8.</p> + +<p><a name="f20_20" id="f20_20"></a><a href="#fna20_20">[20]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 17, 18.</p> + +<p><a name="f21_21" id="f21_21"></a><a href="#fna21_21">[21]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 234. The ordinance to this effect was passed +only after a hard fight, and after a telegraphic warning from the +President that if it failed the state would fail of restoration. See S. +D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26, p. 81.</p> + +<p><a name="f22_22" id="f22_22"></a><a href="#fna22_22">[22]</a> J. C., 1865, pp. 18 and 28.</p> + +<p><a name="f23_23" id="f23_23"></a><a href="#fna23_23">[23]</a> S. J., 1865-6, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f24_24" id="f24_24"></a><a href="#fna24_24">[24]</a> S. D., 39th Congress, 1st session, no. 26, p. 95.</p> + +<p><a name="f25_25" id="f25_25"></a><a href="#fna25_25">[25]</a> S. L., 1865, p. 313.</p> + +<p><a name="f26_26" id="f26_26"></a><a href="#fna26_26">[26]</a> M. F. U., December 19 and 26, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f27_27" id="f27_27"></a><a href="#fna27_27">[27]</a> See Jenkins’ message to the legislature, M. F. U., December +19, 1865.</p> + +<p><a name="f28_28" id="f28_28"></a><a href="#fna28_28">[28]</a> K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 320 (testimony of John B. Gordon).</p> + +<p><a name="f29_29" id="f29_29"></a><a href="#fna29_29">[29]</a> Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in +December, 1865. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f30_30" id="f30_30"></a><a href="#fna30_30">[30]</a> Report of Carl Schurz on conditions in the South, made in +December, 1863. S. D., 39th Congress, 2d session, no. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f31_31" id="f31_31"></a><a href="#fna31_31">[31]</a> Art. v, sect. 1, § 1.</p> + +<p><a name="f32_32" id="f32_32"></a><a href="#fna32_32">[32]</a> Art. ii, sec. 5, § 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f33_33" id="f33_33"></a><a href="#fna33_33">[33]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 6.</p> + +<p><a name="f34_34" id="f34_34"></a><a href="#fna34_34">[34]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 234.</p> + +<p><a name="f35_35" id="f35_35"></a><a href="#fna35_35">[35]</a> Before, the maximum penalty for rape, arson, and burglary in +the night had been imprisonment for 20 years, and for horse stealing +imprisonment for 5 years.</p> + +<p><a name="f36_36" id="f36_36"></a><a href="#fna36_36">[36]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 232; 1866, p. 151.</p> + +<p><a name="f37_37" id="f37_37"></a><a href="#fna37_37">[37]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1866, p. 150.</p> + +<p><a name="f38_38" id="f38_38"></a><a href="#fna38_38">[38]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1865-66, p. 233.</p> + +<p><a name="f39_39" id="f39_39"></a><a href="#fna39_39">[39]</a> S. L., 1866, p. 153.</p> + +<p><a name="f40_40" id="f40_40"></a><a href="#fna40_40">[40]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1865-66, p. 239.</p> + +<p><a name="f41_41" id="f41_41"></a><a href="#fna41_41">[41]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f42_42" id="f42_42"></a><a href="#fna42_42">[42]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240.</p> + +<p><a name="f43_43" id="f43_43"></a><a href="#fna43_43">[43]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 241.</p> + +<p><a name="f44_44" id="f44_44"></a><a href="#fna44_44">[44]</a> S. L., 1866, p. 59.</p> + +<p><a name="f45_45" id="f45_45"></a><a href="#fna45_45">[45]</a> J. C., 1865, p. 16.</p> + +<p><a name="f46_46" id="f46_46"></a><a href="#fna46_46">[46]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f47_47" id="f47_47"></a><a href="#fna47_47">[47]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 137.</p> + +<p><a name="f48_48" id="f48_48"></a><a href="#fna48_48">[48]</a> S. L., 1866, p. 216. For the governor’s message and the +report of the committee to which the amendment was referred, see A. A. C., +1865, p. 352. For a further expression of public opinion, see Atlanta <i>New +Era</i>, October 19, 1866.</p> + +<p><a name="f49_49" id="f49_49"></a><a href="#fna49_49">[49]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 315.</p> + +<p><a name="f50_50" id="f50_50"></a><a href="#fna50_50">[50]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 14, and S. L., 1866, p. 143.</p> + +<p><a name="f51_51" id="f51_51"></a><a href="#fna51_51">[51]</a> S. L., 1866, p. 219.</p> + +<p><a name="f52_52" id="f52_52"></a><a href="#fna52_52">[52]</a> Report of Carl Schurz above cited.</p> + +<p><a name="f53_53" id="f53_53"></a><a href="#fna53_53">[53]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session. Appendix, p. 1.</p> + +<p><a name="f54_54" id="f54_54"></a><a href="#fna54_54">[54]</a> One of the Senators elect from Georgia had been +Vice-President of the defunct Confederacy.</p> + +<p><a name="f55_55" id="f55_55"></a><a href="#fna55_55">[55]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f56_56" id="f56_56"></a><a href="#fna56_56">[56]</a> R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii, p. iii.</p> + +<p><a name="f57_57" id="f57_57"></a><a href="#fna57_57">[57]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, appendix, p. 82.</p> + +<p><a name="f58_58" id="f58_58"></a><a href="#fna58_58">[58]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 915.</p> + +<p><a name="f59_59" id="f59_59"></a><a href="#fna59_59">[59]</a> U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 27.</p> + +<p><a name="f60_60" id="f60_60"></a><a href="#fna60_60">[60]</a> Trumbull’s speech, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. +474.</p> + +<p><a name="f61_61" id="f61_61"></a><a href="#fna61_61">[61]</a> R. C., 39th Congress, 1st session, vol. ii.</p> + +<p><a name="f62_62" id="f62_62"></a><a href="#fna62_62">[62]</a> Senate resolution (by Andrew Johnson), C. G., 37th Congress, +1st session, pp. 243, 265; House resolution (by Crittenden), <i>ibid.</i>, pp. +209, 222.</p> + +<p><a name="f63_63" id="f63_63"></a><a href="#fna63_63">[63]</a> U. S. L., vol. 14, P. 358.</p> + +<p><a name="f64_64" id="f64_64"></a><a href="#fna64_64">[64]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 173.</p> + +<p><a name="f65_65" id="f65_65"></a><a href="#fna65_65">[65]</a> U. S. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 21.</p> + +<p><a name="f66_66" id="f66_66"></a><a href="#fna66_66">[66]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 814.</p> + +<p><a name="f67_67" id="f67_67"></a><a href="#fna67_67">[67]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f68_68" id="f68_68"></a><a href="#fna68_68">[68]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 251.</p> + +<p><a name="f69_69" id="f69_69"></a><a href="#fna69_69">[69]</a> U. S. L., vol. 14, p. 428.</p> + +<p><a name="f70_70" id="f70_70"></a><a href="#fna70_70">[70]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 1076.</p> + +<p><a name="f71_71" id="f71_71"></a><a href="#fna71_71">[71]</a> U. S. L., vol. 15, p. