In this case, the language is so plain, that “he who runneth may read.” “No person who has supported the rebellion, after having sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, shall be eligible to office.”
But honesty and common sense were eschewed; darker counsels prevailed, and the whole committee, and a large majority of the House, endorsed the character of nearly all of the members, and the direst consequences ensued. About two months afterwards, according to the prophecy of those who opposed this unwise conduct, all the colored members of the Legislature, numbering some twenty-eight or thirty, I think, were excluded from their seats, and their places filled by good democrats.
It is very much to the discredit of the colored members of the Legislature, as far as perspicuity of vision is concerned, that they favored the reception of those ineligible members—except the three declared so by the committee. But it is accounted for, on the score of the known magnanimity of the colored race, towards their former oppressors; and should, therefore, be looked upon with leniency; especially as prominent republicans, and those to whom they had been accustomed to look for political guidance, urged them to this course.
What shall be said of such measures, on the part of sworn friends of the Union cause, and of the colored race? A more unfortunate movement could hardly have been made. By it, the balance of power was thrown into the hands of the vanquished party; and the fruits of our hotly contested election, were partially lost. It is true, that these mistaken men, solemnly assert their honesty and conscientiousness, in this matter; that, believing the Reconstruction act meant to say, “voluntary aid,” when it did not, and being satisfied that none of these men had rendered “voluntary aid,” they were bound by their consciences, to support them as entitled to their seats.
But honesty and conscientiousness, do not always prove safe guides, in political, any more than in moral matters. The result of all this conscientiousness, was as disastrous to the cause of freedom, as if there had been no “conscience” in the matter. When men’s minds are made up to pursue a particular course, it is not always easy to detach firmness from conscientiousness. Doubtless the Puritan fathers imagined they were conscientious, in the hanging of Quaker women; but it is difficult for us to believe, to-day, that no other than conscientious feelings, influenced them in such cruel acts. Conscientiousness includes the exercise of our judgement, as to the facts in the case, and diligent attention to all the means of light, in the case under consideration. I cannot but believe, that if those republicans, who decided that these members were eligible, under the Reconstruction acts, had exercised their common sense a little more fully, they would have come to a far different conclusion.
And I am the more inclined to this opinion, from the fact that the judgement of the great body of the republican party of the State, outside of the Legislature, led them to deny the eligibility of these members, and the report of the committee was received with astonishment, by many of the members of the Legislature itself. I am free to confess, however, that some of those who favored the retention of these ineligible democrats, sincerely believed, with their great New York compeers, that amnesty and kind measures were better adapted to pacifying the lion of rebellion, than the severity and awe, usually practiced by professional lion-tamers. Patting a mad dog on the head, may ward off the danger of hydrophobia from his bite, but it requires considerable faith in a mad dog’s divinity, to adopt such precautionary measures, and no others.
But notwithstanding the unfavorable aspect of the case at this time, “the wise were caught in their own craftiness,” for this action of the Legislature, led to the exclusion of Georgia from the Union, for nearly two years, until the country had become ready for the adoption of other measures of protection, and Andrew Johnson had been shorn of his power to do harm, by the inauguration of his successor. . . .
One day “Aunt Suky,” a colored woman seventy-five years old, and bent nearly double from weakness and hard usage, called upon me, and after looking around cautiously to see if any other white person was present, told me she had been beaten on her head by her employer, with a large hickory stick, until she was covered with blood, because she did not bring him some salt, immediately, when he called for it. Her head was then bound up from the effect of the blows, and she came to ask me, if there was no redress for her; but said, I must not tell any one she had been to see me, as they had threatened her life if she informed on them. I was obliged to tell her there was no remedy in her case.
In March, 1869, I learned of the killing of a colored man named Israel, not far from Apling, by a white man, who also cut Israel’s father badly. The cause was, that the colored man had informed of a theft of cotton, committed by the white man. As usual, no notice was taken of the event. About the same time, Sam Buck, a colored man, was killed by a white man, not far from here, cause unknown, but no notice was taken of the occurrence.
