A Just and Lasting Peace: A Documentary History of Reconstruction

by John David Smith

  SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That, until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote, under the provisions of the fifth section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment.

  SCHUYLER COLFAX,

  Speaker of the House of Representatives.

  LA FAYETTE S. FOSTER,

  President of the Senate, pro tempore.

  ___

  IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

  March 2, 1867. }

  The President of the United States having returned to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, the bill entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,” with his objections thereto, the House of Representatives proceeded, in pursuance of the Constitution, to reconsider the same; and

  Resolved, That the said bill do pass, two thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

  Attest: EDWD. McPHERSON,

  Clerk of H. R. U. S.

  EDITORIAL IN THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CHRONICLE ON RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION

  (March 6, 1867)

  Responding to the Reconstruction Act, the Charlottesville Chronicle encouraged Virginians to comply with Congress’ demands as quickly as possible in order to prevent Radical control of their state. Though the newspaper considered the terms of the legislation “cruel and merciless,” the editor nonetheless argued that immediately calling a state convention and reentering the Union with black suffrage would prove less odious and degrading than enduring the perceived multiple evils of martial law, black suffrage, the proscription of the state’s leading whites, and, possibly, land confiscation. The journalist reasoned that because Virginia had a numerical majority of whites over blacks, once readmitted to the Union whites could regain control of the state and revise their constitution again, this time disfranchising blacks.

  There are three courses for the Legislature to take: the first is to fight. The second is to fold arms and do nothing. The third is to call a State convention.

  There would be a unanimous voice in favor of the first, if we had any power to make a decent resistance.

  The question is between the second and third. The third leads to an acceptance of the cruel and merciless terms imposed upon us. The second leads to the same thing—and to much more.

  The question now is, Who shall get the control of the State under the new dispensation of universal suffrage—the whites or the blacks?

  The provisional government, with universal black and qualified white suffrage, is already upon us. The court-house bells in all the counties will soon summon white and black alike to the polls. In addition to this, while the provisional government lasts, we shall have martial law in Virginia—the liberty of every man in the hands of federal officers.

  It has been said that we had better have military law than submit to such degradation as implied in the acceptance of the terms. This is true ten times over.

  But military law is not the alternative. It is military law and negro suffrage and the proscription of our leading men. These three things come upon us without our lifting a finger.

  This is not all; there will be a convention to ratify the terms proposed. . . . [The Radicals] will have a convention and they will put the state back in the Union, and they will give us a State constitution. That constitution will be like the constitution of Tennessee; it will perpetuate the power in their hands.

  There are 600,000 whites in Virginia. We can control the State: we can guide, if we cannot arrest, the storm. And the more rapid our movements the more complete will be our masterships of the situation. Wait—and wait—and wait, and the Radicals will organize the negroes against us.

  A state convention can be framed in literal compliance with the act of Congress, which will take all minor elections from the people—leaving only the Governor, the members of the General Assembly, and members of Congress to be elected by the popular vote. And it may be that a property and educational qualification can be secured as a condition of holding office of any kind.

  We are, therefore, for a convention—at once. It is not worth while to resist the deluge; the man who trusts in God will build the ark that shall float upon the tempestuous waters.

  We are very far from despair, black as the prospect is. The immediate aim of our State should be to get back in the Union as quickly as possible. There we shall be measurably at least shielded from the Radical storm. If we stay our course much longer, we shall have confiscation added to negro suffrage. There we have at least reached a resting place; there we can get control of our State affairs; there we can make another State constitution.

  “THE PROSPECT OF RECONSTRUCTION”

  (March 14, 1867)

  The editors of The Nation, which was founded in 1865 by abolitionists, prided themselves on supporting equality before the law and equal economic opportunity. Following passage of the Reconstruction Act, the magazine’s editors underscored the broad benefits to the nation of an immediate and compulsory Reconstruction irrespective of the opinions or wishes of former Confederates. Critical of Southerners for rejecting the Fourteenth Amendment, the editor hoped nevertheless that Southern leaders would grasp “the wisdom of submitting for a time to a limited disability rather than to keep their States out of all participation in the Government.” The Nation predicted optimistically that the former Confederate states would comply with Congress’ demand that Southern whites would not control their former slaves’ ballots, and that Reconstruction would be complete within twelve to eighteen months.