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f72_72" id="f72_72"></a><a href="#fna72_72">[72]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 14.</p> + +<p><a name="f73_73" id="f73_73"></a><a href="#fna73_73">[73]</a> Mississippi <i>versus</i> Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475; Georgia +<i>versus</i> Stanton, 6 Wallace, 51; <i>Ex parte</i> McCardle, 6 Wallace, 324, and +7 Wallace, 512.</p> + +<p><a name="f74_74" id="f74_74"></a><a href="#fna74_74">[74]</a> 7 Wallace, 700.</p> + +<p><a name="f75_75" id="f75_75"></a><a href="#fna75_75">[75]</a> The <i>Federalist</i>, no. 43.</p> + +<p><a name="f76_76" id="f76_76"></a><a href="#fna76_76">[76]</a> Story on the Constitution, chap. 41 (4th edition).</p> + +<p><a name="f77_77" id="f77_77"></a><a href="#fna77_77">[77]</a> Cooley on the Constitution, p. 23 (4th edition).</p> + +<p><a name="f78_78" id="f78_78"></a><a href="#fna78_78">[78]</a> Prize Cases, 2 Black, 687.</p> + +<p><a name="f79_79" id="f79_79"></a><a href="#fna79_79">[79]</a> <i>Ex parte</i> Garland, 4 Wallace, 333.</p> + +<p><a name="f80_80" id="f80_80"></a><a href="#fna80_80">[80]</a> Archives of the Department of State, Washington.</p> + +<p><a name="f81_81" id="f81_81"></a><a href="#fna81_81">[81]</a> C. G., 39th Congress, 2d session, p. 615. For other +expressions of the same doctrine, see Cullom’s speech, <i>ibid.</i>, p. 814; +Sumner’s resolutions, C. G., 39th Congress, 1st session, p. 2; Sumner’s +resolutions, C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 453.</p> + +<p><a name="f82_82" id="f82_82"></a><a href="#fna82_82">[82]</a> G. O. H., 1867, no. 18 and 104; 1868, no. 55; G. O. T. M. +D., 1867, no. 1; 1868, no. 3 and 108.</p> + +<p><a name="f83_83" id="f83_83"></a><a href="#fna83_83">[83]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f84_84" id="f84_84"></a><a href="#fna84_84">[84]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 20.</p> + +<p><a name="f85_85" id="f85_85"></a><a href="#fna85_85">[85]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 50.</p> + +<p><a name="f86_86" id="f86_86"></a><a href="#fna86_86">[86]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 69.</p> + +<p><a name="f87_87" id="f87_87"></a><a href="#fna87_87">[87]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 83.</p> + +<p><a name="f88_88" id="f88_88"></a><a href="#fna88_88">[88]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 89. Also see Pope’s Report, in R. S. W., +40th Congress, 2d session, vol. i, p. 320.</p> + +<p><a name="f89_89" id="f89_89"></a><a href="#fna89_89">[89]</a> There is a slight inaccuracy in the official figures.</p> + +<p><a name="f90_90" id="f90_90"></a><a href="#fna90_90">[90]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 89.</p> + +<p><a name="f91_91" id="f91_91"></a><a href="#fna91_91">[91]</a> Georgia Constitution of 1868, art. i, sec. i.</p> + +<p><a name="f92_92" id="f92_92"></a><a href="#fna92_92">[92]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, art. i, sect. xi.</p> + +<p><a name="f93_93" id="f93_93"></a><a href="#fna93_93">[93]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, art. ii, sect. ii.</p> + +<p><a name="f94_94" id="f94_94"></a><a href="#fna94_94">[94]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, art. ii, sect. vii, § 10.</p> + +<p><a name="f95_95" id="f95_95"></a><a href="#fna95_95">[95]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, art. i, sect. xxii.</p> + +<p><a name="f96_96" id="f96_96"></a><a href="#fna96_96">[96]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, art. vi, sect. i.</p> + +<p><a name="f97_97" id="f97_97"></a><a href="#fna97_97">[97]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 40.</p> + +<p><a name="f98_98" id="f98_98"></a><a href="#fna98_98">[98]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, no. 76, 90 and 93. Also, E. D., 40th Congress 2d +session, no. 300.</p> + +<p><a name="f99_99" id="f99_99"></a><a href="#fna99_99">[99]</a> Pope’s Report in R. S. W., 40th Congress, 2d session, vol. +i, p. 320.</p> + +<p><a name="f100_100" id="f100_100"></a><a href="#fna100_100">[100]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 1.</p> + +<p><a name="f101_101" id="f101_101"></a><a href="#fna101_101">[101]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 10.</p> + +<p><a name="f102_102" id="f102_102"></a><a href="#fna102_102">[102]</a> For the correspondence between Jenkins and Pope see A. A. +C., 1867, p. 363.</p> + +<p><a name="f103_103" id="f103_103"></a><a href="#fna103_103">[103]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 49.</p> + +<p><a name="f104_104" id="f104_104"></a><a href="#fna104_104">[104]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 45.</p> + +<p><a name="f105_105" id="f105_105"></a><a href="#fna105_105">[105]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 28.</p> + +<p><a name="f106_106" id="f106_106"></a><a href="#fna106_106">[106]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 69.</p> + +<p><a name="f107_107" id="f107_107"></a><a href="#fna107_107">[107]</a> S. O. T. M. D., 1867, <i>passim</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f108_108" id="f108_108"></a><a href="#fna108_108">[108]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 53.</p> + +<p><a name="f109_109" id="f109_109"></a><a href="#fna109_109">[109]</a> S. O. T. M. D., 1867, no. 92, 100, 104.</p> + +<p><a name="f110_110" id="f110_110"></a><a href="#fna110_110">[110]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1867, no. 263.</p> + +<p><a name="f111_111" id="f111_111"></a><a href="#fna111_111">[111]</a> These figures are compiled from the special orders of the +Third Military District.</p> + +<p><a name="f112_112" id="f112_112"></a><a href="#fna112_112">[112]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 22.</p> + +<p><a name="f113_113" id="f113_113"></a><a href="#fna113_113">[113]</a> Ordinance of Dec. 20, 1867, J. C., 1867-8, p. 564.</p> + +<p><a name="f114_114" id="f114_114"></a><a href="#fna114_114">[114]</a> Avery, <i>History of Georgia</i>, p. 378.</p> + +<p><a name="f115_115" id="f115_115"></a><a href="#fna115_115">[115]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 8. Meade acted with the greatest +courtesy, and the relations between him and the officers remained +friendly. See Meade’s letter to Jenkins, A. A. C., 1867, p. 367. The +removal of the treasurer was a formality to preserve the appearance of due +discipline; Jones was allowed to retain the money then in the treasury, +and to use it in paying the state debt and other expenses of the state +government. See his report to the legislature, Sept. 18, 1868; H. J., +1868, p. 359.</p> + +<p><a name="f116_116" id="f116_116"></a><a href="#fna116_116">[116]</a> J. C., 1867-8, p. 581.</p> + +<p><a name="f117_117" id="f117_117"></a><a href="#fna117_117">[117]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 12 and 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f118_118" id="f118_118"></a><a href="#fna118_118">[118]</a> S. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 112.</p> + +<p><a name="f119_119" id="f119_119"></a><a href="#fna119_119">[119]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 39 and 57.