A Just and Lasting Peace: A Documentary History of Reconstruction

by John David Smith

  Other considerations led to the same conclusions. It was believed, as the result of our political experience as a whole, that the best method of dealing with the so-called “dangerous classes”—those who have, for the most part, neither property nor education—was to admit them to the full privileges of citizenship. Such, with slight exceptions hardly requiring mention, had been the policy adopted in all the remaining States. It was believed, upon the same authority, that the exercise of the rights of free citizens was the best school for the education of the citizen in the proper discharge of the duties imposed by his rights. These beliefs were the results of experience. They were not theories merely. They were the practical, working rules by which our most successful political communities had carried on the business of government. Those who shaped the plan of reconstruction were convinced that the civil rights and future welfare of the colored race demanded that the ballot should be placed in its hands. They felt that the national Government was charged with the duty of recognizing and securing, so far as legislation could go, the complete civil and political equality of the colored race with the other races under our Government. This was especially due to that race by reason of its whole previous history in this country, as well as its peculiar position at the close of the war. But it was not sentiment alone that guided to this result. All other policies were open to insuperable objections. Direct military supervision of the South, the continuance of the abnormal condition existing from 1865 to 1867, or the return to power of those who had previously exercised exclusive political control, were the only remaining policies. Neither of these policies could be justified by reason or experience. That temporary evils would arise from the immediate enfranchisement of the colored race no man doubted, but the men who supported the measure believed, with Macaulay, that “there is only one cure for the evils which newly-acquired freedom produces—and that cure is freedom. When a prisoner leaves his cell, he cannot bear the light of day; he is unable to discriminate colors or recognize faces. But the remedy is not to remand him into his dungeon, but to accustom him to the rays of the sun. . . . Many politicians of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim! If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait for ever.” They believed, with Mackintosh, that “justice is the permanent interest of all men, and of all commonwealths,” and that “the love of liberty is the only source and guard of the tranquillity and greatness of America.” They believed, with Abraham Lincoln, “All honor to Jefferson; to a man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.” To men of real faith in the principles of our government, to men who loved and practiced justice, who held that governments exist for the good of all the people, the immediate and unconditional enfranchisement of the colored race of the South was an act and policy supported by the highest sanctions of political justice and civil prudence.

  The charges now brought with most frequency and apparent effect against this policy are, first, that it was unjust and cruel to the white people of the South thus to subject them to negro rule; and, second, that the enfranchisement of the colored race was a deliberate giving over of society to the control of ignorance, a reversal of the order of Nature and Providence which demands that society shall rest on intelligence and capacity, not on ignorance and inexperience.

  To the first charge the reply is that colored suffrage was not the subjection of the white race to negro rule. The white race retained its suffrage, with all its immense advantages of property and education. Colored suffrage was simply placing the two races on the same plane of civil and political rights. It was the giving of a fair field and an equal chance to the members of both races. It was the removing of all legal or artificial hindrances from the path of the one race, without diminishing a single right or adding a single burden to the other race. Nor was this true only of the legal situation and relations of the two races. No restriction or hindrance in fact existed, under this policy, to the freest and most effective use and influence of all the advantages which property, education, and political experience necessarily gave to the white race as a whole. No such obstacle existed either as a proper consequence of the policy of colored suffrage, or of the temper of that race toward the other race. That policy had no elements but justice and civil equality; that temper was friendly and generous. The sole cause of the political supremacy of the colored race at the South was the willful and deliberate refusal of the white race to contribute its proper and natural influence to the practical work of government. They chose to yield to the embittering influences of defeat and race-hatred, rather than to act the part of faithful citizens in guiding and controlling those whose ignorance and inexperience most imperatively required their aid. The necessary results of such conduct on the part of a class occupying such relations to any community, under our form of government, are obvious and uniform. It was as if to-day the greater part of the tax-paying and educated class in New England and New York should cease from all influence or aid in the work of government, and sullenly leave public affairs to the control of such as might be left to take it. Or, more exactly, it was as if that class, not content with refusing all aid in the conduct of public affairs, should seek, in a spirit of bitter and vengeful hostility, to deride, dishonor, and embitter those into whose hands they had surrendered the political power. It is certain that no state or community could suffer such a separation and antagonism of its elements without plunging, more or less rapidly, into temporary misrule.

