Reconstruction

by Brooks D. Simpson

  Had in this case the circumstances so described occurred, and were “all the prerequisites of the law” observed? There had been an insurrection in Louisiana on the 14th of September, 1874, an insurrection against the State government recognized by the President of the United States. That State government had been overthrown by the insurgents. The President, having been called upon by Acting Governor Kellogg, issued his proclamation commanding the insurgents to desist. They did so desist at once, and the Kellogg government was restored without a struggle, and has not been attacked since. The insurrection, as such, was totally ended. On the 4th of January nobody pretends that there was any insurrection. The State of Louisiana was quiet. The State-house was surrounded by the armed forces of Governor Kellogg. Those forces were not resisted; their services were not even called into requisition. There was certainly no demand upon the President for military interference by the Legislature; neither was there by the governor “in case the Legislature could not be convened,” for the Legislature did convene without any obstruction at the time and in the place fixed by law, and was called to order by the officer designated by law. And yet, there being neither insurrection nor domestic violence, there being neither a call for military interference upon the President by the Legislature nor by the governor “in case the Legislature could not be convened,” there being, therefore, not the faintest shadow of an observance of “all the prerequisites of the law” as defined in the statute, the troops of the United States proceeded, not against an insurrection, not against a body of men committing domestic violence, but against a legislative body sitting in the State-house; and the soldiers of the United States were used to execute an order from the governor determining what persons should sit in that Legislature as its members and what persons should be ejected. I solemnly ask what provision is there in the Constitution, what law is there on the statute-book furnishing a warrant for such a proceeding?

  It is said in extenuation of the interference of the military power of the United States in Louisiana that the persons ejected from that Legislature by the Federal soldiers were not legally-elected members of that body. Suppose that had been so—but that is not the question. The question is where is the constitutional principle, where is the law authorizing United States soldiers, with muskets in their hands, to determine who is a legally-elected member of a State Legislature and who is not?

  It is said that the mode of organizing that Legislature was not in accordance with the statutes of the State. Suppose that had been so; but that is not the question. The question is where is the constitutional or legal warrant for the bayonets of the Federal soldiery to interpret the statutes of a State as against the Legislature of that State, and to decide in and for the Legislature a point of parliamentary law?

  It is said that the governor requested the aid of United States soldiers to purge the Legislature of members he styled illegal. That may be so; but that is not the question. The question is, where is the law authorizing United States soldiers to do the bidding of a State governor who presumes to decide what members sitting in a Legislature regularly convened at the time and place fixed by law are legally elected members?

  It is said the trouble was threatening between contending parties in Louisiana. Suppose that had been so; but that is not the question. The question is, where is the law from which the National Government, in case of threatening trouble in a State, derives its power to invade the legislative body of that State by armed force, and to drag out persons seated there as members, that others may take their place? Where is that law, I ask? You will search the Constitution, you will search the statutes in vain.

  I cannot, therefore, escape from the deliberate conviction, a conviction conscientiously formed, that the deed done on the 4th of January in the State-house of the State of Louisiana by the military forces of the United States constitutes a gross and manifest violation of the Constitution and the laws of this Republic. We have an act before us indicating a spirit in our Government which either ignores the Constitution and the laws, or so interprets them that they cease to be the safeguard of the independence of legislation and of the rights and liberties of our people. And that spirit shows itself in a shape more alarming still in the instrument the Executive has chosen to execute his behests.

  Sir, no American citizen can have read without profound regret and equally profound apprehension the recent dispatch of General Sheridan to the Secretary of War, in which he suggests that a numerous class of citizens should by the wholesale be outlawed as banditti by a mere proclamation of the President, to be turned over to him as a military chief, to meet at his hands swift justice by the verdict of a military commission. Nobody respects General Sheridan more than I do for the brilliancy of his deeds on the field of battle; the nation has delighted to honor his name. But the same nation would sincerely deplore to see the hero of the ride of Winchester and of the charge at the Five Forks stain that name by an attempt to ride over the laws and the Constitution of the country, and to charge upon the liberties of his fellow-citizens. The policy he has proposed is so appalling, that every American citizen who loves his liberty stands aghast at the mere possibility of such a suggestion being addressed to the President of the United States by a high official of the Government. It is another illustration how great a man may be as a soldier, and how conspicuously unable to understand what civil law and what a constitution mean; how glorious in fighting for you, and how little fit to govern you! And yet General Sheridan is not only kept in Louisiana as the instrument of the Executive will, but after all that has happened encouraged by the emphatic approval of the executive branch of this Government.