</p> + +<p><a name="f120_120" id="f120_120"></a><a href="#fna120_120">[120]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, no. 58.</p> + +<p><a name="f121_121" id="f121_121"></a><a href="#fna121_121">[121]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, no. 51.</p> + +<p><a name="f122_122" id="f122_122"></a><a href="#fna122_122">[122]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, no. 54.</p> + +<p><a name="f123_123" id="f123_123"></a><a href="#fna123_123">[123]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, no. 57.</p> + +<p><a name="f124_124" id="f124_124"></a><a href="#fna124_124">[124]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, no. 27 and 37.</p> + +<p><a name="f125_125" id="f125_125"></a><a href="#fna125_125">[125]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 27, 55, 99, 123, 136, and 148.</p> + +<p><a name="f126_126" id="f126_126"></a><a href="#fna126_126">[126]</a> M. F. U., Oct. 29, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f127_127" id="f127_127"></a><a href="#fna127_127">[127]</a> Atlanta <i>New Era</i>, Nov. 16, 1866; March 13, 1867; March 19, +1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f128_128" id="f128_128"></a><a href="#fna128_128">[128]</a> Testimony of John B. Gordon, K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 308.</p> + +<p><a name="f129_129" id="f129_129"></a><a href="#fna129_129">[129]</a> Atlanta <i>New Era</i>, March 13, 16 and 30, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f130_130" id="f130_130"></a><a href="#fna130_130">[130]</a> M. F. U., Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f131_131" id="f131_131"></a><a href="#fna131_131">[131]</a> A. A. C., 1868, p. 309.</p> + +<p><a name="f132_132" id="f132_132"></a><a href="#fna132_132">[132]</a> Testimony before the reconstruction committee, H. M. D., +40th Congress, 2d session, no. 52, p. 26. See also M. F. U., March 10 and +17, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f133_133" id="f133_133"></a><a href="#fna133_133">[133]</a> Tribune Almanac for 1869, p. 78.</p> + +<p><a name="f134_134" id="f134_134"></a><a href="#fna134_134">[134]</a> U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 41.</p> + +<p><a name="f135_135" id="f135_135"></a><a href="#fna135_135">[135]</a> See sects. 5 and 6.</p> + +<p><a name="f136_136" id="f136_136"></a><a href="#fna136_136">[136]</a> The vote in Alabama on the adoption of the constitution +resulted in favor of adoption; but less than half of the registered voters +voted, and the vote was taken before the passage of the act of March 11, +1868, above mentioned. Excuse was found by the Republican leaders for +waiving this irregularity. C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2463.</p> + +<p><a name="f137_137" id="f137_137"></a><a href="#fna137_137">[137]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 2859 (Trumbull’s +speech).</p> + +<p><a name="f138_138" id="f138_138"></a><a href="#fna138_138">[138]</a> U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Acts, p. 73.</p> + +<p><a name="f139_139" id="f139_139"></a><a href="#fna139_139">[139]</a> S. J., 1868. p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f140_140" id="f140_140"></a><a href="#fna140_140">[140]</a> The Iron Clad or Test Oath, to the effect that the person +swearing had never borne arms against the United States, or in any way +served the Confederacy. U. S. L., vol. 12, p. 502.</p> + +<p>[141] G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 61.</p> + +<p><a name="f142_142" id="f142_142"></a><a href="#fna142_142">[142]</a> S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38. See also +C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, p. 594.</p> + +<p><a name="f143_143" id="f143_143"></a><a href="#fna143_143">[143]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 98.</p> + +<p><a name="f144_144" id="f144_144"></a><a href="#fna144_144">[144]</a> S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 7.</p> + +<p><a name="f145_145" id="f145_145"></a><a href="#fna145_145">[145]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> See also H. J., 1868, p. 25.</p> + +<p><a name="f146_146" id="f146_146"></a><a href="#fna146_146">[146]</a> S. J., 1868, p. 34.</p> + +<p><a name="f147_147" id="f147_147"></a><a href="#fna147_147">[147]</a> H. J., 1868, pp. 36, 44.</p> + +<p><a name="f148_148" id="f148_148"></a><a href="#fna148_148">[148]</a> S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 8.</p> + +<p><a name="f149_149" id="f149_149"></a><a href="#fna149_149">[149]</a> S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192, p. 38.</p> + +<p><a name="f150_150" id="f150_150"></a><a href="#fna150_150">[150]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f151_151" id="f151_151"></a><a href="#fna151_151">[151]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 13.</p> + +<p><a name="f152_152" id="f152_152"></a><a href="#fna152_152">[152]</a> H. J., 1868, p. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f153_153" id="f153_153"></a><a href="#fna153_153">[153]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 103.</p> + +<p><a name="f154_154" id="f154_154"></a><a href="#fna154_154">[154]</a> G. O. H., 1868, no. 55.</p> + +<p><a name="f155_155" id="f155_155"></a><a href="#fna155_155">[155]</a> H. J., 1868, p. 57.</p> + +<p><a name="f156_156" id="f156_156"></a><a href="#fna156_156">[156]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, pp. 4472, 4499, 4500.</p> + +<p><a name="f157_157" id="f157_157"></a><a href="#fna157_157">[157]</a> H. J., 1868, p. 104.</p> + +<p><a name="f158_158" id="f158_158"></a><a href="#fna158_158">[158]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 2d session, p. 4518.</p> + +<p><a name="f159_159" id="f159_159"></a><a href="#fna159_159">[159]</a> A. A. C., 1868, p. 312.</p> + +<p><a name="f160_160" id="f160_160"></a><a href="#fna160_160">[160]</a> The most prominent of these was Ex-Governor Brown. He went +as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1868, but in a +speech there declared his opposition to the granting of political power to +the negro. Avery, <i>History of Georgia</i>, p. 385.</p> + +<p><a name="f161_161" id="f161_161"></a><a href="#fna161_161">[161]</a> S. J., 1868, p. 84.</p> + +<p><a name="f162_162" id="f162_162"></a><a href="#fna162_162">[162]</a> Constitution of 1868, Art. xi, § 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f163_163" id="f163_163"></a><a href="#fna163_163">[163]</a> Irwin’s Code, 1868, § 1648.</p> + +<p><a name="f164_164" id="f164_164"></a><a href="#fna164_164">[164]</a> Art. i, sec. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f165_165" id="f165_165"></a><a href="#fna165_165">[165]</a> This ingenious argument of intent was made by Bullock. H. +J., 1868, p. 300.</p> + +<p><a name="f166_166" id="f166_166"></a><a href="#fna166_166">[166]</a> White <i>versus</i> Clements, Georgia Reports, vol. 39, p. 232.</p> + +<p><a name="f167_167" id="f167_167"></a><a href="#fna167_167">[167]</a> H. J., 1868, pp. 242, 247. S. J., 1868, pp. 278, 280.</p> + +<p><a name="f168_168" id="f168_168"></a><a href="#fna168_168">[168]</a> Irwin’s Code, 1868, § 121.