It is true, it has been assumed that the existence of the States was terminated by the rebellious acts of their inhabitants, and that the insurrection having been suppressed, they were thenceforward to be considered merely as conquered territories. The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Government have, however, with great distinctness and uniform consistency, refused to sanction an assumption so incompatible with the nature of our republican system and with the professed objects of the war. Throughout the recent legislation of Congress, the undeniable fact makes itself apparent, that these ten political communities are nothing less than States of this Union. At the very commencement of the rebellion each House declared, with a unanimity as remarkable as it was significant, that the war was not “waged, upon our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects” were “accomplished the war ought to cease.” In some instances Senators were permitted to continue their legislative functions, while in other instances Representatives were elected and admitted to seats after their States had formally declared their right to withdraw from the Union, and were endeavoring to maintain that right by force of arms. All of the States whose people were in insurrection, as States, were included in the apportionment of the direct tax of $20,000,000 annually, laid upon the United States by the act approved 5th August, 1861. Congress, by the act of March 4, 1862, and by the apportionment of representation thereunder, also recognized their presence as States in the Union; and they have, for judicial purposes, been divided into districts, as States alone can be divided. The same recognition appears in the recent legislation in reference to Tennessee, which evidently rests upon the fact that the functions of the State were not destroyed by the rebellion, but merely suspended; and that principle is of course applicable to those States which, like Tennessee, attempted to renounce their place in the Union.
The action of the executive department of the Government upon this subject has been equally definite and uniform, and the purpose of the war was specifically stated in the proclamation issued by my predecessor on the 22d day of September, 1862. It was then solemnly proclaimed and declared that “hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and each of the States and the people thereof, to which States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed.”
The recognition of the States by the judicial department of the Government has also been clear and conclusive in all proceedings affecting them as States, had in the Supreme, Circuit, and District Courts.
In the admission of Senators and Representatives from any and all of the States, there can be no just ground of apprehension that persons who are disloyal will be clothed with the powers of legislation; for this could not happen when the Constitution and the laws are enforced by a vigilant and faithful Congress. Each House is made the “judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members,” and may, “with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” When a Senator or Representative presents his certificate of election, he may at once be admitted or rejected; or, should there be any question as to his eligibility, his credentials may be referred for investigation to the appropriate committee. If admitted to a seat, it must be upon evidence satisfactory to the House of which he thus becomes a member that he possesses the requisite constitutional and legal qualifications. If refused admission as a member, for want of due allegiance to the Government, and returned to his constituents, they are admonished that none but persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the legislative councils of the nation, and the political power and moral influence of Congress are thus effectively exerted in the interests of loyalty to the Government and fidelity to the Union. Upon this question, so vitally affecting the restoration of the Union and the permanency of our present form of government, my convictions, heretofore expressed, have undergone no change; but, on the contrary, their correctness has been confirmed by reflection and time. If the admission of loyal members to seats in the respective Houses of Congress was wise and expedient a year ago, it is no less wise and expedient now. If this anomalous condition is right now—if, in the exact condition of these States at the present time, it is lawful to exclude them from representation, I do not see that the question will be changed by the efflux of time. Ten years hence, if these States remain as they are, the right of representation will be no stronger, the right of exclusion will be no weaker.
The Constitution of the United States makes it the duty of the President to recommend to the consideration of Congress “such measures as he shall judge necessary or expedient.” I know of no measure more imperatively demanded by every consideration of national interest, sound policy, and equal justice, than the admission of loyal members from the now unrepresented States. This would consummate the work of restoration, and exert a most salutary influence in the re-establishment of peace, harmony, and fraternal feeling. It would tend greatly to renew the confidence of the American people in the vigor and stability of their institutions. It would bind us more closely together as a nation, and enable us to show to the world the inherent and recuperative power of a Government founded upon the will of the people, and established upon the principles of liberty, justice, and intelligence. Our increased strength and enhanced prosperity would irrefragably demonstrate the fallacy of the arguments against free institutions drawn from our recent national disorders by the enemies of republican government. The admission of loyal members from the States now excluded from Congress, by allaying doubt and apprehension, would turn capital, now awaiting an opportunity for investment, into the channels of trade and industry. It would alleviate the present troubled condition of those States, and, by inducing emigration, aid in the settlement of fertile regions now uncultivated, and lead to an increased production of those staples which have added so greatly to the wealth of the nation and the commerce of the world. New fields of enterprise would be opened to our progressive people, and soon the devastations of war would be repaired, and all traces of our domestic differences effaced from the minds of our countrymen.
EXCERPTS FROM CLAUDE AUGUST CROMMELIN, AYOUNGDUTCHMAN VIEWS POST–CIVIL WAR AMERICA
(December 1866)
Soon after Appomattox, Claude August Crommelin (1840–1874), an elite Dutchman, embarked on a tour of the U.S., visiting New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the Upper Mississippi Valley, and the war-ravaged South. Drawing upon family connections, Crommelin met important Americans and recorded keen insights into the mood and manners of those he observed. Crommelin noted in particular the social and economic conditions in late 1866 in Charleston, South Carolina, and the opinions of white Southerners toward freedpeople, Yankees generally, and Radical Republicans in particular.