  I repeat, sir, all these things have alarmed me, and it seems not me alone. In all parts of the country the press is giving voice to the same feeling, and what I learn by private information convinces me that the press is by no means exaggerating the alarm of the people. On all sides you can hear the question asked, “If this can be done in Louisiana, and if such things be sustained by Congress, how long will it be before it can be done in Massachusetts and in Ohio? How long before the constitutional rights of all the States and the self-government of all the people may be trampled under foot? How long before a general of the Army may sit in the chair you occupy, sir, to decide contested-election cases for the purpose of manufacturing a majority in the Senate? How long before a soldier may stalk into the national House of Representatives, and, pointing to the Speaker’s mace, say, ‘Take away that bauble?’ ”

  Mr. President, these fears may appear wild and exaggerated, and perhaps they are; and yet these are the feelings you will hear expressed when the voice of the people penetrates to you. But I ask you, my associates in this body, in all soberness, can you tell me what will be impossible to-morrow if this was possible yesterday? Who is there among us who but three years ago would have expected to be called upon to justify the most gross and unjustifiable usurpation of Judge Durell and the President’s enforcement of it as the legitimate and lawful origin of a State government? And who of you, when permitting that to be done, would have expected to see the United States soldiery marched into the hall of a State Legislature to decide its organization? Permit that to-day, and who of you can tell me what we shall be called upon, nay, what we may be forced to permit to-morrow?

  Look at the condition of the Southern States. I well remember the time, not a great many years ago, when the State of Virginia was said to be in so alarming a condition—and I remember prominent republicans of that State hanging around this body to convince us of it—that in case the conservatives should obtain control of the State government the streets and fields of Virginia would run with blood. So it was predicted of North Carolina, and so of Georgia; and, indeed, I deny it not, there were very lamentable disorders in many of those States during the first years after the war. Now, sir, what was the remedy? You remember what policy was urged with regard to Georgia. It was to prolong the existence of Governor Bullock’s legislature for two years beyond its constitutional term, to s
trengthen the power of that Governor Bullock, that champion plunderer of Georgia, who not long afterward had to run from the clutches of justice; and unless that were done it was loudly predicted upon this floor there would be a carnival of crime and a sea of blood!

  Well, sir, it was not done. The people of those States gradually recovered the free exercise of their self-government, and what has been the result? Virginia is to-day as quiet and orderly a State as she ever was, I think fully as quiet and orderly as most other States, and every citizen is securely enjoying his rights. And who will deny that in North Carolina and Georgia an improvement has taken place, standing in most glaring contrast with the fearful predictions made by the advocates of Federal interference? And that most healthy improvement is sustained in those States under and by the self-government of the people thereof. This is a matter of history, unquestioned and unquestionable. And that improvement will proceed further under the same self-government of the people as society becomes more firmly settled in its new conditions and as it is by necessity led to recognize more clearly the dependence of its dearest interests on the maintenance of public order and safety. That is the natural development of things.

  It will help the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] little to say that, with all this, the republican vote has greatly fallen off in Georgia, and that this fact is conclusive proof of a general system of intimidation practiced upon the negroes there. It is scarcely worth while that I should repeat here the unquestionably truthful statement which has been made, that the falling off of the negro vote is in a great measure accounted for by the non-payment of the colored people of the school tax upon which their right to vote depended. I might add that perhaps the same causes which brought forth a considerable falling off in the republican vote in a great many other States, such as Indiana and Massachusetts and New York, produced the same result in Georgia also, and that the same motives which produced a change in the political attitude of whites may have acted also upon the blacks. Is not this possible? Why not? But I ask you, sir, what kind of logic, what statesmanship is it we witness so frequently on this floor, which takes the statistics of population of a State in hand and then proceeds to reason thus: So many colored people, so many white, therefore so many colored votes and so many white votes; and therefore so many republican votes and so many democratic votes; and if an election does not show this exact proposition, it must be necessarily the result of fraud and intimidation and the National Government must interfere. When we have established the rule that election returns must be made or corrected according to the statistics of population, then we may decide elections beforehand by the United States census and last year’s Tribune Almanac, and save ourselves the trouble of voting.

  Intimidation of voters! I doubt not, sir, there has been much of it, very much. There has been much of it by terrorism, physical and moral, much by the discharge of employés from employment for political cause, but, I apprehend, not all on one side. I shall be the last man on earth to say a word of excuse for the southern ruffian who threatens a negro voter with violence to make him vote the conservative ticket. I know no language too severe to condemn his act. But I cannot forget, and it stands vividly in my recollection, that the only act of terrorism and intimidation I ever happened to witness with my own eyes was the cruel clubbing and stoning of a colored man in North Carolina in 1872 by men of his own race, because he had declared himself in favor of the conservatives; and if the whole story of the South were told it would be discovered that such a practice has by no means been infrequent.

  But there was intimidation of another kind.

  I cannot forget the spectacle of Marshal Packard, with the dragoons of the United States at the disposition of the chairman of the Kellogg campaign committee at the late election in Louisiana, riding through the State with a full assortment of warrants in his hands, arresting whomsoever he listed. I cannot forget that as to the discharge of laborers from employment for political cause a most seductive and demoralizing example is set by the very highest authority in the land. While we have a law on our statute-book declaring the intimidation of voters by threatened or actual discharge from employment a punishable offense, it is the notorious practice of the Government of the United States to discharge every one of its employés who dares to vote against the administration party; and that is done North and South, East and West, as far as the arm of that Government reaches. I have always condemned the intimidation of voters in every shape, and therefore I have been in favor of a genuine civil-service reform. But while your National Government is the chief intimidator in the land, you must not be surprised if partisans on both sides profit a little from its example.