</p> + +<p><a name="f169_169" id="f169_169"></a><a href="#fna169_169">[169]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f170_170" id="f170_170"></a><a href="#fna170_170">[170]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f171_171" id="f171_171"></a><a href="#fna171_171">[171]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f172_172" id="f172_172"></a><a href="#fna172_172">[172]</a> Richard Taylor, <i>Destruction and Reconstruction</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f173_173" id="f173_173"></a><a href="#fna173_173">[173]</a> K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 93 (testimony of Augustus R. Wright); +p. 274 (testimony of Ambrose R. Wright); p. 236 (testimony of J. H. +Christy); p. 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown).</p> + +<p><a name="f174_174" id="f174_174"></a><a href="#fna174_174">[174]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, vol. 7, pp. 812, 818 (testimony of J. E. Brown); +p. 786 (testimony of B. H. Hill).</p> + +<p><a name="f175_175" id="f175_175"></a><a href="#fna175_175">[175]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, vol. 6, pp. 21 (testimony of C. D. Forsythe), 118 +(testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol 7, pp. 988 (testimony of Linton +Stephens), 1071.</p> + +<p><a name="f176_176" id="f176_176"></a><a href="#fna176_176">[176]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, vol. 6, pp. 426, 440 (testimony of J. H. +Caldwell), 108 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright); vol. 7, p. 818 (testimony of +J. E. Brown).</p> + +<p><a name="f177_177" id="f177_177"></a><a href="#fna177_177">[177]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, vol. 6, p. 344 (testimony of J. B. Gordon).</p> + +<p><a name="f178_178" id="f178_178"></a><a href="#fna178_178">[178]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1929 (Trumbull’s +remarks).</p> + +<p><a name="f179_179" id="f179_179"></a><a href="#fna179_179">[179]</a> Report of committee on reconstruction, H. M. D., 40th +Congress, 3d session, no. 52, pp. 12 (testimony of Akerman), 27 (testimony +of J. E. Bryant).</p> + +<p><a name="f180_180" id="f180_180"></a><a href="#fna180_180">[180]</a> K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 107 (testimony of Aug. R. Wright).</p> + +<p><a name="f181_181" id="f181_181"></a><a href="#fna181_181">[181]</a> K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 838 (testimony of C. W. Howard).</p> + +<p><a name="f182_182" id="f182_182"></a><a href="#fna182_182">[182]</a> This statement is corroborated by the testimony of B. H. +Hill, K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 767.</p> + +<p><a name="f183_183" id="f183_183"></a><a href="#fna183_183">[183]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 2.</p> + +<p><a name="f184_184" id="f184_184"></a><a href="#fna184_184">[184]</a> S. R., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 192.</p> + +<p><a name="f185_185" id="f185_185"></a><a href="#fna185_185">[185]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, p. 27.</p> + +<p><a name="f186_186" id="f186_186"></a><a href="#fna186_186">[186]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 144.</p> + +<p><a name="f187_187" id="f187_187"></a><a href="#fna187_187">[187]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 10 and 674.</p> + +<p><a name="f188_188" id="f188_188"></a><a href="#fna188_188">[188]</a> H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f189_189" id="f189_189"></a><a href="#fna189_189">[189]</a> U. S. L., vol. 15, Public Laws, p. 257.</p> + +<p><a name="f190_190" id="f190_190"></a><a href="#fna190_190">[190]</a> C. G., 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 934, 976. A precedent +for this rule was found in the similar treatment of Missouri’s electoral +vote in 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f191_191" id="f191_191"></a><a href="#fna191_191">[191]</a> C. C. 40th Congress, 3d session, pp. 1057, ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f192_192" id="f192_192"></a><a href="#fna192_192">[192]</a> G. C., 1867-8, p. 567.</p> + +<p><a name="f193_193" id="f193_193"></a><a href="#fna193_193">[193]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 16, 18. The +committee of elections reported on Jan. 28, 1870, that the Georgia +representatives were not entitled to seats in the 41st Congress, having +sat in the 40th. R. C., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 16.</p> + +<p><a name="f194_194" id="f194_194"></a><a href="#fna194_194">[194]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 1st session, pp. 8, 263, 591.</p> + +<p><a name="f195_195" id="f195_195"></a><a href="#fna195_195">[195]</a> U. S. L., vol. 15, appendix, p. xii.</p> + +<p><a name="f196_196" id="f196_196"></a><a href="#fna196_196">[196]</a> W. A. Dunning, <i>The Civil War and Reconstruction</i>, pp. +226-228, 243.</p> + +<p><a name="f197_197" id="f197_197"></a><a href="#fna197_197">[197]</a> S. J., 1869, p. 806; H. J., p. 610.</p> + +<p><a name="f198_198" id="f198_198"></a><a href="#fna198_198">[198]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 251.</p> + +<p><a name="f199_199" id="f199_199"></a><a href="#fna199_199">[199]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f200_200" id="f200_200"></a><a href="#fna200_200">[200]</a> H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f201_201" id="f201_201"></a><a href="#fna201_201">[201]</a> S. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f202_202" id="f202_202"></a><a href="#fna202_202">[202]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> Halleck’s annual report of Nov. 6, 1869, speaks to +the same effect. R. S. W., 1869, abridged edition, p. 70.</p> + +<p><a name="f203_203" id="f203_203"></a><a href="#fna203_203">[203]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 246.</p> + +<p><a name="f204_204" id="f204_204"></a><a href="#fna204_204">[204]</a> U. S. L., vol. 16, Pub. Laws, p. 59.</p> + +<p><a name="f205_205" id="f205_205"></a><a href="#fna205_205">[205]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1710 (Lawrence’s +speech).</p> + +<p><a name="f206_206" id="f206_206"></a><a href="#fna206_206">[206]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 165 (Carpenter’s speech) and 208 (Conkling’s +speech).</p> + +<p><a name="f207_207" id="f207_207"></a><a href="#fna207_207">[207]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2062.</p> + +<p><a name="f208_208" id="f208_208"></a><a href="#fna208_208">[208]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1710 (Lawrence’s speech).</p> + +<p><a name="f209_209" id="f209_209"></a><a href="#fna209_209">[209]</a> G. O. T. M. D., 1868, no. 90.</p> + +<p><a name="f210_210" id="f210_210"></a><a href="#fna210_210">[210]</a> G. O. II., 1870, no. 1. This and other documents relating +to Terry’s administration are published in E. D., 41st Congress, 2d +session, no. 288.</p> + +<p><a name="f211_211" id="f211_211"></a><a href="#fna211_211">[211]</a> S. R., first Congress, 2d session, no. 58.