Saturday 8 December 1866
Departed for Charleston on board the Saratoga. Rain and fog at the time of departure, and we were obliged to anchor in the Narrows until the fog lifted.
. . . Some of his figures may be noted here: wages of Negroes, field hands $10 to 15 per month, domestic servants $12 to 15, everything including board. Most owners—not planters, about planters he didn’t say anything—are glad to be rid of their slaves and value today’s system much higher than the old one. During the war the price of gold skyrocketed to 5000 percent, meaning $1 in gold for $50 currency. But he had also knowledge of a barrel of flour worth $10 in gold being sold for $1,200 currency. It is clear that this was the cause for much speculation, and the bribery to be declared officially unfit for army service must have been unbelievable. Later desertion grew to enormous proportions.
He claimed that the planters didn’t
want a return to the slave trade as they maintained that this would have depreciated the value of their old slaves, making the growing of cotton before the war already highly unprofitable. This could never have been a reason to go to war, as he said. He told me that field hands were worth only $500 before the war. He disregarded all stories about the punishing of those men who taught the Negroes, but he did say that for helping slaves to flee to the North the death penalty could still be imposed, although never really enforced. At the occasion of testamentary manumission the testator also had to provide funds to make the freed slave leave the state, this being the cause that there are hardly any freedmen in South Carolina. He also claims that the president against the Congress can count on the regular army and 300,000 men from the South. He calls all Northerners “the most vile, lying, cheating, hypocritical set of people on earth.”
One of the waiters amused me by ventilating the same opinion regarding the North, because his father, a shoemaker of about 60 years of age, was suspected there because of his age of not being able to make shoes anymore, something one would have gladly entrusted him with in the South. One other of his complaints was that in school the rich boys got preferential treatment over poor boys. But as this seemed to have happened in North or South Carolina as well, this statement against the North was not very convincing in my opinion.
Regarding Reconstruction, the ‘burden’ of his argument was this: we don’t care, let them do what they want to do in the North, we are just as happy outside the Union as in it again.
Wednesday 12 December 1866
At first sight Charleston made a very dismal impression. One still can see the craters, only just filled in, made by the bombs during the bombardment of eighteen months, day and night. Furthermore a whole section of the town burned down in the first year of the war, although this fire had nothing to do with the bombardment. The ruins have not yet been cleared away; everything is as it was the day after the fire. The multitude of Negroes, the colorful scarves that the women use as headgear, the market surrounded by tame turkey vultures, the many mules, the gentlemen on horseback, everything combines to provide a real Southern spectacle. But the almost complete absence of carriages, the ruinous exterior of the houses, and other particulars clearly show the sad situation of the inhabitants. Nowhere are houses being built, and the vacant lots in the ‘Burnt District’ are evidence that everything is dead. Charleston’s credit is so low that a plan to give away city bonds to the lot owners in exchange for a mortgage on their lots fell through. . . .
In the evening visited with Governor Aiken, who has suffered a lot during the war, just as all Lowndeses, Hugers, and others. All planters, whose wealth consisted almost uniquely in slaves, are ruined. They have given everything, and because of the emancipation they have lost the last they had. Only their land is left, but with the labor problem and the scarcity of capital, that land cannot be made profitable. Some have borrowed northern capital at outrageous rates of interest, and generally they have not been able to pay off their debt, partly because of the unfavorable season for almost all crops, and also because of the insufficient number of hands available and consequent lack of care. Of course, Governor Aiken claims that the Negroes are lazy and will never be willing to work. He estimates the cotton crop at 1,000,000 bales, while in New York the same crop is estimated at 2,300,000, but mostly from Texas. He asserts that the Mexican War and the annexation of Texas were not provoked by the South. He did concede that the position of the South in the slavery question in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska had been an attempt to maintain the majority. In his opinion this was foolish, as slave labor was not suitable for Kansas or Nebraska. If they had kept quietly within the framework of the old slave laws and not sought any extension of the system, the question would never have come to a head. The slaveholders possibly would have emancipated their slaves of their own free will, partly because that kind of labor would become unprofitable in the long run, as had already happened in Virginia and Tennessee. But when he pointed out that under the old regime a crop of 10 million bales would have been possible, his solution of the problem became very doubtful in my opinion. He takes a gloomy view of the future and hopes that the importation of coolies will solve the labor problem. He maintains that 2,000,000 Negroes have run away, and the available labor decreased with that number.