  But with what patience would just and reasonable men listen to the charge, especially when coming from those who had forsworn their political duties, that this result was due to the false and cruel policy which had established universal suffrage? The indignant reply would be: “Your sufferings are self-inflicted, the just penalties of your own folly and crime; you have sown the wind, and you reap the whirlwind.” The best success of self-government anywhere presupposes a fair degree of coöperation between all classes in carrying on the work of government. If such coöperation is refused by the class representing property and education, that recusant class, not the policy or principle of self-government, is chargeable with the results, whatever they may be. “I do not admit,” said Governor Dix, in vetoing the proposed city charter of New York in 1872, “that misgovernment in this city is proof of the failure of republican government. When the Legislature gives to New York municipal government in conformity with the general idea of American institutions, it performs its whole duty. All further responsibility is on the people of New York City themselves. If they culpably neglect their own affairs, if they will not give to their own political affairs the same attention which the rest of the people, in their several localities, are in the habit of giving, they must suffer the consequences.”

  The second main charge brought against the policy of universal suffrage in our reconstruction, is perhaps sufficiently answered already. Instead of violating or disregarding any natural or moral law, or law of human nature or society, it was the dictate and expression of the highest morality applied to the affairs of government, the recognition and protection of the natural and inalienable right of all men—the opportunity, without artificial shackles or hindrances, to run the race of life. It is safe to say that there is no political community of considerable importance, either State, city, or large town, in our country, in which the voluntary and complete withdrawal of the greater part of the educated and property-owning class from all participation in public affairs would not speedily produce the state of
things which has been denounced, when seen at the South, as the forcible and artificial elevation of the ignorant and irresponsible over the educated and responsible. The cause of such results wherever seen, under our Government, is the same. It is the violation of moral duty and natural law by those who are endowed with the chief power of securing and upholding good government. To raise an outcry against universal suffrage because of results traceable directly to the neglect of their unquestionable duties as citizens, by the educated and tax-paying classes, is a conscious mockery or a pitiable mistake. No better words have been spoken of late on this point than these of Goldwin Smith: “There is yet another class dangerous in its way—the class of political seceders. Malcontents from this country are always telling their sympathizing friends in Europe that the best men here stand aloof from politics. The answer is, that those who in a free country stand aloof from politics can not be the best men. A man is not bound to seek the prizes of public life; he will perhaps exercise more influence for good if he does not; he is not bound to become the slave of party; he is not bound to sit in any conclave of political iniquity. But he is bound to do his utmost, in such ways as are morally open to him, to get the best men elected, and to make the right principles prevail. If he can not do much, he is still bound to do what he can. Striking pictures have been drawn of men with high foreheads and intellectual countenances condemned to sit in council beside low brows and stolid faces. But would the matter be mended if the low brows and stolid faces had the council to themselves?”

  And if, it may be further asked, the “low brows and stolid faces” do have the council to themselves, is it the fault of universal suffrage? Does it suggest the remedy of the restriction of the suffrage until the “high foreheads and intellectual countenances,” without effort on their part, shall have the council to themselves? Not till we abandon all pretense of faith in the cardinal doctrines of republican government as understood and practiced hitherto in the United States, will it be admitted that it is the province or aim of government to secure to “high foreheads and intellectual countenances” anything more than it secures to “low brows and stolid faces,” namely, a fair chance to exercise their own faculties, follow their own ends, and influence the course of public affairs according to their abilities and the dictates of their own judgments, subject only and equally to such impartial legal restraints as may be necessary to prevent crime and preserve public order. It is not claimed that there is anything sacred about the right to vote, except as it is believed and proved to be the best means of securing those other rights which are sacred and inalienable—“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The ballot is no more than a means of securing the best government, and the best government is that under which all the people rise to the highest plane of intellectual and moral development. The American idea is that, by giving and securing to all the right to vote, the result in the large will always be, at least in any American community, that the various classes will have, each its appropriate influence; that good government being the general interest will be the general aim; and that in the process of reaching this end the whole community will be educated and elevated to a degree never resulting from other methods. And further, it is a part of this idea of government, that if for a time evils arise and prevail, the remedy will be constantly in the hands of those who suffer, and that, whenever such evils arrest the public attention or threaten the public welfare, the general interest will compel their correction and removal. If, then, under this system and in this country, the “low brows and stolid faces” anywhere or at any time have the council to themselves, it is because the “high foreheads and intellectual countenances” have failed to use their proper influence. No single instance can probably be pointed out in our history, where it is not certain that the evils of bad government could have been promptly corrected by the earnest and faithful efforts of the educated and property-owning classes. The Southern States under colored suffrage were not exceptions to this rule. No class ever had greater advantages for securing a proper share of influence in public affairs than the white race of the South in 1867; no class were ever more open or responsive to the influences of property and education than the colored race of the South. The plan of reconstruction did not set the colored race to rule over the white; it did not place ignorance above education. Such results, if they have ever existed, were due to causes which would produce in New England evils similar to those which have prevailed in South Carolina and Louisiana.