</p> + +<p><a name="f212_212" id="f212_212"></a><a href="#fna212_212">[212]</a> G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 2, 14, 16, 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f213_213" id="f213_213"></a><a href="#fna213_213">[213]</a> S. O. M. D. G., no. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f214_214" id="f214_214"></a><a href="#fna214_214">[214]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, no. 10 and 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f215_215" id="f215_215"></a><a href="#fna215_215">[215]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f216_216" id="f216_216"></a><a href="#fna216_216">[216]</a> S. J., 1870, p. 3; H. J., p. 7.</p> + +<p><a name="f217_217" id="f217_217"></a><a href="#fna217_217">[217]</a> H. J., p. 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f218_218" id="f218_218"></a><a href="#fna218_218">[218]</a> S. J., 1870., p. 26.</p> + +<p><a name="f219_219" id="f219_219"></a><a href="#fna219_219">[219]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f220_220" id="f220_220"></a><a href="#fna220_220">[220]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 19 and 21.</p> + +<p><a name="f221_221" id="f221_221"></a><a href="#fna221_221">[221]</a> See also a letter from Sherman to Terry, published in K. K. +R., vol. i, p. 311.</p> + +<p><a name="f222_222" id="f222_222"></a><a href="#fna222_222">[222]</a> Judge Cabaniss in Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Jan. 8, 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f223_223" id="f223_223"></a><a href="#fna223_223">[223]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 9.</p> + +<p><a name="f224_224" id="f224_224"></a><a href="#fna224_224">[224]</a> G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 3 and 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f225_225" id="f225_225"></a><a href="#fna225_225">[225]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, no. 9 and 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f226_226" id="f226_226"></a><a href="#fna226_226">[226]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, no. 9.</p> + +<p><a name="f227_227" id="f227_227"></a><a href="#fna227_227">[227]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, no. 9 and 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f228_228" id="f228_228"></a><a href="#fna228_228">[228]</a> Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Jan. 27, 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f229_229" id="f229_229"></a><a href="#fna229_229">[229]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1926 (Trumbull’s +speech).</p> + +<p><a name="f230_230" id="f230_230"></a><a href="#fna230_230">[230]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 22.</p> + +<p><a name="f231_231" id="f231_231"></a><a href="#fna231_231">[231]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 23.</p> + +<p><a name="f232_232" id="f232_232"></a><a href="#fna232_232">[232]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 25.</p> + +<p><a name="f233_233" id="f233_233"></a><a href="#fna233_233">[233]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 26.</p> + +<p><a name="f234_234" id="f234_234"></a><a href="#fna234_234">[234]</a> G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 10.</p> + +<p><a name="f235_235" id="f235_235"></a><a href="#fna235_235">[235]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 33.</p> + +<p><a name="f236_236" id="f236_236"></a><a href="#fna236_236">[236]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 208.</p> + +<p><a name="f237_237" id="f237_237"></a><a href="#fna237_237">[237]</a> S. J., 1870, p. 74; H. J., p. 74.</p> + +<p><a name="f238_238" id="f238_238"></a><a href="#fna238_238">[238]</a> See Bullock’s message, H. J., 1870, p. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f239_239" id="f239_239"></a><a href="#fna239_239">[239]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 95.</p> + +<p><a name="f240_240" id="f240_240"></a><a href="#fna240_240">[240]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 113, 156.</p> + +<p><a name="f241_241" id="f241_241"></a><a href="#fna241_241">[241]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 106.</p> + +<p><a name="f242_242" id="f242_242"></a><a href="#fna242_242">[242]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 140.</p> + +<p><a name="f243_243" id="f243_243"></a><a href="#fna243_243">[243]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 121.</p> + +<p><a name="f244_244" id="f244_244"></a><a href="#fna244_244">[244]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 576. For Sherman’s +reply see E. D., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 82.</p> + +<p><a name="f245_245" id="f245_245"></a><a href="#fna245_245">[245]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1029.</p> + +<p><a name="f246_246" id="f246_246"></a><a href="#fna246_246">[246]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1128.</p> + +<p><a name="f247_247" id="f247_247"></a><a href="#fna247_247">[247]</a> S. R., 41st Congress, 2d session, no. 58.</p> + +<p><a name="f248_248" id="f248_248"></a><a href="#fna248_248">[248]</a> Chicago <i>Tribune</i>, Dec. 7, 1868.</p> + +<p><a name="f249_249" id="f249_249"></a><a href="#fna249_249">[249]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, pp. 1570, 1704.</p> + +<p><a name="f250_250" id="f250_250"></a><a href="#fna250_250">[250]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 1770.</p> + +<p><a name="f251_251" id="f251_251"></a><a href="#fna251_251">[251]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f252_252" id="f252_252"></a><a href="#fna252_252">[252]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1988.</p> + +<p><a name="f253_253" id="f253_253"></a><a href="#fna253_253">[253]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 2d session, p. 2091.</p> + +<p><a name="f254_254" id="f254_254"></a><a href="#fna254_254">[254]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 2820, ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f255_255" id="f255_255"></a><a href="#fna255_255">[255]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 2829.</p> + +<p><a name="f256_256" id="f256_256"></a><a href="#fna256_256">[256]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 4747.</p> + +<p><a name="f257_257" id="f257_257"></a><a href="#fna257_257">[257]</a> U. S. L., vol. 16, Public Laws, p. 363.</p> + +<p><a name="f258_258" id="f258_258"></a><a href="#fna258_258">[258]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 181.</p> + +<p><a name="f259_259" id="f259_259"></a><a href="#fna259_259">[259]</a> S. J., 1870, vol. ii, p. 29.</p> + +<p><a name="f260_260" id="f260_260"></a><a href="#fna260_260">[260]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 50; H. J., p. 343.</p> + +<p><a name="f261_261" id="f261_261"></a><a href="#fna261_261">[261]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 527, 530, 678, 703, +1086.</p> + +<p><a name="f262_262" id="f262_262"></a><a href="#fna262_262">[262]</a> S. R., 41st Congress, 3d session, no. 308.</p> + +<p><a name="f263_263" id="f263_263"></a><a href="#fna263_263">[263]</a> C. G., 41st Congress, 3d session, pp. 871, 1632.