Aiken, just as Mr. Wilkinson—whom I visited later and where Mrs. Wilkinson and Lou and Ella made me a hearty welcome as an old friend—expect that the Negro will fall back into barbarism instead of improve. Everyone is depressed and concedes that all are ruined completely, and that the wealth of the country in horses and mules has decreased. Reconstruction will take a long time, especially as long as northern capital will remain wary because of the political instability.
Naturally all are angry at Congress, and the general expectation is that the Radical party will carry everything before it. They see themselves reduced to the status of territories, which wouldn’t even make much of a difference, as the state legislatures cannot do anything without the consent of the military commanders, who don’t even hesitate to reverse arrests of the courts. Small wonder that deep despondency and indifference are widespread. Many are really devastated.
The usual Southern gaiety has not greatly suffered, however, which I witnessed at a party at two Misses Mackay’s, where Lou and Ella Wilkinson took me. Dress was very simple, most so with the gentlemen who came in their sports coats, but the dancing wasn’t less enthusiastic. I liked the girls, but they could not hide their hatred of the Yankees, that goes so far that they refuse to greet an U.S. officer, whom they had known before, on the street. . . .
In the evening visited with Mrs. Hayne, where Mr. Buvard Hayne, her son, whom I had met at the Cotonnets, had invited me. Mr. Hayne’s brother was the well known ‘nullificator’ of 1832. Eldest daughter was the lovely Mrs. Barnwell, Miss Hayne, Mr. Theodore Hayne. The most typical Southern family I have met until now. The mother is a most pleasant woman, with all the special characteristics. All were extremely well-bred, with a measure of French polish and lightheartedness, but without any real warmth and depth. For one evening most pleasant and charming, but in the long run by far not what those damned Yankees are.
Here I witnessed the real Yankee hatred to perfection. They are made out—but always half laughing—as the original, perfect villains. Most lamented seems to be the loss of all personal comforts: no servants, no carriages, no money is the continuing refrain, and this seems to weigh heavier than anything else. Real serious, deeply felt anger I haven’t seen anywhere. Although half laughingly, I here heard the theory of the ‘divine institution’ too, and I believe it was more seriously meant than it seemed at first sight. They did acknowledge the existence of a law against the education of Negroes, but keep telling me that it was a dead letter. They did concede that Negroes were maltreated sometimes, and admired their behavior at present. . . .
Saturday 15 December 1866
Bad weather, cold and rainy. A couple of visits; cotton gin and rice mill. In the afternoon a visit with Mrs. Wilkinson and Mrs. Gibbes. Mrs. Gibbes is an archetypical Southern woman, a bit like Mary St. Clair. ‘Lolling in her rocking chair,’ she talked incessantly in an indifferent and nonchalant tone. Her stories all boil down to the same topic, but are not very consistent in regard of the Negroes. She said that if only the Yankees and the Freedmen’s Bureau would be gone, everything would adjust itself, the Negroes would fall back into their old habits and go to work as usual, and everything would be fine again. Everybody keeps telling himself that only if one would leave us to ourselves, we would manage quite well. But will the North do that in view of the still prevailing atmosphere?
I have no doubts that the treatment of the Negroes has generally been good. Mrs. Wilkinson confirmed to me that whoever maltreated his slaves was ostracized from society, and others pointed out the interest masters had in good treatment of their slaves. Slaves cost between $1,200 and 1,500 for a field hand
, $1,500–2,000 for a house servant, sometimes as high as $2,500. Undoubtedly of course, there were exceptions, especially in the backwoods and among the smaller slaveholders.
Fiercest against the Yankees are the ladies. Lou Wilkinson said to me this very evening, “I wish I could have a rope around all their necks and hang them all,” and when her mother objected—on my behalf—she said “Oh, but I wouldn’t like to see all the corpses dangling in the air, but I do wish they were all hanged.” Later, when she talked about the possibility of being a Yankee herself, “Oh, I would put a rope round my own neck and hang myself first, and I would take it nobly, not like those mean Yankees.” The hatred against the flag is general: “that ugly gridiron flag,” said Mrs. Hayne. The men are indifferent and only think of recovering their material prosperity. In general this is a frivolous people, without any depth and seriousness, and it is mostly this that they cannot bear to see in the Yankees.
More and more people confirm that the reason behind the war has been the idea that the North intended to abolish slavery and by doing so infringe on their rights. After the election of Lincoln, an abolitionist in their opinion, the question came to a head, and the South felt constrained to dust off their favorite doctrine of ‘states’ rights.’ They were convinced that they had the right to leave the Union, and the responsibility to take this step rests squarely with their leaders, and especially with those under oath to maintain the Union. In my opinion they saw the near future as too dark. In itself the breaking up of such a Union, when a part of the people is clearly unhappy with it, does not seem to be such a crime, at least as far as I can see. One cannot bind people for eternity, and whenever one has really valid reasons, most insurrections are justifiable. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the other party had the right to maintain the existing government and Union. Both parties fought for opposite principles, both defensible in their own right.
A Just and Lasting Peace: A Documentary History of Reconstruction Page 26