  The eyes of the country are just now turned more to the South than to Congress. The latter having passed a law providing a definite method by which the Southern States may regain their old footing in the Union, yet having left something to their option, the chief questions of political interest are whether those States will conform to the terms of the offer, and if so, what will be the result of their action.

  The so-called legislatures of two States have already acted decisively, and in opposite directions. The Legislature of Virginia (we cannot well avoid the use of phrases that seem to admit a legality which we wholly deny) has passed a bill providing for the election of a convention in May, with liberty to colored men to vote. The Legislature of Louisiana, on the contrary, has passed resolutions declaring the acts of Congress void, and has summoned a convention, to be elected by white men only. Governor Wells has met this action by a proclamation announcing the law of Congress to be in force, and declaring all elections not held conformably thereto to be void. The Legislature of North Carolina has adjourned without taking any action.

  In several States there are decided indications of a rising agitation, the sentiments of the white population being divided as to the expediency of reorganizing in accordance with the law, or of remaining inactive. Ex-Gov. Brown leads the movement in favor of reorganization in Georgia, where he is opposed by Col. Gartrell (formerly a member of Congress) and others. The only prominent Mississippian who has recommended such action is Gen. Chalmers, but he will soon be supported by others, although Gov. Humphreys is understood to be opposed to doing anything under the law. In North Carolina, the minority of the Legislature, comprising all who heartily welcomed the restoration of the Union in 1865, have taken steps toward the summoning of a convention in an informal manner. We have not heard of anything definite from the other States.

  Upon the whole, we judge that
, if the law is faithfully enforced by the President and his subordinates, the whole South will speedily conform to the terms of Congress. The amendment enacted at the instance of Mr. Shellabarger deprives the Southern whites of the option between military government and universal suffrage, which Mr. Sherman’s proposition left to them; so that, whether they elect conventions or not, they must admit colored men to vote at all their current elections, while their only chance of escaping from military surveillance is by adopting constitutions recognizing the political equality of all men. The disfranchising clause affects only a very limited class, not including a single man under twenty-seven years of age; and it is improbable that the mass of people not excluded by law from political action will long continue to exclude themselves out of mere sympathy for the old race of politicians who are shut out. Even among the disfranchised class there are many sensible enough to comprehend the wisdom of submitting for a time to a limited disability rather than to keep their States out of all participation in the Government. Congress has deprived the stubborn of their favorite argument, that it was better to control the States, without seats in Congress, than to gain a place in Congress by sharing power with the colored race; for they are no longer to be left in supreme control of their States, and they can now see clearly the necessity of being represented in Congress.

  It cannot be denied, however, that the soundest reasoning may fail to afford a basis for predicting the action of the Southern people. After the elections last fall it certainly seemed as if none but idiots would, in the situation of the Southern whites, refuse to accept the constitutional amendment as a basis of reconstruction. Yet they did so with comparative unanimity. And we presume that if they had a similar option under the Sherman statute they would reject it, even if they knew that worse terms would be imposed. But the new law gives them only the option between involuntary universal suffrage with military rule, and voluntary universal suffrage without military rule. This is, of course, upon the assumption that Mr. Johnson will execute the law in good faith. If he orders it to be set aside upon the first decision of a petty court against its validity, or if he repeats the let-alone policy adopted at the Alexandria election, the law will effect no good. But we think that he has too much sense of his own danger to make any such rash experiments on the forbearance of Congress.

  Measures have been initiated in both Houses of Congress for the purpose of putting the machinery of reorganization in motion, under the direct supervision of the national authorities; and some measure of the kind will doubtless be enacted forthwith. This is clearly the proper method; and the only wonder is that so able a body as the late Committee of Fifteen should have so utterly failed in its duty as not to have reported such a bill at the last session. We rejoice, for the sake of all sections, North and South, that Congress has finally adopted the doctrine which we have steadily advocated, even when its success seemed hopeless, viz., that reconstruction should be immediate and compulsory, and not left to the choice of the insurrectionary population, either as to time or mode. Nothing could be more opposed to the theory of the Constitution than the let-alone policy which, while denying the validity of the de facto governments at the South, provided no means for the creation of legitimate governments. This false position, the result of timidity and distrust of the people, has been all along the weak point of the Radical policy. Its abandonment will give general satisfaction.

  Under all the circumstances, there can be no doubt that nearly or quite all of the Southern States will be properly organized and reinstated in the Union within twelve or eighteen months from this time. The only question concerning our subject that really remains for solution in the future is as to the practical working of the new governments, and especially of universal suffrage.