</p> + +<p><a name="f264_264" id="f264_264"></a><a href="#fna264_264">[264]</a> J. C., p. 14.</p> + +<p><a name="f265_265" id="f265_265"></a><a href="#fna265_265">[265]</a> J. C., pp. 16, 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f266_266" id="f266_266"></a><a href="#fna266_266">[266]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 587.</p> + +<p><a name="f267_267" id="f267_267"></a><a href="#fna267_267">[267]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 49, 53.</p> + +<p><a name="f268_268" id="f268_268"></a><a href="#fna268_268">[268]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 581.</p> + +<p><a name="f269_269" id="f269_269"></a><a href="#fna269_269">[269]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 75.</p> + +<p><a name="f270_270" id="f270_270"></a><a href="#fna270_270">[270]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 63.</p> + +<p><a name="f271_271" id="f271_271"></a><a href="#fna271_271">[271]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 84.</p> + +<p><a name="f272_272" id="f272_272"></a><a href="#fna272_272">[272]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 581, 594.</p> + +<p><a name="f273_273" id="f273_273"></a><a href="#fna273_273">[273]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 68.</p> + +<p><a name="f274_274" id="f274_274"></a><a href="#fna274_274">[274]</a> J. C., p. 583.</p> + +<p><a name="f275_275" id="f275_275"></a><a href="#fna275_275">[275]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 593.</p> + +<p><a name="f276_276" id="f276_276"></a><a href="#fna276_276">[276]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 591.</p> + +<p><a name="f277_277" id="f277_277"></a><a href="#fna277_277">[277]</a> See J. C., 1865, p. 201 (speech of H. V. Johnson).</p> + +<p><a name="f278_278" id="f278_278"></a><a href="#fna278_278">[278]</a> J. C., 1867-8, p. 90.</p> + +<p><a name="f279_279" id="f279_279"></a><a href="#fna279_279">[279]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 39.</p> + +<p><a name="f280_280" id="f280_280"></a><a href="#fna280_280">[280]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 47.</p> + +<p><a name="f281_281" id="f281_281"></a><a href="#fna281_281">[281]</a> M. F. U., Dec. 24, 1867, Jan. 7, Jan. 14, 1868.</p> + +<p><a name="f282_282" id="f282_282"></a><a href="#fna282_282">[282]</a> H. J., 1868, p. 294.</p> + +<p><a name="f283_283" id="f283_283"></a><a href="#fna283_283">[283]</a> H. J., 1868, p. 303.</p> + +<p><a name="f284_284" id="f284_284"></a><a href="#fna284_284">[284]</a> S. J., 1868, p. 326.</p> + +<p><a name="f285_285" id="f285_285"></a><a href="#fna285_285">[285]</a> H. J., 1869, p. 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f286_286" id="f286_286"></a><a href="#fna286_286">[286]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 228.</p> + +<p><a name="f287_287" id="f287_287"></a><a href="#fna287_287">[287]</a> H. J., p. 54.</p> + +<p><a name="f288_288" id="f288_288"></a><a href="#fna288_288">[288]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 260.</p> + +<p><a name="f289_289" id="f289_289"></a><a href="#fna289_289">[289]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 265.</p> + +<p><a name="f290_290" id="f290_290"></a><a href="#fna290_290">[290]</a> H. J., 1869, p. 575.</p> + +<p><a name="f291_291" id="f291_291"></a><a href="#fna291_291">[291]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1869, p. 618.</p> + +<p><a name="f292_292" id="f292_292"></a><a href="#fna292_292">[292]</a> S. J., p. 806.</p> + +<p><a name="f293_293" id="f293_293"></a><a href="#fna293_293">[293]</a> G. O. M. D. G., 1870, no. 9 and 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f294_294" id="f294_294"></a><a href="#fna294_294">[294]</a> S. J., 1870, p. 39.</p> + +<p><a name="f295_295" id="f295_295"></a><a href="#fna295_295">[295]</a> H. J., pp. 34, 40, 84, 88.</p> + +<p><a name="f296_296" id="f296_296"></a><a href="#fna296_296">[296]</a> The complexion of the legislature when composed of the men +elected in April, 1868, was as follows:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td> </td> + <td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Senate.</td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Lower House.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Republicans</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">22</td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">73</span></td></tr> +<tr><td>Conservatives</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">22</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">102</td></tr></table> + +<p>After the colored members were expelled and their seats given to the +minority candidates, it was as follows:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td> </td> + <td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Senate.</td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Lower House.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Republicans</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">19</td><td> </td> + <td align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">48</span></td></tr> +<tr><td>Conservatives</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">25</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">127</td></tr></table> + +<p>After the reorganization of 1870 it was as follows:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td> </td> + <td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Senate.</td><td><span class="spacer"> </span></td> + <td align="center">Lower House.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Republicans</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">27</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">87</td></tr> +<tr><td>Conservatives</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">17</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">83</td></tr></table> + +<p>The figures in the second and third tables are based upon the changes +produced only by the official transactions referred to. Perhaps some +slight corrections might be made on account of accidental circumstances, +such as the non-attendance or death of a few members.</p> + +<p><a name="f297_297" id="f297_297"></a><a href="#fna297_297">[297]</a> See K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 149; vol. 7, p. 1062.</p> + +<p><a name="f298_298" id="f298_298"></a><a href="#fna298_298">[298]</a> H. J., 1870, p. 156.</p> + +<p><a name="f299_299" id="f299_299"></a><a href="#fna299_299">[299]</a> H. M. D., 40th Congress, 3d session, no. 52, p. 27.</p> + +<p><a name="f300_300" id="f300_300"></a><a href="#fna300_300">[300]</a> Savannah <i>News</i>, Jan. 12, 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f301_301" id="f301_301"></a><a href="#fna301_301">[301]</a> H. J., p. 50.</p> + +<p><a name="f302_302" id="f302_302"></a><a href="#fna302_302">[302]</a> M. F. U., Feb. 15, 1870</p> + +<p><a name="f303_303" id="f303_303"></a><a href="#fna303_303">[303]</a> M. F. U., Jan. 25, 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f304_304" id="f304_304"></a><a href="#fna304_304">[304]</a> H. J., p. 343.