In the same spring, a colored woman, sixty years old, named Sally, was brutally beaten on her head with a pair of tongs by her mistress, for refusing to leave her child and take care of a white woman’s child. She lay for a long time in a very dangerous condition.
About the same time, some colored men stopped at my house, and reported the recent killing of three of their comrades by the Ku-Klux, in Lincoln county, adjoining ours.
The summer before, a colored man was attacked in the woods, by a party of white men, against whom he defended himself, and killed one of his assailants in so doing. He was immediately taken and hung by the remainder of the party.
About the same time, J. D., a colored man, living a few miles from here, was met in the road by three men, a horse-back, one of whom dismounted, and went up to him, and stabbed him terribly in different parts of his body. I am well acquainted with the assailant and with the colored man, and received from the lips of the colored man, the particulars of the case.
In 1867, three white men in front of my house, boasted of the crimes they had committed against the colored people; one of them laughing heartily while he described the appearance of the woman whom he had beaten; saying, “she was the bloodiest looking beast you ever saw.” Another of them said, he made it a point to whip one or more negroes soundly every year, as an example to the others. Another owned that he had fired at a negro for disobeying an order, and “should have shot him, but he dodged behind a tree.” Neither of these men were rowdies in the common acceptation of the term, but well-to-do farmers, living very near my place, and I do not suppose they imagined they had done wrong.
The first year of my residence here, a white and black man had some altercation on a plantation a few miles from here. The next day, a gang of armed white men rode up to the place, seized the black man’s wife, and threatened to kill her, unless she would point out the hiding place of her husband. Overhearing this threat, with true connubial affection, he sprang from his concealment, when he was immediately fired upon by the whole crowd, as if he had been a dog or stray hog, and his body was literally riddled with bullets. Several of the white men were arrested for the cold-blooded murder, but of course were soon discharged.
Previous to this a white man undertook to do violence to the person of a negro girl at a public place. She was defended by her brother, when the white man took his revolver and shot him dead instantly. In this case the white man left the county, fearing the rage of the negroes, and also the interference of the Freedmen’s Bureau, which was then in operation. Quite a number of colored persons have been taken from the officers of justice in this county, by a mob of white men and put to death. In two cases they were taken from the jail in Apling, and in one while on their way to the prison. I learned the particulars of one of these cases from the jailer himself, who was called out of his house at midnight, and forced to deliver up the keys of the jail to the mob, who took the prisoner, and hung him from a bridge near the town. This was the same Apling where the author came so near sharing the same fate.
I give the pa
rticulars of the other case, as given me by Aunt Rinah Hill, who has lived on my place several years, and is a woman of veracity. She says, that in the summer of 1869, a little child belonging to R. R., ten or twelve miles from here, bit off the finger of a colored child on the place, whose mother was named Minty. She ran after the white child, without reflecting upon the criminality of a black person pursuing a white one, and meant as she said, “merely to slap it on its ear.” The child’s father, seeing the black woman pursuing his child, rushed upon her and beat her tremendously with a large white oak stick. This of course roused the ire of Berry, the colored woman’s husband, and he attempted to interfere, when the oppressed victim of “imperialism” and “centralization,” exercised his “natural right” to shoot a black man, and fired at Berry, wounding him in the thigh. Berry fled to Augusta, and on his way passed by our place, and Aunt Rinah gave him a drink of water. The next day he returned guarded by two men in a buggy before him, and the same behind him, and with another at his side a horseback. The next news from this party was, that Berry and his wife, after having been lodged in jail at Apling, were taken out by a mob and hung; and it was reported that the heart of the man was cut out and given to the dogs. So great is the horror of the colored people of Apling jail, that some of them declare they never will be taken there alive, and one of them not long since, when on his way for an alleged theft, undertook to escape from the constable, who shot him through his body, without the least compunction.