  If we turn now to an examination of the conduct and capacity of the colored race as shown during the period of its free exercise of the suffrage, it will appear that that race exhibited qualities entitling it to all the political privileges conferred by the reconstruction measures. It is necessary here to shut out the partisan clamor and misrepresentation of the day, and attend only to the authentic facts as the ground of judgment. First, then, it may be said that the colored race gave to the Southern States wise, liberal, and just constitutions. Under influences which elsewhere had led to punitory and proscriptive measures toward those who had supported slavery and rebellion, the organic law of the ten States embraced in the reconstruction act of 1867 shows no instance of a purpose or effort to exclude any classes or individuals from an equal share in all political privileges. The demands of public education were fully recognized and provided for. The methods and principles of taxation were just and enlightened. The modes of selecting judicial officers were such as prevail in the most prosperous States of the North. In a word, the constitutions of the reconstructed States would to-day command the almost unqualified approval of all competent and impartial judges and critics. And the same conclusion will follow from an examination of the general legislation in these States during the same period. It was, with few exceptions, dictated by the public wants and suited to the public needs.

  In the ordinary conduct of the practical affairs of government, much must be said in approval of the spirit and methods which then prevailed. Elections were free, fair, and honest. Political canvasses were conducted by the colored race without violence, or disorder, or excessive rancor. The power which they held they put fairly at hazard with each recurring election. They neither cheated nor intimidated nor sought to intimidate their opponents. Their popular assemblages listened with respect and attention to the arguments of their bitterest political foes on those rare occasions when their foes condescended to address them with argument. Public order was maintained. Crime was detected and punished. Life and property were as safe as in most of the States.

  There was a period of official corruption and profligacy in the States in which the colored vote predominated, extending generally from 1869 to 1874. It arose from causes already explained. It was confined to official life; it was produced and inspired by a few leaders who had, for purposes of plunder, made their way to public places. As in the similar condition of affairs which prevailed in the city of New York from 1866 to 1873, official corruption at the South for a time baffled investigation and defied public sentiment. In its worst stages it did not equal this description, given by the “Committee of Seventy,” of corruption in New York: “It has bought Legislatures, controlled Governors, corrupted newspapers, defiled courts of justice, violated the ballot-box, threatened all forms of civil and religious liberty, awed the timid rich, bribed the toiling masses, and cajoled respectable citizens, and has finally grown so strong and reckless as to openly defy the intelligence and virtue which is believed to be inert, voiceless, and powerless to stay its aggressions, or to assert the supremacy of honesty and justice.” Southern corruption assumed more grotesque, and perhaps more offensive forms, than were displayed elsewhere; but it was never so powerful, daring, or pervasive as in other sections of the country. It never polluted the sources of political power; it never violated the ballot-box; it never bribed the “toiling masses.” It may be said with perfect truth that the colored voters of the South never sustained public men whom they believed to be corrupt. They adhered with rare fid
elity to those who had once gained their confidence. But, whenever a public man was shown to be corrupt, the colored voters rejected him with as much certainty and promptness as the voters of the North have shown. It is not true—with whatever frequency or confidence the assertion may have been made—that the colored race of the South deliberately or consciously sustained leaders or public officers who were found guilty of dishonest conduct or corrupt practices. Such leaders and officers were deprived of office and power. From 1873 till 1876, when political power was violently wrested from them, it is the truth of history that there was at the South a steady progress toward good government, purity of administration, reform of abuses, and the choice of capable and honest public officers, in those States in which the colored race had most complete control. There were here, as there are in all communities, sham reformers. At periods of special excitement, or under peculiar influences and circumstances, the reform movement was checked, and corrupt and dishonored leaders seemed for a time to regain power. But such reverses were overcome, and in 1876 those who had most conspicuously shown their ability and courage in the work of reform were in substantial control of the political power of the colored race. In South Carolina, where perhaps official corruption had been greatest, the progress of reform had been such as to compel the acknowledgment, by those who had most violently denounced colored suffrage, that the best assurance of good government in the future lay in the continuance of the power of those who were then successfully working out, through the political party supported by the colored vote, the correction of public abuses.