</p> + +<p><a name="f305_305" id="f305_305"></a><a href="#fna305_305">[305]</a> S. L., 1870, p. 62.</p> + +<p><a name="f306_306" id="f306_306"></a><a href="#fna306_306">[306]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 431.</p> + +<p><a name="f307_307" id="f307_307"></a><a href="#fna307_307">[307]</a> Tribune Almanac, 1871, p. 75.</p> + +<p><a name="f308_308" id="f308_308"></a><a href="#fna308_308">[308]</a> M. F. U., March 14, 8871; Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Oct. 26 +and 31, 1871.</p> + +<p><a name="f309_309" id="f309_309"></a><a href="#fna309_309">[309]</a> Art. iii, sect. i, § 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f310_310" id="f310_310"></a><a href="#fna310_310">[310]</a> S. L., 1870, p. 419.</p> + +<p><a name="f311_311" id="f311_311"></a><a href="#fna311_311">[311]</a> E. M., 1870-74, p. 197.</p> + +<p><a name="f312_312" id="f312_312"></a><a href="#fna312_312">[312]</a> See entry of the secretary of state, <i>ibid.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f313_313" id="f313_313"></a><a href="#fna313_313">[313]</a> Art. iv, sect. i,§ 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f314_314" id="f314_314"></a><a href="#fna314_314">[314]</a> E. M., 1870-74, p. 198.</p> + +<p><a name="f315_315" id="f315_315"></a><a href="#fna315_315">[315]</a> Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Nov. 3, 1871.</p> + +<p><a name="f316_316" id="f316_316"></a><a href="#fna316_316">[316]</a> S. J., 1871, p. 17.</p> + +<p><a name="f317_317" id="f317_317"></a><a href="#fna317_317">[317]</a> Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Nov. 2, 1871.</p> + +<p><a name="f318_318" id="f318_318"></a><a href="#fna318_318">[318]</a> S. L., 1871, p. 27.</p> + +<p><a name="f319_319" id="f319_319"></a><a href="#fna319_319">[319]</a> Art. iv, sect. i, § 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f320_320" id="f320_320"></a><a href="#fna320_320">[320]</a> H. J., 1871, p. 179.</p> + +<p><a name="f321_321" id="f321_321"></a><a href="#fna321_321">[321]</a> For vetoed bills see S. L., 1871 and 1872, pp. 12, 15, 18, +27, 68, 74. See also <i>ibid.</i>, p. 260, and H. J., 1872, p. 25.</p> + +<p><a name="f322_322" id="f322_322"></a><a href="#fna322_322">[322]</a> E. M., 1870-74, p. 277 (pardon of V. A. Gaskill); Minutes +of Fulton County Superior Court, vol. J, p. 404 (pardon of F. Blodgett).</p> + +<p><a name="f323_323" id="f323_323"></a><a href="#fna323_323">[323]</a> H. J., 1872, p. 25.</p> + +<p><a name="f324_324" id="f324_324"></a><a href="#fna324_324">[324]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 31.</p> + +<p><a name="f325_325" id="f325_325"></a><a href="#fna325_325">[325]</a> K. K. R., vol. 6, p. 327.</p> + +<p><a name="f326_326" id="f326_326"></a><a href="#fna326_326">[326]</a> Digest of tax laws, 1859, p. 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f327_327" id="f327_327"></a><a href="#fna327_327">[327]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 253.</p> + +<p><a name="f328_328" id="f328_328"></a><a href="#fna328_328">[328]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1866, p. 164.</p> + +<p><a name="f329_329" id="f329_329"></a><a href="#fna329_329">[329]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1868, p. 152; 1869, p. 159.</p> + +<p><a name="f330_330" id="f330_330"></a><a href="#fna330_330">[330]</a> B. L., p. 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f331_331" id="f331_331"></a><a href="#fna331_331">[331]</a> C. R., 1870 (printed in S. J., 1870, part ii, p. 83).</p> + +<p><a name="f332_332" id="f332_332"></a><a href="#fna332_332">[332]</a> C. R., 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f333_333" id="f333_333"></a><a href="#fna333_333">[333]</a> C. R., April, 1871.</p> + +<p><a name="f334_334" id="f334_334"></a><a href="#fna334_334">[334]</a> C. R., April, 1872.</p> + +<p><a name="f335_335" id="f335_335"></a><a href="#fna335_335">[335]</a> B. L., p. 9; B. A., p. 42.</p> + +<p><a name="f336_336" id="f336_336"></a><a href="#fna336_336">[336]</a> Report of state treasurer Jones, published in H. J., 1868, +p. 361; R. C., 1870; R. C., April, 1871; R. C., April, 1872.</p> + +<p><a name="f337_337" id="f337_337"></a><a href="#fna337_337">[337]</a> S. L., 1865-1866, pp. 12 and 14; <i>ibid.</i>, 1866, pp. 10, 11, +143.</p> + +<p><a name="f338_338" id="f338_338"></a><a href="#fna338_338">[338]</a> Compiled from the financial documents above cited.</p> + +<p><a name="f339_339" id="f339_339"></a><a href="#fna339_339">[339]</a> S. L., 1865-66, p. 250.</p> + +<p><a name="f340_340" id="f340_340"></a><a href="#fna340_340">[340]</a> Compiled from the financial reports above cited.</p> + +<p>The enemies of reconstruction were fond of placing the state expenses of +Bullock’s administration in juxtaposition with those before the war. +Contrasts truly horrible could thus be produced. But it was not a fair +comparison, for the expenses in such circumstances as prevailed after the +war and after the social revolution would naturally be larger than before. +The expenses of many states besides those which enjoyed reconstruction +increased largely after the war. <i>E.g.</i> the records of Pennsylvania show +that “Expenses of Government” were—</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>In</td><td>1857 </td><td align="right">$423,448.89</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1858</td><td align="right">399,888.36</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1860</td><td align="right">404,863.41</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1866</td><td align="right">668,909.63</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1867</td><td align="right">802,878.58</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1868</td><td align="right">845,539.89</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1869</td><td align="right">804,730.17</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1870</td><td align="right">826,069.25</td></tr></table> + +<p>Pennsylvania Executive Documents, Auditor’s Reports, for the years named. +In Massachusetts the “Ordinary Expenses” were—</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>In</td><td>1857 </td><td align="right">$1,236,204.26</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1858</td><td align="right">1,008,620.50</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1859</td><td align="right">999,899.76</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1860</td><td align="right">1,193,896.41</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1866</td><td align="right">6,877,720.85</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1867</td><td align="right">5,953,003.31</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>1868</td><td align="right">5,908,678.48</td></tr></table> + +<p>Massachusetts Public Documents for the years named.</p> + +<p><a name="f341_341" id="f341_341"></a><a href="#fna341_341">[341]</a> C. R., 1870.</p> + +<p><a name="f342_342" id="f342_342"></a><a href="#fna342_342">[342]</a> C. R., April, 1871, p. 14; C. R., April, 1872, p. 17; B. +L., p. 13; Conley’s message to the legislature, Jan. 11, 1872 (quoted in +B. A., p. 6, and in K. K. R., vol. i, p. 141).