I cannot begin to recall the instances, of maimed and wounded men, who have come to me with the story of their wrongs. Some with great gashes cut in their heads, some with wounds in their bodies, and others with mangled and shattered arms; to all of which, I have been under the sad necessity of saying, “I can do nothing for you, except to call upon the United States government to protect you;” which seemed to them, almost a mockery of their woes.
It is not for me to say who is to blame, for this failure of the government to protect its citizens. It is, perhaps, inherent in the nature of the government itself, and can only be remedied by a radical change in our governmental theory. No true man can cry out against “centralization,” when without it, there never can be, any safety for “the black man of the South,” from “the outrages of the rebels.” We have entreated long and loud for protection; petitions have been forwarded to Congress, entreating its interference; and Gov. Bullock has exerted himself nobly, in behalf of his colored constituents; but Congress has chosen to hear the cries of the enemies of the Union, rather than those of its defenders. Some of the blame rests upon those betrayers of our cause, who, in connection with rebel democrats, have visited Washington, and poured into the ears of Congress, and of the President, such misstatements of our condition, as have led them to doubt the necessity of their interference. In the meantime, the craven, false-hearted cry of “universal amnesty,” has uttered its fearful notes, all over the land; sounding in the ears of the terror-stricken Southern Unionist, as dismally as the yells of rejoicing, that went up from ten thousand rebel throats, when McDowell’s panic-stricken squadrons, fled from the furious hosts precipitated upon them, at the unfortunate Bull Run rout. While we have been surrounded by implacable foes, thirsting for the blood of all true Union men, and have imploringly cast our eyes Northward for assistance, as the dying soldier on the battle-field, lifts his head occasionally, to see if no friendly hand can be found to wet his parched lips; those to whom we fondly looked as the embodiment of all our hopes, have sternly covered their eyes, and looked away from our imploring gaze, being dazzled by visions of future political glory; and instead of responding, “You shall be protected,” have uttered honeyed words, in dulcimer strains, that have electrified the hearts of our enemies; but have sent a mournful sound, like that of retreating squadrons, into our ears, filling us with blank dismay, and awaking in our pierced hearts, the most melancholy forebodings for the future.
But to return to my narrative of rebel atrocities. Lincoln county, adjoining this county, is emphatically, “the valley of the shadow of death,” for the poor colored man. Ever since I commenced residing here, have terrific stories of his abuse, in that county, reached my ears. Among the many tales of violence perpetrated there, I will simply give publicity to the following, as it is in every one’s mouth. In the summer of 1868, when political excitement ran high, there were two colored men, father and son, named Roundtrees, and another colored man named Billy Tully, who were quite prominent republicans, and it therefore became necessary to sacrifice them. Accordingly, one night they were aroused from their slumbers, taken from their beds, and carried to a neighboring mill-dam. They were then offered their choice, to join the democratic club, or to walk out on that mill-dam and be shot. With true Spartan courage, they chose the latter fate, when they were immediately placed on the mill-dam, and given the poor privilege of jumping into the water, to escape the rebel bullets, as the Indians often allow a prisoner a chance to run for his life, while they are firing at him. They all three jumped into the water, at a given signal from these “well-disposed” and “repentant” rebel democrats, to deprive whom of political power is considered so very oppressive, and for whom we are so constantly exhorted to “kill the fatted calf.” One of the Roundtrees and Tully were shot dead, the other managed to escape by dodging in and out of the water, amid the shower of rebel bullets aimed at his devoted head. He was severely wounded, but fled to Augusta, and was for some time cared for at the “Freedmen’s hospital” in that city. . . .
Imagine how it would be in New England, even, if there was no punishment for assault and battery, and then consider the extreme excitability of the southern character, and also they having been accustomed to nothing but deference from the blacks; and the enigma of their acts is easily solved. It is not because the Southern people, in their every day intercourse with the world, are any worse than other people, but it is the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed, that leads them to act so savagely. I make these remarks, because those who have seen the Southerners when not excited, cannot believe that such urbane gentlemen can conduct themselves so unseemly towards the blacks. The reader must never forget, that while many outrages are committed at the North, their perpetrators are almost always punished by law, but here this is seldom the case; and this fact constitutes the great difference between Southern and Northern society on this point. What the friends of the blacks are laboring for, is the establishment of law for their protection.