  Nor do I think that the intimidation which deters a colored man from voting with the opposition against the republican party is less detestable or less harmful to the colored men themselves than that which threatens him as a republican. I declare I shall hail the day as a most auspicious one for the ­colored race in the South, when they cease to stand as a solid mass under the control and discipline of one political organization, thus being arrayed as a race against another race; when they throw off the scandalous leadership of those adventurers who, taking advantage of their ignorance, make them the tools of their rapacity, and thus throw upon them the odium for their misdeeds; when they begin to see the identity of their own true interests with the interests of the white people among whom they have to live; when they begin to understand that they greatly injure those common interests by using the political power they possess for the elevation to office of men, black or white, whose ignorance or unscrupulousness unfits them for responsible trust; when freely, according to the best individual judgment of each man, they divide their votes between the different political parties and when thus giving to each party a chance to obtain their votes, they make it the interest and the natural policy of each party to protect their safety and respect their rights in order to win their votes. I repeat what I once said in another place: not in union is there safety, but in division. Whenever the colored voters shall have become an important element, not only in one, but in both political parties, then both parties under an impulse of self interest will rival in according them the fullest protection. I may speak here of my own peculiar experience, for they may learn a lesson from the history of the adopted citizens of this country. I remember the time when they stood in solid mass on the side of one party, and schemes dangerous to their rights were hatched upon the side of the other. When both parties obtained an important share of their votes, both hoping for more, both became equally their friends. This will be the development in the South, and a most fortunate one for the colored people. It has commenced in the States I have already mentioned, where self-government goes its way unimpeded, and I fervently hope the frantic partisan efforts to prevent it in others will not much longer prevail. I hope this as a sincere and devoted friend of the colored race.

  But the Senator from Indiana may say that will bring about a still greater falling-off in the republican vote. Ah, sir, it may; but do you not profess to be sincerely solicitous for the safety and rights of the colored man? Are not some of you even willing to see the most essential principles of constitutional government invaded, to see State governments set up by judicial usurpation, and State Legislatures organized by Federal bayonets only that the colored man may be safe? Gentlemen, you can have that much cheaper if you let the colored man protect himself by the method I advise. The colored people will then be far safer than under a broken Constitution; the peace and order of society will be far more naturally and securely established than under the fitful interference of military force. And that can be accomplished by permitting the self-government of the people to have its course. But the republican vote may thus fall off. That is true. The party may suffer. Indeed it may. But, Senators, I, for my part, know of no party, whatever its name or fame, so sacred that its selfish advantage should be considered superior to the peace and order of society and good understanding among the people. I do not hesitat
e to say that I prefer the conservative government of Virginia to the republican government of Louisiana; and, if I mistake not, an overwhelming majority of the American people are of the same opinion.

  January 11, 1875

  DEFENDING GRANT AND SHERIDAN:

  MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY 1875

  William Lloyd Garrison to the Boston Journal

  To the Editors of The Boston Journal:

  It is to be expected that, let President Grant do what he may in the discharge of his official duties to uphold the recognized State Government of Louisiana against armed sedition, he will be basely vilified and ferociously assailed by the great body of conspirators who rose in rebellion for the dismemberment of the Union under the administration of President Lincoln; for, though they were put down by the strong arm of national power, in spirit (deny it who will) they are still as perfidious, as brutal, as law-despising, as disloyal as before their treasonable revolt. In any issue as to the enjoyment of equal rights with those whom they once owned as mere chattels, it is as impossible for them to speak the truth or to deal justly, as it is for wolves to abhor blood and become docile by the interposition of the shepherd for the safety of the sheepfold. As of old, they still devise wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words. As of old, their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood. As of old, they hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. As of old, they grope for the wall, there is no judgment in their goings, and THE WAY OF PEACE THEY KNOW NOT.

  It cannot be otherwise, unless human nature among them is wholly unlike what it is in every other portion of the globe. The curse of negro slavery clings to them like leprosy, though the foul “institution” is abolished. It continues to feed their haughty pride, perpetuate their contempt of the lowly and helpless, disorder their reason, obscure their vision, bias their judgment, shape their policy, stimulate their love of dominion, nourish their disloyalty, poison their blood. It is true they have ceased to be slaveholders and traffickers in human flesh; but by no will or consent of their own; and to-morrow, if it were in their power, they would with one accord restore the slave system, with all its hideous accompaniments of slave-drivers, slave-hunters, slave-speculators—yokes, fetters, thumb-screws, gory whips, baying bloodhounds—the marriage institution overthrown, indiscriminate and forceful amalgamation universal, the sacred ties of relationship trampled upon, cradles plundered, slave auction blocks crowded with victims from infancy to old age to be sold in lots to the highest bidder, the Bible a prohibited volume, teaching a slave the alphabet at the risk of imprisonment or death, the very soil stained with the tears and blood of unrequited labor, a Fugitive Slave Law in active operation, a slave representation in Congress, and a SLAVE CODE more bloody than that of Draco’s.