</p> + +<p>Of these bonds 3,000, representing a debt of $3,000,000, were issued under +a law of Sept. 15, 1870 (S. L., 1870, p. 10), authorizing the governor to +issue bonds for various purposes without specified limit as to amount. The +rest were issued under an act of Oct. 17, 1870 (omitted from the session +laws, see Conley’s message just cited), authorizing the governor to issue +to the Brunswick and Albany railroad state bonds to the amount of +$1,880,000 in exchange for bonds of the railroad to the amount of +$2,350,000.</p> + +<p>In addition to the bonds already mentioned, bonds to the amount of +$600,000 were issued under acts of 1868 (S. L., 1868, pp. 14 and 138.) +These were not sold and were returned to the possession of the state +during Bullock’s administration (Angier’s statement, K. K. R., vol. 6, p. +162). Also, before the issue of $3,000,000 mentioned, bonds to the amount +of $2,000,000 were issued (Conley’s message cited). These were +hypothecated with several bankers in New York. Some of them, amounting to +$500,000, were returned and cancelled during Bullock’s administration +(Conley’s message). The rest, amounting to $1,500,000, remained in the +hands of the bankers. Conley stated, in January, 1872 (message cited), +that these bonds had been replaced by bonds of a later issue and canceled +during Bullock’s administration, and had therefore ceased to be a claim +against the state. This statement conflicts with three facts. 1. The +bankers who held these bonds refused to return them after their alleged +cancellation. 2. One of these bankers sold the bonds which he held after +their alleged cancellation (Henry Clews, <i>Twenty-eight Years in Wall +Street</i>, p. 277). 3. The legislature of Georgia repudiated these bonds in +1872, which would have been unnecessary if they had been cancelled. It +seems probable, therefore, though not certain, that this $1,500,000 should +be added to the debt incurred by the reconstruction government.</p> + +<p><a name="f343_343" id="f343_343"></a><a href="#fna343_343">[343]</a> S. L., 1868, title xvii.</p> + +<p><a name="f344_344" id="f344_344"></a><a href="#fna344_344">[344]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1869, title xv.</p> + +<p><a name="f345_345" id="f345_345"></a><a href="#fna345_345">[345]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1870, title xi, division vii.</p> + +<p><a name="f346_346" id="f346_346"></a><a href="#fna346_346">[346]</a> Angier’s statement, K. K. R., vol. i, p. 129.</p> + +<p><a name="f347_347" id="f347_347"></a><a href="#fna347_347">[347]</a> Conley’s message above cited.</p> + +<p><a name="f348_348" id="f348_348"></a><a href="#fna348_348">[348]</a> It is to be remarked, however, that four of the roads whose +bonds the state had guaranteed became bankrupt before 1874. See Poor’s +Railroad Manual for 1873-4, pp. 432 and 582; and for 1874-5, p. 426.</p> + +<p><a name="f349_349" id="f349_349"></a><a href="#fna349_349">[349]</a> E. M., 1870-74, p. 449.</p> + +<p><a name="f350_350" id="f350_350"></a><a href="#fna350_350">[350]</a> See the case of Hoyt, Minutes of Fulton County Superior +Court, vol. I, pp. 371, 445.</p> + +<p><a name="f351_351" id="f351_351"></a><a href="#fna351_351">[351]</a> Report of the investigating committee of the legislature +appointed in Dec., 1871. Its report was printed in Atlanta in 1872. It is +bitterly partisan, but a minority report made by a Republican admits, with +humorous resignation, that the charges are true.</p> + +<p><a name="f352_352" id="f352_352"></a><a href="#fna352_352">[352]</a> A. A. C., 1869, P. 305.</p> + +<p><a name="f353_353" id="f353_353"></a><a href="#fna353_353">[353]</a> See K. K. R., vol. i, pp. 137 and 138. The statements are +on pp. 11 and 12 of the letter as published in Atlanta in 1871.</p> + +<p><a name="f354_354" id="f354_354"></a><a href="#fna354_354">[354]</a> See Conley’s message cited.</p> + +<p><a name="f355_355" id="f355_355"></a><a href="#fna355_355">[355]</a> In the latter part of 1868 and in 1869 the governor paid to +a certain H. I. Kimball $54,500 from the treasury. He paid this to be used +in furnishing a building which was at that time occupied as the state +capital. (Bullock’s statement, B. A., p. 29.) There was no law authorizing +this payment, nor was the state under any obligation to make it. The state +bought the building in 1870 by an act of the legislature which provided +that the $54,500 should be counted as part of the price. Thus Bullock’s +advance was ratified by the state. (S. L., 1870, p. 494.) This, however, +does not change the character of the act.</p> + +<p><a name="f356_356" id="f356_356"></a><a href="#fna356_356">[356]</a> See C. R., April, 1871, and April, 1872. Bullock was +accused of indorsing the bonds of three railroads contrary to law. In the +case of two of these (the Cartersville and Van Wert, or Cherokee railroad, +and the Bainbridge, Cuthbert and Columbus railroad) he refuted the charge +beyond contradiction in his address to the public of 1872. In the case of +the third (the Brunswick and Albany railroad) he admitted that he had +indorsed bonds before the road had complied with the conditions required +by law, but said that he did it for the public good. (B. A., pp. 39-41.)</p> + +<p><a name="f357_357" id="f357_357"></a><a href="#fna357_357">[357]</a> Atlanta <i>Constitution</i>, Jan. 3, 1878; Minutes of the Fulton +County Superior Court, vol. N, p. 261.</p> + +<p><a name="f358_358" id="f358_358"></a><a href="#fna358_358">[358]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 263, 273.</p> + +<p><a name="f359_359" id="f359_359"></a><a href="#fna359_359">[359]</a> Atlanta <i>New Era</i>, Oct. 31, 1871. Printed as an appendix to +B. A.</p> + +<p><a name="f360_360" id="f360_360"></a><a href="#fna360_360">[360]</a> Appendix to B. L. (printed in K. K. R., vol. 7, p. 825).</p> + +<p><a name="f361_361" id="f361_361"></a><a href="#fna361_361">[361]</a> K. K. R., vol. 7, pp. 767 and 780.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><strong>Transcriber’s Notes:</strong></p> + +<p>Punctuation has been corrected without note.</p> + +<p>Other than the corrections noted by hover information, inconsistencies in +spelling and hyphenation have been retained from the original.</p> + +<p>Footnote 141 appears on page <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, but there is no corresponding marker on the page.</p> + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's The Reconstruction of Georgia, by Edwin C. Woolley + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA *** + +***** This file should be named 35559-h.htm or 35559-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/5/5/35559/ + +Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed +Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was +produced from images generously made available by The +Internet Archive.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/35559-h/images/printer.jpg b/35559-h/images/printer.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4574fd8 --- /dev/null +++ b/35559-h/images/printer.jpg |