Let the broad ægis of law be lifted up in behalf of the colored man, and the ample folds of the mantle of justice be thrown around the white man, and these evils will nearly cease. When it cannot be done by our civil law, we ask for the establishment of military authority, as absolutely necessary to protect both black and white.
THOMAS NAST, “THE MAN WITH THE (CARPET) BAGS”
(November 9, 1872)
The renowned cartoonist Thomas Nast’s wood engraving in Harper’s Weekly appears to be a caricature of a carpetbagger, a Northerner going south to avail himself of economic and political opportunities in the defeated former Confederate states. But, no, Nast’s cartoon ridiculed Missouri senator Carl Schurz, the German-American leader who had bolted the Republicans, charging Grant with political corruption and dissenting from the president’s Southern policy. Schurz was a leader of the Liberal Republican party that nominated Horace Greeley in the presidential campaign against Grant in 1872. The cartoon’s caption reads: “The Man with the (Carpet) Bags. The Bag in front of him, filled with others’ faults, he always sees. The one behind him, filled with his own faults, he never sees.” Grant easily defeated Greeley 286 to 66 electoral votes and by a popular majority of 763,000 votes.
JAMES S. PIKE, THE PROSTRATE STATE
(1874)
Like Stearns, James Shepherd Pike (1811–1882) was a Northern newspaperman, a vocal abolitionist, and a Republican who came south during Reconstruction. He served as President Lincoln’s minister to the Netherlands during the
Civil War. Unlike Stearns, however, Pike opposed slavery because of his extreme antipathy toward blacks and, accordingly, condemned the role of African-Americans in Reconstruction. His The Prostrate State summarized Pike’s observations of blacks and Republican government in South Carolina, where, during Radical Reconstruction, blacks held a majority of the elected federal and state offices. Underscoring what he considered blacks’ incapacity for self-government, Pike described blacks in the crudest stereotypes of his day and warned of the Palmetto State’s “Africanization.”
. . . One of the things that first strike a casual observer in this negro assembly is the fluency of debate, if the endless chatter that goes on there can be dignified with this term. The leading topics of discussion are all well understood by the members, as they are of a practical character, and appeal directly to the personal interests of every legislator, as well as to those of his constituents. When an appropriation bill is up to raise money to catch and punish the Ku-klux, they know exactly what it means. They feel it in their bones. So, too, with educational measures. The free school comes right home to them; then the business of arming and drilling the black militia. They are eager on this point. Sambo can talk on these topics and those of a kindred character, and their endless ramifications, day in and day out. There is no end to his gush and babble. The intellectual level is that of a bevy of fresh converts at a negro camp-meeting. Of course this kind of talk can be extended indefinitely. It is the doggerel of debate, and not beyond the reach of the lowest parts. Then the negro is imitative in the extreme. He can copy like a parrot or a monkey, and he is always ready for a trial of his skill. He believes he can do any thing, and never loses a chance to try, and is just as ready to be laughed at for his failure as applauded for his success. He is more vivacious than the white, and, being more volatile and good-natured, he is correspondingly more irrepressible. His misuse of language in his imitations is at times ludicrous beyond measure. He notoriously loves a joke or an anecdote, and will burst into a broad guffaw on the smallest provocation. He breaks out into an incoherent harangue on the floor just as easily, and being without practice, discipline, or experience, and wholly oblivious of Lindley Murray, or any other restraint on composition, he will go on repeating himself, dancing as it were to the music of his own voice, forever. He will speak half a dozen times on one question, and every time say the same things without knowing it. He answers completely to the description of a stupid speaker in Parliament, given by Lord Derby on one occasion. It was said of him that he did not know what he was going to say when he got up; he did not know what he was saying while he was speaking, and he did not know what he had said when he sat down.
A Just and Lasting Peace: A Documentary History of Reconstruction Page 48