  It has been confidently asserted—and we have ourselves shared the apprehension—that the negroes, being confessedly ignorant, poor, and unorganized, would be surely controlled by their old masters when they came to vote. Of course there is much to be said upon that side; and, had universal suffrage been conceded in 1865, we think that such must have been the result in districts not fully garrisoned by national troops. But for nearly two years past urgent efforts have been made to introduce light among the colored people; and Northern men and women have steadily gained influence over them, while their Southern masters have, to a very large extent, thrown away whatever influence they may have had by their oppressive laws and obstinate resistance to the elevation of the colored race. Of this latter fact, the immense emigration of negroes from South Carolina and Georgia, and the loud complaints of planters in Louisiana and Texas, afford conclusive proof. The colored people have, moreover, organized themselves in every large town of the South, if not even more widely, during the last two years; and, with such assistance as their white allies will be prompt to give, they will be fully able to inform their brethren on plantations of the issues and the candidates. We therefore believe that the last hope of the disloyal will fail them, and that the colored voters will generally sustain candidates acceptable to the North.

  No one can doubt that the complete restoration of the Southern States, freed from all their old inequalities and oppressions, will materially benefit the whole country. An impartial administration of justice will give new energy to the laborer; for who that has ever worked while in doubt of being paid (whether at mechanical or mental labor) has not felt the impossibility of putting forth all his energy and skill? Labor in the South has been performed for two centuries with a certainty of not being paid, and for the last two years in a total uncertainty upon that point. The lash, which formerly supplied a motive for drudging effort, has been latterly withdrawn, or at least has not come as promptly and surely as it was wont. What wonder is it that, with the accustomed terror removed, and no certain hope supplied, the labor system of the South has failed to produce the old results? But this defect will be thoroughly cured by a sound reconstruction, which will assure to all classes their rights. It will also remove from the white people the fear of confiscation and punishment, which now hampers the efforts of some of the most effective men at the South. It will take away the last element of uncertainty from our political future, and leave us free to enter upon plans of business without fear of political disturbances. On every ground, moral, political, and financial, we welcome the near approach of a perfect reunion of the States.

  “IMPEACHMENT FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW”

  (March 14, 1867)

  Prior to 1867, some Radical Republicans, convinced that the president’s constant obstructionism would prohibit reconstructing the nation, sought to impeach Johnson. Most congressmen, however, favored other means of controlling him, requiring Johnson to send military orders through General Ulysses S. Grant, the general-in-chief, and passing on March 2, 1867 (over Johnson’s veto), the Tenure of Office Act, a bill that restricted the executive’s patronage power. Later that month, The Nation summarized research on the history of impeachment by Columbia College law professor Theodore William Dwight (1822–1892). The magazine’s editor wrote that understanding the legal precedents of impeachment mattered to anyone who “dreads as we dread the conversion of a legal process into a weapon of party warfare.” Nine months later, the House of Representatives failed in its first attempt to impeach Johnson.

  Professor Dwight, of Columbia College, has recently made a very thorough examination of the nature of impeachment, of the crimes for which this mode of prosecution may be resorted to, and of the method of procedure, and the conclusions he has reached have been published in The American Law Register, and subsequently in a pamphlet which now lies before us. As he is the first lawyer of any prominence, so far as we know, who has undertaken to discuss impeachment as a legal question simply, and as he is removed both by position and habits from the arena of party strife, what he says on this subject is worthy the attention of everybody to whom the forms of law, as they are to us, are of deep and paramount importance, and who dreads as we dread the conversion of a legal p
rocess into a weapon of party warfare.

  Mr. Dwight has made a very full and minute examination of the precedents from which the founders of this Government derived all their notions of what impeachment was, and from which, in fact, the word impeachment derives all its meaning, and he finds that impeachment and indictment are but two different modes of attaining the same end, but both are legal processes and governed in their course by legal principles. A man can only be impeached in England in cases in which he might be indicted. He is impeached on the presentment of the House of Commons; he is indicted on the presentment of a grand jury. But neither impeachment nor indictment means anything more than that there is sufficient reason to believe the defendant guilty of the offences laid to his charge to warrant his being put on his trial before the proper court, and pending the trial he is to be subjected to no greater inconvenience or restraint or deprivation than may be deemed necessary to secure his attendance from day to day. Says Mr. Dwight: